Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:23:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 2:00:52 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course it is. Businesses write off this benefit, reducing their
taxes. The employees who receive the benefit pay no taxes on it. It's
just an alternate form of income, which is untaxed. Self-employed
people don't have an equivalent ability to write off their insurance.
It comes out of after-tax income.

The solution to that is to NOT TAX INCOME, dumbass!

No, that's _a_ solution. Not a good one, IMO.

The entire system of employer provided health insurance was created as
a way to boost effective worker income.

And that's a problem, why, exactly???

Because it is unfair in that it treats people differently depending on
the nature of their employment.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:25:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Those are matters of public health, not health insurance.

The two are closely related.

No, they are not. Public health has to do with the monitoring of diseases and health insurance has to do with insuring one's self against unsustainable loss.

Public health has to do with the health of the public (clever name,
no?)

That includes far more than monitoring; it includes all the methods of
providing for it, as well as the mechanisms of paying for it.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:18:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Taking from another in that way is a wrong thing to do, even if not _technically_ illegal.

That is the standard tea-bagger and anarchist view, of course.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:28:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

That's a load of bs.

Well, that's a convincing counter argument.

There is no point in arguing with your bs, peterson. The most expedient thing is just to identify it for what it is!

Says the person who believes that every comment or opinion demands
"evidence" or it is completely invalid.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 2:05:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You say to a very successful entrepreneur who created one of the most
respected astronomical instrument companies around.

What is a "respected astronomical instrument company?" Do they only make "respected" astronomical instruments? Are they the only ones to do so? Is not a 60mm refractor a "respected" astronomical instrument?

You think that his company isn't well respected in the astronomical
community? Then you are very out-of-touch.

You are supposed to answer the questions I asked about your arrogant statement.

Your individual
achievements are less apparent.

Ugharoller only understands the concept of his own "achievements" in a narrow area, as do you. You both consider most others' achievements to be inconsequential or to be taken for granted and then ignored.

I have no idea where you are deriving this generalization. I don't
think either of us have denigrated the achievements of others.

You responded to RichA with :

"Your individual achievements are less apparent."

That's denigration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigration

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:26:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:23:35 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 2:00:52 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course it is. Businesses write off this benefit, reducing their
taxes. The employees who receive the benefit pay no taxes on it. It's
just an alternate form of income, which is untaxed. Self-employed
people don't have an equivalent ability to write off their insurance.
It comes out of after-tax income.

The solution to that is to NOT TAX INCOME, dumbass!

No, that's _a_ solution. Not a good one, IMO.

It's a great solution! It's fair to those who have to put more effort and sacrifice into their work.



The entire system of employer provided health insurance was created as
a way to boost effective worker income.

And that's a problem, why, exactly???

Because it is unfair in that it treats people differently depending on
the nature of their employment.

A person who works longer hours for a lower wage is being treated unfairly under YOUR system!

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:28:00 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:25:24 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Those are matters of public health, not health insurance.

The two are closely related.

No, they are not. Public health has to do with the monitoring of diseases and health insurance has to do with insuring one's self against unsustainable loss.

Public health has to do with the health of the public (clever name,
no?)

Public health has little to do with an individual's health most of the time..


That includes far more than monitoring; it includes all the methods of
providing for it, as well as the mechanisms of paying for it.

No, it does not, and should not. As was pointed out to you before, public health is about the monitoring of disease. While public health agencies MIGHT do screenings or try to directly educate people about health, the provision of health care is more properly the job of an individual's physician in his office, clinic or hospital.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:18:01 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Taking from another in that way is a wrong thing to do, even if not _technically_ illegal.

That is the standard tea-bagger and anarchist view, of course.

Your foul language and stubborn attitude does nothing to change the fact that you are wrong about income taxation, peterson.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:47:04 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Income (and benefits) should NOT be taxed. It is an inherently unfair tax,
criminal in fact.

The worker who has to work more hours to get the same amount of pay as another
is having his TIME stolen from him, for example.

The whole point of income tax is that all workers pay it, and those who earn
more pay more.

Or maybe you're quarreling with deductions for dependents?

John Savard

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:14:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The solution to that is to NOT TAX INCOME, dumbass!

No, that's _a_ solution. Not a good one, IMO.

It's a great solution! It's fair to those who have to put more effort and sacrifice into their work.

Glad you think so. I don't think so.

Because it is unfair in that it treats people differently depending on
the nature of their employment.

A person who works longer hours for a lower wage is being treated unfairly under YOUR system!

Which system are you talking about?