How would you fix the United States' budget problem?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Also to help American workers and also possibly increase tax revenue we should increase the minimum wage to say maybe 20 dollars an hour but also to compensate businesses we should increase the working hours from 8 hours a day to 10 hours a day.

Double the minimum wage?

How about, instead: keep the minimum wage where it is or increase it modestly, and enforce it?

Radical idea I know. Scandinavian shit.

Like I said in the "minimum wage" thread, I wouldn't be averse to raising it by about $1.50, but enforcement should always be a top priority.

As it stands, were I to get 40 hours a week I'd have trouble feeding myself, and that's without any costs associated with a vehicle, assuming I'm lucky enough to find work within acceptable distance from public transport(a rare thing in America.)

[Parpolitic Citizens]

It doesn't. Because to a policy maker, a 60 year old should be no different than an 18 year old in unemployment. If 7- is the issue, do away with retirement altogether, because 'it's too discriminatory'.

Now, we're in libertarian fantasy land.

I think I specified Medicare Part D and onwards in there somewhere.

I would agree if we stopped protecting pharmaceutical patents as much as we did.

Compensatory and punitive damages. And to a lesser extent, reputation.

They can just declare bankruptcy and , change their name, and start scamming other people.

As an Anarcho-Capitalist you must know how easy it is to move money around...

Why should government intervene in the damages to private citizens, when it's not in the public interest?

There is no public interest in preventing mass fraud by rich billionaires who have enough money to keep people in courts indefinitely?

And how is government going to help the private citizens in any way? If people are bad and negative and going to abuse people despite their own interests not to, they are going to do it with or without government's 'punishment'.

By locking the greedy bastards in jail and creating an disincentive to commit fraud?

[Zirconim]

Do away with the government.

There, problem solved. Sorta.

Ha. No.

[Laissez-Faire]

Show me where a country has a fully private and developed healthcare infrastructure.

You're making the claim a private system is better. You provide the proof.

You are claiming universal healthcare is better. Compare it to a private system and show me why it is better.

A fully private healthcare system lowers costs, properly assesses risk and does so responsibly, and has strict penalties for insurance companies who go too far out of line. It's the nature of the very careful insurance business, and of a risk market. Once government gets involved, this turns into a mess of unaccountability, improper assessments of risk, and overall management of these things by government bureaucrats and officials who think they know best what the proper threshold of coverage is, when honestly they have no idea. Success in the market therefore is not about a proper assessement of risk, but in a company's special interests with a governmental institution.

[Atalem]

No opinion on my seizing the theme parks?

[Divair]

You're making the claim a private system is better. You provide the proof.

You are claiming universal healthcare is better. Compare it to a private system and show me why it is better.

A fully private healthcare system lowers costs, properly assesses risk and does so responsibly, and has strict penalties for insurance companies who go too far out of line. It's the nature of the very careful insurance business, and of a risk market. Once government gets involved, this turns into a mess of unaccountability, improper assessments of risk, and overall management of these things by government bureaucrats and officials who think they know best what the proper threshold of coverage is, when honestly they have no idea. Success in the market therefore is not about a proper assessement of risk, but in a company's special interests with a governmental institution.

[Sources needed. Lots of them]

Most of the 1st world has universal healthcare. It works very well. Hell, even private mandated healthcare works well if done correctly (Israel is 27th, after all).

[Procyon Lotors]

Crack down on those rich bastards that don't pay taxes. It will be costly, but worth it in the long run. Down with capitalism!

[AiliailiA]

Marginal utility. It's the best justification for progressive taxes (or at least, the simplest justification).

You'd probably do more to persuade the poster you're replying to, if you'd spent all the words of your reply on this one point.

I invite you to say some more: flat taxes are not fair taxes because ...

Sorry but I'm not going to punish somebody just because they are successful in life if a man who came from the ghetto dirt poor but with hard work and determination worked there way up to the top I'm not going to punish them for that just because they are successful, so go cry in a ditch somewhere else you bleeding heart leftist.

