Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Better to take issue with arguments that are actually made than ones you make out of straw.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Do you think incentives and subsidiaries don't alter human behavior ? If the answer is yes, then you should understand why free healthcare would be a moral hazard. But hey, I'm probably being racist by saying that.
It does not matter what he personally thinks. He posted direct evidence that is not the case. Cope harder.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Because income tax isn't all tax.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
True, but the discussion you guys were having was about Sweden taxing the poor, period. The graph you then posted showed a 0% tax rate on people below a certain financial threshold, which I felt did not reflect the actual reality in Sweden.
No it didn't. It showed a 0% INCOME tax rate.
The argument that the poor pay HIGHER taxes than the rich in Sweden is false as shown by the income tax brackets.
The argument that the poor pay MORE taxes than the rich is true. But making it out of context in order to portray the previous statement is disingenuous. They pay more by virtue of them being a larger group of people. As individuals they do not pay more tax than an individual rich person.
The same disingenuous argument gets made in the UK by the rich. The claim is that the richest 1% account for 30% of the total taxes raised by the government. This is true. However it is used out of context to claim that the richest 1% pay more than their share of taxes. This is false because it negates to mention the context that the richest 1% have more 50% of the wealth therefore in reality pay less than their fair share.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
No it didn't. It showed a 0% INCOME tax rate.The argument that the poor pay HIGHER taxes than the rich in Sweden is false as shown by the income tax brackets.
The argument that the poor pay MORE taxes than the rich is true. But making it out of context in order to portray the previous statement is disingenuous. They pay more by virtue of them being a larger group of people. As individuals they do not pay more tax than an individual rich person.
The same disingenuous argument gets made in the UK by the rich. The claim is that the richest 1% account for 30% of the total taxes raised by the government. This is true. However it is used out of context to claim that the richest 1% pay more than their share of taxes. This is false because it negates to mention the context that the richest 1% have more 50% of the wealth therefore in reality pay less than their fair share.
Ilikecomics implied its mostly the poor the tax burden falls on in Sweden. That was disingenuous.
All jaden did was post the income tax rates in response. ilikecomics was never very clear about his accusation. So it was fine for you to note their high Sales Tax, but its also clear who was being disingenuous between jaden and ilikecomics.
The latter still wont accept free healthcare can work without huge poverty. Despite the figures from Sweden showing it does work and with far less poverty.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Ilikecomics implied its mostly the poor the tax burden falls on in Sweden. That was disingenuous.All jaden did was post the income tax rates in response. ilikecomics was never very clear about his accusation. So it was fine for you to note their high Sales Tax, but its also clear who was being disingenuous between jaden and ilikecomics.
The latter still wont accept free healthcare can work without huge poverty. Despite the figures from Sweden showing it does work and with far less poverty.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
No it didn't. It showed a 0% INCOME tax rate.The argument that the poor pay HIGHER taxes than the rich in Sweden is false as shown by the income tax brackets.
The argument that the poor pay MORE taxes than the rich is true. But making it out of context in order to portray the previous statement is disingenuous. They pay more by virtue of them being a larger group of people. As individuals they do not pay more tax than an individual rich person.
The same disingenuous argument gets made in the UK by the rich. The claim is that the richest 1% account for 30% of the total taxes raised by the government. This is true. However it is used out of context to claim that the richest 1% pay more than their share of taxes. This is false because it negates to mention the context that the richest 1% have more 50% of the wealth therefore in reality pay less than their fair share.
And...?
All I'm reading from this is that we should argue what constitutes a "fair share".
Just because a person with a billion dollars can easily afford 90 percent of their income, while a poor person can barely make a fraction of that, would not necessarily be considered "fair" by some, yet very fair by others.
Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily believe fairness has any relation to ability to pay. Just because you're sitting on a pile of Dragon gold doesn't mean you are obligated to use that money for a greater good.
Originally posted by Darth ThorI think the problem was Bernie Sanders. I'd've thought he'd use some kind of influence in his own state to make it more to the Scandinavian programme but instead went for president instead. Obamacare was very clear on letting the states decide their programme and even places like Kentucky and West Virginia benefited from them despite their heavy Republican influences.
Ilikecomics implied its mostly the poor the tax burden falls on in Sweden. That was disingenuous.All jaden did was post the income tax rates in response. ilikecomics was never very clear about his accusation. So it was fine for you to note their high Sales Tax, but its also clear who was being disingenuous between jaden and ilikecomics.
The latter still wont accept free healthcare can work without huge poverty. Despite the figures from Sweden showing it does work and with far less poverty.
Imagine if Vermont went full universal healthcare. Okay, they'd probably get a lot of freeloaders from NY and NH... possibly everywhere in the U.S.
...maybe that's the problem. All U.S. politicians are too scared that someone's gonna steal their money.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Ilikecomics implied its mostly the poor the tax burden falls on in Sweden. That was disingenuous.All jaden did was post the income tax rates in response. ilikecomics was never very clear about his accusation. So it was fine for you to note their high Sales Tax, but its also clear who was being disingenuous between jaden and ilikecomics.
The latter still wont accept free healthcare can work without huge poverty. Despite the figures from Sweden showing it does work and with far less poverty.
I posted a John stossel video that proved my claim, so no it wasn't.
The reason why there's less poverty is because poverty is taxed !
Here's the video again, it's very short.
https://youtu.be/1i9FQ834yFc
Originally posted by Blakemore
I think the problem was Bernie Sanders. I'd've thought he'd use some kind of influence in his own state to make it more to the Scandinavian programme but instead went for president instead. Obamacare was very clear on letting the states decide their programme and even places like Kentucky and West Virginia benefited from them despite their heavy Republican influences.Imagine if Vermont went full universal healthcare. Okay, they'd probably get a lot of freeloaders from NY and NH... possibly everywhere in the U.S.
...maybe that's the problem. All U.S. politicians are too scared that someone's gonna steal their money.
So going away free stuff draws free loaders in your view ? Mine too, cool.