Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9450)	9/14/2009 8:03:23 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Most folks pay a lot lower taxes as retirees than as workers. Sure, but as long as they still pay enough to cover their share, that's irrelevant to the question of free-ridership. You're not a free rider unless you're on the taking side of the equation even if you're not contributing as much as if you earned more. If a professional woman declines a promotion into management because it would take too much time away from her children, she doesn't become a free rider because she's still paying enough share in taxes. That she would be paying even more in taxes had she taken the promotion is irrelevant. We don't have to be Warren Buffet to avoid being free riders. We have only to pay enough in taxes to be net contributors. As I read gg's comments, he's a net contributor. Edit: I think the fact that Canadian health care is paid from general taxes where ours comes from payroll taxes is significant. In the US, your point would be more apt because a retiree stops paying into Medicare and starts getting benefits. Not so in Canada.