I asked Parpolitic Citizens to expand on his/her point, because I detected some trace of learning and thinking-through in their post.

When I want YOUR opinion I'll ask for it. Don't hold your breath.

[Laissez-Faire]

It doesn't. Because to a policy maker, a 60 year old should be no different than an 18 year old in unemployment. If 7- is the issue, do away with retirement altogether, because 'it's too discriminatory'.

Now, we're in libertarian fantasy land.

And you are in statist fantasy land?

I think I specified Medicare Part D and onwards in there somewhere.

I would agree if we stopped protecting pharmaceutical patents as much as we did.

Intellectual property is intellectual property, but I wouldn't agree with a government enforcing a monopoly on an idea. Leave it to private suits and have no government enforcement of copyright laws.

Compensatory and punitive damages. And to a lesser extent, reputation.

They can just declare bankruptcy and , change their name, and start scamming other people.

As an Anarcho-Capitalist you must know how easy it is to move money around...

Well, when government isn't standing in the way. What is your point? Liability doesn't change just because money moves.

Why should government intervene in the damages to private citizens, when it's not in the public interest?

There is no public interest in preventing mass fraud by rich billionaires who have enough money to keep people in courts indefinitely?

Nope. It's strictly a private interest.

And how is government going to help the private citizens in any way? If people are bad and negative and going to abuse people despite their own interests not to, they are going to do it with or without government's 'punishment'.

By locking the greedy bastards in jail and creating an disincentive to commit fraud?

Well, if they are greedy bastards, I doubt anything other than to fall on their asses in the market when they make bad choices would be decisive enough punitively.

[Laissez-Faire]

You are claiming universal healthcare is better. Compare it to a private system and show me why it is better.

A fully private healthcare system lowers costs, properly assesses risk and does so responsibly, and has strict penalties for insurance companies who go too far out of line. It's the nature of the very careful insurance business, and of a risk market. Once government gets involved, this turns into a mess of unaccountability, improper assessments of risk, and overall management of these things by government bureaucrats and officials who think they know best what the proper threshold of coverage is, when honestly they have no idea. Success in the market therefore is not about a proper assessement of risk, but in a company's special interests with a governmental institution.

[Sources needed. Lots of them]

Most of the 1st world has universal healthcare. It works very well. Hell, even private mandated healthcare works well if done correctly (Israel is 27th, after all).

So? That doesn't give it a moral imperative to exist, or our entire debate today is useless.

And it's the fundamental nature of the market. Linking to Adam Smith or anyone else won't do anything other than to re-iterate the principles I've told you.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

And you are in statist fantasy land?

I wish.

Well, when government isn't standing in the way. What is your point? Liability doesn't change just because money moves.

There is no international liability. I could just move all of my money to mexico or canada and commit fraud as much as I wanted.

Nope. It's strictly a private interest.

We are clearly at an impasse.

Well, if they are greedy bastards, I doubt anything other than to fall on their asses in the market when they make bad choices would be decisive enough punitively.

A bullet in the back of the head would certainly be decisive enough for me.

[Laissez-Faire]

And you are in statist fantasy land?

I wish.

Then so I wish. What's your point? I'm not operating in fantasy utopia.

Well, when government isn't standing in the way. What is your point? Liability doesn't change just because money moves.

There is no international liability. I could just move all of my money to mexico or canada and commit fraud as much as I wanted.

And still be liable in the US and liable according to the laws of Canada and Mexico.

Nope. It's strictly a private interest.

We are clearly at an impasse.

How will government intervening give damages back to the people who were injured, then?

Well, if they are greedy bastards, I doubt anything other than to fall on their asses in the market when they make bad choices would be decisive enough punitively.

A bullet in the back of the head would certainly be decisive enough for me.

Death penalty doesn't help for any crime- and personally, I'd rather be focusing ou full limited resources on capturing violent criminals.

