The next U.S. bailout winner is...the Insurance companies!

[Wilian]

That would be socialism.

No, it'd be corporate welfare.

[satimy]

Take a good look at tax rate progression during America's post-WW2 "golden age". Hint: the highest tax bracket was 90% PLUS.

and yet revenue was basically the same with respect to gdp

[Reds4Life]

I will trade the ACA for single payer.

That was the plan all along. We just need to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible to make the citizenry beg for it.

[Reds4Life]

and yet revenue was basically the same with respect to gdp

And absolutely 0% paid that rate. Very interesting to read about how people got around that tax rate. Investing in preset failure business ventures seems crazy in this day and age but was very common then.

[Septik]

Please explain why Canada, a very large country, has a functional national health care system which costs almost half of what the US spends as a percent of GDP and what 'freedoms' were given up to do this.

Well i think the biggest factor is the lack of insurance company involvement. The gov flips that bill, the cost of that being a pretty high tax on everything from income to (almost) any purchase.

I know people up here can/do deal with insurance companies and such for their health care, for various reasons. But personally I've never had to make a claim to a company to cover the arm i broke back in the day, or the tests that were ordered by my doctor, who i've never had to pay either.

There is no perfect health care system, but Canada's is pretty close.


After thought: profit; my doctors care more about addressing my health related problem than they do about profiting from me. The picture painted in the south seems to be the opposite.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I would have taken single payer before the ACA.

So would I but we can't have nice things.

[Wells]

That was the plan all along. We just need to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible to make the citizenry beg for it.

What pain and suffering?

[Dondi49]

From Wikipedia, History of Capital Gains Tax in the US:
From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a maximum rate of 7 percent.[2] In 1921 the Revenue Act of 1921 was introduced, allowing a tax rate of 12.5 percent gain for assets held at least two years.[2] From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude percentages of gains that varied with the holding period: 20, 40, 60, and 70 percent of gains were excluded on assets held 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively.[2] Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent.[2] From 1954 to 1967 the maximum capital gains tax rate was 25 percent.[3] Capital gains tax rates were significantly increased in the 1969 and 1976 Tax Reform Acts.[2] In 1978, Congress reduced capital gains tax rates by eliminating the minimum tax on excluded gains and increasing the exclusion to 60 percent, thereby reducing the maximum rate to 28 percent.[2] The 1981 tax rate reductions further reduced capital gains rates to a maximum of 20

If you were actually interested in informing anyone (including yourself), you could have gotten accurate information in literally seconds.

Well that was a surprise. Not the info. I already knew that in general. It was a pleasant shock to hear it from someone else.

Here is some more basic info. Almost no one paid the 93% rate. Some took all their gains as Capital Gains. Others took the extraordinary measure of incorporating themselves. In the latter case a lot of things became business deductions for the corporate tax that were not deductible for the individual tax. And there were a goodly number of people with income that was exempt from taxation (triple exempt bonds). This also was the era of the "perk". A company car. Lots of "meetings" at exotic locales. Company dining rooms. Payroll padding for family or mistresses. Lavish entertainment allowances. All of it deductible to the corp and none of it taxable to the recipient. etc., etc.,etc.. I hope this clears things up for the rest of you.

[Powerogue]

So they're not doing a bailout, they're just sneaking money to certain groups when they are in financial danger.

Sounds an awful lot like a bailout.

[Muzjhath]

Lol, what? What freedoms do you give up when you have a socialist health care or school?

Well, to be completely fair, if we go back some 30-40 years and further it wasn't as it is today.
Classes of children went in group to the dentist on the same day. And what school you went to was 100% dependent on where you lived (unless you could afford one of three boarding schools).
This is things that did get changed after 1980ies. Some by Sossarna some by the blue government in the 90ies. And some other by sossarna after that.

Today pretty much only Vänstern is against the free school choise since they think it leads to academic segregation (Since people who care can pick a better school!"). Where as before it led to academic segregation because people with more money generlly just simply moved to a place with better schools, leading to even worse segregation.

But Vänstern is the insane party here. Had they been in charge we'd never have had any public TV or Radio channels.

So in essence. Too much induvidualism is bad. It makes people go "I have mine, why the fuck should I care about the people next door?" And too little induvidualism is also bad because it leads to "Why shouldn't I be able to do my awesome idea that'd benefit everyone!?"

After thought: profit; my doctors care more about addressing my health related problem than they do about profiting from me. The picture painted in the south seems to be the opposite.

I'd never want to be treated by a doctor that cared more about his profit than my health and care.