I think you're misunderstanding what Kontiki is responding to, kid.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Canadian government to fall
Collapse
X
-
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, because you simply don't understand the argument. The argument is because X% of people have college diplomas, and X isn't much greater than 20, and most of the people in the top 20% of earners have a college diploma, then most of the people with a college diploma must be in the top 20% of earners by simple math. If X = 80 it's not true."The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
Comment
-
Anyone here working for a political party?Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Could you choose a less appealing picture of Harper as your avatar, Ben?
Or are they all pretty much equally bad?
And of course, this classic
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
Most taxation redistributes income: both within provinces and between provinces. It makes no difference if you have a Federalist system or not. You could of course ban equalization payments, but what would be the point of that? Equalization payments just reflect that the Federal tax system in Canada is used to partially fund stuff that provincial authorities are responsible for.
But every insurance scheme exists to transfer funds from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Again, do you want to ban insurance?
It's no different than an insurance company that covers the whole country shifting funds from branches in one province to another. Would it be more efficient to keep the premiums from each province within that province? Perhaps, but you have to come up with some serious numbers to show that it is true, and it is unlikely to be true. Even corporations will shift funds around between branches and even countries rather than let each part of the company stand and fall on its own two feet.
But of course you believe, like most of the right (and a large proportion of the left) that taxation and public health care is about egalitarianism. For the most part it isn't: it's just easier to market the idea this way than it is to explain the sober economics that are the real reason for most public spending.
As it is, you are falling back on your old and tired form of argument: trying to recast the argument as being about particular features of Canadian society, rather than being about general economic principles. I'm sorry, the latter are prior to the former in any argument about this.
You simply don't know what you are talking about. That has been amply demonstrated by your complete failure to address the economic point at issue. You haven't even shown that you understand it.
Show us how spending more for less result is a good thing. Show us how fewer doctors, fewer beds, less equipment and longer waiting lists for more money is good economics. Show us a grasp of the basic facts. Show me that and then I'll take your statements about economics seriously.
Two tier healthcare can work in certain situations. It is certainly no replacement for a well funded public system. Two tier healthcare is only really useful to clear up marginal cases (elective surgery being the main one). That was how it used to be used in New Zealand, and it worked rather well. Certainly, you should be afforded no tax breaks for private health insurance (as is currently the case).
BTW, which tax breaks for private health insurance are those?
If your complaint is that there are waiting lists, campaign for increased taxation to bring them down, since it is clear that Canadians are not paying for the amount of healthcare that they really need.
Now, even the SCoC is saying 'nuh uhh', find another way.
It would be silly to allow private health insurers to take over a significant portion of health care because it would just result in increased costs to the consumer (well, to most of them - except the 10% of the population that the Tories actually care about - and of course that is what is at issue here: rich people whining).
What is being insisted on, by a growing number of people, is that we develop a better system. One where waiting lists for specialists, tests, and procedures are reduced to reasonable levels. The purely public system has had a chance to address these deficiencies, and it has demonstrated an inability to do so. Now it is time for change, and not just a change in the number of zeros at the end of the 'blank cheque' written to the public system.Last edited by notyoueither; December 6, 2005, 23:23.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, because you simply don't understand the argument. The argument is because X% of people have college diplomas, and X isn't much greater than 20, and most of the people in the top 20% of earners have a college diploma, then most of the people with a college diploma must be in the top 20% of earners by simple math. If X = 80 it's not true.
It's nice little theory, but it falls apart when confronted with the facts.
You assume that 20% of Americans have university degrees. That's incorrect, 27% of Americans have degrees.
You also assume that most top income earners have degrees. Again, that's incorrect.
Only one in three Americans who get a university degree are top income earners. Therefore, just because you have a large income doesn't mean you will be among the top income earners.Golfing since 67
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tingkai
It's nice little theory, but it falls apart when confronted with the facts.
You assume that 20% of Americans have university degrees. That's incorrect, 27% of Americans have degrees.
You also assume that most top income earners have degrees. Again, that's incorrect.
Only one in three Americans who get a university degree are top income earners. Therefore, just because you have a large income doesn't mean you will be among the top income earners.
Comment
-
This election is so oddly ritualistic.
I think that Can Pol is just kinda waiting for the BQ to 'just go away' so we can 'return' to 'normal' politics."Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
Comment
Comment