>Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no.
Nobody would stop you from helping with your neighbour's hospital bill if you were filthy rich.
Nobody would stop you from helping with your neighbour's hospital bill if you were filthy rich.
Beyond that, it's an insulting way to avoid having a real discussion on this issue. If the charity of the rich were enough to solve this social problem, we wouldn't be talking about it. Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
I'm sorry, I was unaware of the existing solution that has succeeded at solving all social problems in the countries in which it's implemented.
If the alternative is not flawless, then one needs to show that the disadvantages of the alternative vs the current situation are outweighed by its advantages over the current system.
So you agree we should stop massive government programs that have always resulted in centralization, bankruptcy, and systemic poverty? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Greece, Spain, Italy, China, ... How much more failure do you need to realize Government isnt the answer?
they would be amongst the poorest states by median household income, purchasing power parity, cost of living, and gdp per capita
First, it would seem that all those people are too ignorant to understand how much better their lives would be if they were, for example, living in Michigan. If only we could teach them how unhappy they are!
Second, the claim that the people are "poorer" is not a cogent claim that their countries are failures. Your argument reminds me of something I tell my children:
"Human beings are the most successful form of life on Earth, by all the metrics that humans choose to measure success."
The USA is still the violent prudish religious DIY Wild West compared to most areas in Europe (East-Europe excluded that is more like the USA).
what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
[disclosure: am Canadian]
Pragmatically, the fact that it works well and has reasonably good outcomes in every first world country other than the United States.
I'll let you google and find out which ones.
They seem to work just fine.
Know what's awesome? Knowing that I can break my arm and have it taken care of with virtually no out-of-pocket cost.
Tax-wise, I'm totally speculating here because I don't know the ins-and-outs of the American tax system, but here we go.
https://simpletax.ca/calculator https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-brackets-calculator.php
I'm going off of $85,000USD/$106571CAD (equivalent today according to Google), and using California.
California: total tax paid $25,252.56USD, you keep $59,747USD
Saskatchewan: total tax paid $30,465CAD ($24,308.33USD), you keep $76,106CAD ($60,702.91USD)
So on the same amount of income, we pay about the same as California residents, but all of our health care costs come out of the taxes we've paid. Seems like a pretty good deal, not having to pay any health insurance premiums on top of that.
You're also ignoring the multiple tax breaks available in the US that aren't an option in Canada: mortgage interest deduction, uncapped 401K contribution, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_b... http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/f...
Median family income in California: $70,187 USD Median family income in Saskatchewan: $86,970 CAD ($69,516.86 USD)
The currency conversion seems pretty reasonable. And yes, I'm ignoring the various tax breaks available on both sides, as well as a number of other perks (e.g. 55% paid maternity/paternity leave for 35 weeks). We're in the same ballpark here though.
European politicians prognose bad times because of the demography (too many old persons, too few young persons).
IMO politicians and many experts are very bad at predicting the future. Like many other people, they feel smart when they prognose problems and anounce austerity.
IMO technology and automation could and probably will solve any poverty problem soon enough for most Europeans. Even today, most poverty in the world is a political problem and not a natural or technical necessity.
No, nor is it a right. It's a luxury.
I suggest you revise your argument to one that's more plausible and convincing.
The reality is that the opposite is not just possible, but encouraged - right-wing governments in the US consistently use economic policy to prevent social mobility, economic freedom, and the kind of collective social investment that generates long-term social, political, and economic benefits.
It's all about concentrating economic power among an increasingly narrow sub-group, and economically disenfranchising the rest of the population.
https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivi...
And I voted for a system like this. Just like my parents, my neighbor, the guy on the corner and my jobless neighbor.
It's not holding anyone back in any way.
Of course there are probably government spending you disapprove of (long-term prison sentences for drugs, war on drugs, "bridge to nowhere", and military/foreign wars are likely candidates)
Everyone disapproves of some government spending, but it involves compromise between differing perspectives on what government should be doing.
Whereas if healthcare was properly regulated, his neighbor could pay for it himself and actually be independent in his community.
I'd rather be independent among my peers and neighbors even if I have to rely on a supra entity to regulate my food quality and organize my warfighting than the other way around. We're all dependent at some level even if just to the past, no matter what "Atlas Shrugged" says.