4 ms·

Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than earned income? If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spen

Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than earned income? If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spend so much time discussing the $0.26 bn that goes to Title X family planning? > No they just tell the travellers to keep travelling and they deny medical care. I am very unsure what you're talking about here. Illegal immigrants? At least where I live, they have full access to the health service on the same basis as any citizen. Of course they are at risk of being deported, but while here they have full right to health care. In the UK, the NHS will provide primary care to refugees, asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers free of charge in the same way as any other patient. So what are you talking about? Bottom line: socialized medicine provably does not refuse care to people who are not deemed "worth it". You put ethics above finances, pure and simple. > If the ROI is positive businesses will do it on their own > She may not be working for the same firm during that time. Exactly - you countered your own point here. Which is why the government should subsidise this cost, as it is a net positive for society even though it may not be so for the company. That is precisely the point, and is exactly why we need a government in the first place. Businesses won't care about the environment, workers rights, and other externalities by themselves, because the short-term ROI for them is negative. But the long-term ROI for society is strongly positive. This is why we even have a government.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than earned income? Thats a very good question, perhaps we should be lowering the earned income tax rate instead. Of course the reason capital gains are taxed lower is complicated and political but one reason is that when people invest in capital then it multiplies the effect of labor so we want to encourage capital investment and so it gets a discount. > If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spend so much time discussing the $0.26 bn that goes to Title X family planning? Its too small to fund expenditures for any length of time. Of course whether much smaller amounts of money (yet still significant) should be spent on something else entirely is of course a valid discussion as I’m sure you understand. > I am very unsure what you're talking about here. Its well known that European countries have demographics that are treated as undesireable second-class citizens and have less access to public services. The Travellers are a prominent example. > Bottom line: socialized medicine provably does not refuse care to people who are not deemed "worth it". I’m certain that there is some process of determining whether a patient’s live is worth saving according to quality of life and assorted other metrics. You can’t expect me to believe that they will simply offer any treatment whatsover to any person no matter how unlikely it is to work. > Exactly - you countered your own point here. Which is why the government should subsidise this cost, as it is a net positive for society I don’t agree that its a net positive for society. > Businesses won't care about the environment, workers rights, and other externalities by themselves, because the short-term ROI for them is negative. This reveals a misunderstanding of business, as they are structured around long-term roi.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than earned income? Thats a very good question, perhaps we should be lowering the earned income tax rate instead. Of course the reason capital gains are taxed lower is complicated and political but one reason is that when people invest in capital then it multiplies the effect of labor so we want to encourage capital investment and so it gets a discount. > If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spend so much time discussing the $0.26 bn that goes to Title X family planning? Its too small to fund expenditures for any length of time. Of course whether much smaller amounts of money (yet still significant) should be spent on something else entirely is of course a valid discussion as I’m sure you understand. > I am very unsure what you're talking about here. Its well known that European countries have demographics that are treated as undesireable second-class citizens and have less access to public services. The Travellers are a prominent example. > Bottom line: socialized medicine provably does not refuse care to people who are not deemed "worth it". I’m certain that there is some process of determining whether a patient’s live is worth saving according to quality of life and assorted other metrics. You can’t expect me to believe that they will simply offer any treatment whatsover to any person no matter how unlikely it is to work. > Exactly - you countered your own point here. Which is why the government should subsidise this cost, as it is a net positive for society I don’t agree that its a net positive for society. > Businesses won't care about the environment, workers rights, and other externalities by themselves, because the short-term ROI for them is negative. This reveals a misunderstanding of business, as they are structured around long-term roi.