A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: fresc who wrote (122)	1/14/2005 4:35:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 42652

When the Government figures out a plan, it will cost billions. Maybe hundreds of billions, which is a good argument against a government funded plan. "raising taxes in and of itself reduces freedom and prosperity" Not sure about that statement. "In and of itself" or in other words "when considered in isolation. It is true that the money could (and sometimes is) spent in such a way as to increase prosperity and freedom (for example the money spent on the military force that kept South Korea from falling to the communists increased both the prosperity and the freedom of the south). But the actual taxes to raise the money decreased prosperity and freedom. In this example the increase from the spending was much greater then the decrease from the taxes. In other examples the increase may be less, or the spending can, even when considered in isolation reduce freedom and prosperity, for example the money spent on North Korea's police state repression reduces the freedom and the prosperity of the people of North Korea. The spending itself reduces both the freedom and the prosperity even if it was somehow free and the money for it didn't have to be taxed away from the North Koreans. I use relatively extreme examples to make the ideas clear and almost indisputable but you can apply the concepts to normal spending and taxation in countries like the US and Canada as well. Taxes, even in wealthy and free countries take money out of the private sector (reducing freedom), and they also amount to the use of compulsion and force by the government (reducing freedom). Of course if you had no taxes at all you would have no government and thus anarchy which would probably not be conducive to prosperity and to the extent it was a system with a lot of freedom, probably would not remain that way for long. Perhaps only anarchist would argue that the spending on a basic level of police protection, a moderate court system, and funding of other core parts of even a minimal government do not tend to increase freedom and prosperity more then the taxes to support such functions decrease both, but once you get beyond a minimal government things become far less certain. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next