[AiliailiA]

Crack down on those rich bastards that don't pay taxes. It will be costly, but worth it in the long run. Down with capitalism!

If you mean to counter capitalism, you need wealth redistribution, not just income redistribution.

Capitalism isn't all bad, in my opinion. The owners of property will have disproportionate power (including if the state is the pre-eminent owner of property). In moderation, that can work OK.

The accumulation of almost all property (of any kind) in the hands of a small class of people is however bad. Taxing income won't undo it.

[Laissez-Faire]

The accumulation of almost all property (of any kind) in the hands of a small class of people is however bad. Taxing income won't undo it.

Which is the innate result of corporatism and government intervention, to be honest, more than any market forces.

[Ravineworld]

Get rid of the government.

[New England and The Maritimes]

The accumulation of almost all property (of any kind) in the hands of a small class of people is however bad. Taxing income won't undo it.

Which is the innate result of corporatism and government intervention, to be honest, more than any market forces.

Market failures do exist, and healthcare is a prime example. Mass externalization of things like pollution is another good example. Intervention is not bad, not when it serves the purpose of either facilitating a properly competitive market or, when that would wind up being too much of a quagmire to actually make it worth the cost and effort on the part of a body politic(like with healthcare,) simplifying a necessary service by creating a monopoly.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

I wish.

Then so I wish. What's your point? I'm not operating in fantasy utopia.

Your name is Laissez-Faire. Every industrialized nation has abandoned your ideology. I'm not the one living in a fantasy land.

And still be liable in the US and liable according to the laws of Canada and Mexico.

Those laws can change, and money can be moved to other countries that do no respect US law.

How will government intervening give damages back to the people who were injured, then?

FINES!!!!!!! And the occasional nationalization if they fuck up badly enough.

Death penalty doesn't help for any crime- and personally, I'd rather be focusing ou full limited resources on capturing violent criminals.

Fraudulent criminals cause more damage than murders.

[Laissez-Faire]

Which is the innate result of corporatism and government intervention, to be honest, more than any market forces.

Market failures do exist, and healthcare is a prime example.

It's simply not the case. What other power is better at managing risk and managing costs accordingly?

Mass externalization of things like pollution is another good example.

Minimized as well by the free market.

Intervention is not bad, not when it serves the purpose of either facilitating a properly competitive market

It impedes it- competition is, by nature, something that values competitiveness. Interests in a market are not for monopolies, actual or by collaboration.

when that would wind up being too much of a quagmire to actually make it worth the cost and effort on the part of a body politic(like with healthcare,) simplifying a necessary service by creating a monopoly.

Private markets are more than competent at making that assessment. Have years of cost mitigation not proven this?

[Tahar Joblis]

Spend a lot of money on "shovel-ready" public works programs.

More spending, yay.

Yup. If people are unemployed too long, they stay unemployed. This, in the long run, is problematic, and we don't have a short-run budget issue. We have a long-term issue tied to a slump in the economy and a structurally induced increase in economic disparity that discourages sustainable growth.

And the thing is, it's efficient in the long term for the government. Unemployment is high, therefore labor is cheap. When labor is cheap, we can update and upgrade our infrastructure more cheaply now than we would by putting it off. So...

1.) We reduce short-term unemployment and thereby prevent structural unemployment from rising. In fact, if we're really good, we'll cause it to drop.
2.) We upgrade and improve our infrastructure at a discount, facilitating economic activity (as almost all economic activity is dependent on our publicly constructed transportation network).
3.) By reducing short-term unemployment, we also reduce crime.

Unemployment is the major issue. We've seen what happens when you take the opposite approach and cut government jobs en masse and put infrastructure upgrades on hold for "austerity's sake." Ask Greece how well austerity helped their economy recover.

Not enough revenues even if it would help anything.

Actually, there's quite a bit of revenue there. A few hundred billion dollars a year really adds up. A couple trillion dollars of today's debt are due to the Bush tax cuts.

And the deficit just went out of the ballpark.

Nope.

See, the funny thing is, we already spend more per capita on health care, through the government than places with socialized medicine. We just spend it really inefficiently. No, seriously, the US government spends more per capita on health care than the Canadian government, and has for decades. Socializing medicine, slowly but surely, is the way to reduce government spending on health care.

We build a non-profit government-run plan for people to buy into. That's step one. It's pretty much revenue-neutral... and will be competitive with private insurance because it doesn't fuck people over maliciously. We allow Medicare, Medicaid, and the new program - which will slowly eat them and eventually subsume the both of them - to leverage the fuck out of their market share to negotiate the sort of price cuts that private insurers demand and get, and that will do a lot to cut costs as well.

[Wamitoria]

• Raise taxes to Clinton-era levels.
• Institute a higher 45% tax on all earned income over one million dollars.
• Begin adequately funding the IRS to go after tax evasion.
• Institute a 0.5% tax on financial transactions.
• Cut the military budget by 15% over the next decade.
• Audit the Pentagon.
• Move the FICA tax cap up to income levels of $200,000.
• Cut all farm subsidies.
• Remove subsidies for oil companies.
• Make modest adjustments to medicare spending; prosecute those who exploit the system aggressively.

[Ifreann]

I think what the US needs is more money.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Market failures do exist, and healthcare is a prime example.

It's simply not the case. What other power is better at managing risk and managing costs accordingly?

Mass externalization of things like pollution is another good example.

Minimized as well by the free market.

Intervention is not bad, not when it serves the purpose of either facilitating a properly competitive market

It impedes it- competition is, by nature, something that values competitiveness. Interests in a market are not for monopolies, actual or by collaboration.

when that would wind up being too much of a quagmire to actually make it worth the cost and effort on the part of a body politic(like with healthcare,) simplifying a necessary service by creating a monopoly.

Private markets are more than competent at making that assessment. Have years of cost mitigation not proven this?

So, basically, your entire argument boils down to blind faith in the almighty market. How original. I think ASB has already explained why "Let the free market handle it" is a bad approach to health care better than I could.

[Tahar Joblis]

Market failures do exist, and healthcare is a prime example.

It's simply not the case. What other power is better at managing risk and managing costs accordingly?

You're delusional if you don't believe market failures exist.

Mass externalization of things like pollution is another good example.

Minimized as well by the free market.

Pollution can be minimized by the market only if you charge for pollution. This is why cap and trade works (in theory, anyway; in practice, if you grandfather the fuck out of loopholes and don't measure, it won't do anything) - you've suddenly put a price on pollution.

The free market by itself is not going to start charging for pollution.

[Divair]

It's simply not the case. What other power is better at managing risk and managing costs accordingly?


Minimized as well by the free market.


It impedes it- competition is, by nature, something that values competitiveness. Interests in a market are not for monopolies, actual or by collaboration.


Private markets are more than competent at making that assessment. Have years of cost mitigation not proven this?

So, basically, your entire argument boils down to blind faith in the almighty market. How original. I think ASB has already explained why "Let the free market handle it" is a bad approach to health care better than I could.

I think he is the most optimistic person I've ever met. Ever.

[Priory Academy USSR]

The USA likes an enemy, and it's got one, it just doesn't realise it yet-the markets. After all, they're the only real threat to the world. Look at Greece, for example. If some unknown people sitting in London or New York or somewhere decide Greece isn't worth it, that could have the potential to destroy it. I know that the US' problem isn't on the same scale but still, the idea remains the same-a worldwide regulation on markets to stop them from damaging countries' economies.
Also, just to note, the USA spends a lot more on health care per capita (17.4%) than other countries which have significantly better services ie France. That's because the healthcare system in those countries in nationalised, and so cheaper, while the US system is private, so more expensive for people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

i'm not going to argue about whether nationalisation is better or not. I think it is, and others think differently. The end.