Americans Only

[Deleted member 37064]

Better tax laws? You mean tax laws that allow companies to skirt paying their fair share? And you mean being able to skirt regulations that protect human lives and the environment? Yeah, that's just swell.

WTF is up with this bullshit "fair share" fallacy you're so enthralled with? What is "fair share"? Hmm... let's ponder this for a minute...

Let's use your beloved healthcare for example... You understand the concept of insurance, I'd assume? Everyone pay in to the insurance company. But, few actually use it. Only those with a need. Therefore, if you and I paid in the same amount. But, I had a medical condition and had to use more than what I paid in, while you're perfectly healthy and used very little, I'm using more than my share. Is that fair? No. But, it's also the design of how insurance works. Which, up until recently, was voluntary.

Also, explain to me why a family of eight (2 adults, six kids) , and a family of three (two adults and one child) pays in the same amount as a family of four? Why should the family of three who's responsible with finances, as well as not having more kids than they could possibly afford be forced to pay more? Where's their "fair share"?


Now, to get back to my post on why companies laid off thousands of employees here in America and transitioned work to other countries... Those companies left the US to move to a country that charges less taxes than here in America. Just to set the record straight... America has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world at approximately 39%. Relocating to a country with lower tax rates isn't illegal. Just like if you decided to move to another city, county or state because you don't agree with laws of the state isn't illegal. As long as said company pays taxes on the revenue they generate in the US, they're legal. That's not skirting tax laws, that is smart ecomomic sense.

Same with labor rates. Why pay American workers a high salary, when you can get less expensive labor elsewhere? Oh, and that "free universal healthcare" you keep talking about? That's paid for by part of those higher American salaries. Kind of shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you?

As to EPA regulations... don't demonize the companies that move to a country with more lax environment regulations. Perhaps you'd like to go to those countries and tell them how fucked up they are for being so lax on those laws... I'm sure Al Gore will let you make that flight in his personal jet, and Escalade entourage. Or, perhaps you can catch a ride with Prince Charles or Obama when he collected his $3.2 million dollar fee for a 90 minute speech. Kind of makes "Green" people look pathetic, and those "Millionaire CEO's annual salaries" look like chump change.

Yep. Hypocracy runs rampant in this fucked up world we live in...

Anyway... You won't change your opinion, and neither will I. Therefore, you go your merry way, and I'll go mine.

 

[Dan Epstein]

I forgot to mention, I love this community and the exchanges of ideas in it. No way such a cool discussion will take place on Facebook.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I forgot to mention, I love this community and the exchanges of ideas in it. No way such a cool discussion will take place on Facebook.

There's quite the diversity, isn't there?

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I serriously don't know what my problem is but I have had a girlfriend quit just like that! ANNND I have a Romanian model that I would consider a friend who quit almost over night---and this is while her mom and all her real friends smoke.

In college I witnessed the 12 step program by going with a group of students to a drug/alcohol group (one student said his full name which he was immediately reprimanded for). I knew drugs weren't for me but most everyone there smoked. I do not understand what my problem is. I see these strong people quit and wonder what is lacking. I have had relatives that smoked way more than me and wayyy longer than me take take the chantix and quit, but I couldn't get my primary physician at the time (he has since gone away) to give a prescription for me.

Odd to me. But thanks all for the derail. Informative at the very least. Helpful.

Like I mentioned before, it's probably partially genetics, partially personality. It might be harder for you to quit than someone else, or maybe you need some life motivation for it.
My boyfriend has trouble with quitting smoking, he smoked for years and then eventually I said to him that I wouldn't kiss him anymore if he smoked (it was also because I was fed up with him being moody when he needed one). He stopped pretty much immediately and quit for a while, so I guess good motivation. Unfortunately he then restarted work in hospitality 8 months later which led to him starting again. He's trying to quit again now and it's not easy for him. On the other hand, me and members of my family have smoked and then dropped it without a second thought.
If quitting is what you truly want then you will get there, but don't feel put out by how fast other people are quitting. Cigarettes may be the same, but you are unique and will have a different reaction to someone else. For most people quitting smoking is not an easy task, so you definitely don't have a "problem", nor are you any less strong than others.

 

[CharlieCharma]

I hate to be annoying, and I have lots of respect for you, however would you deflate gambling, Cocaine and alcohol in the same genetic, and generic section? Would cigarettes require a 12 step program? Just asking. Is there a possibility that addiction is a subject broad enough to have diversity?

I'm not a psychologist, but I do think these things are similar. Definitely, not all need the same kind of treatment. You would have a gambling addict go see a psychologist, a smoker you'd have chew some gum/distract themselves, and an alcoholic would have to go see an actual doctor. Gambling is compulsive. Smoking is a habit. Alcohol is an escape. They are similar, but they require such different treatment types. I also don't think all people will respond to the same types of treatment. Treatment will always be an individual thing.

 

[Dan Epstein]

I'm not a psychologist, but I do think these things are similar. Definitely, not all need the same kind of treatment. You would have a gambling addict go see a psychologist, a smoker you'd have chew some gum/distract themselves, and an alcoholic would have to go see an actual doctor. Gambling is compulsive. Smoking is a habit. Alcohol is an escape. They are similar, but they require such different treatment types. I also don't think all people will respond to the same types of treatment. Treatment will always be an individual thing.

Alcohol and gambling are treated in the same 12 steps church based method actually. Smoking is the most physical addiction because it does not require a high. Unlike other substances, it leaves the body too quick and does not become saturated, hence the urge. It's the easiest for rehab, yet it kills the most people every year. You will see more chain smokers for that reason. It's the least psychologically complex to quit, yet the most deadly.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Did you ever wonder why people can have a drink and not be alcoholics, while it's not the same with Cocaine or Heroin? Once again deflating is not the answer.

 

[snowwolf87]

Would cigarettes require a 12 step program?

I quit cold turkey. One day just stopped. But, I was fighting pneumonia the next 3 months so I had a great incentive. Even with that, I would smoke in dreams and wake absolutely convinced I had slipped.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[CharlieCharma]

Did you ever wonder why people can have a drink and not be alcoholics, while it's not the same with Cocaine or Heroin? Once again deflating is not the answer.

Wait, it is the same. I have lots of friends who love coke. It's a fun party drug. But if you're doing it every night, you're probably addicted. Same for alcohol, if you do it every night, you're probably addicted. You can do it on occasion and have it be just that, though.
Also, I'd like to point out just because you try a drug, doesn't mean you'll be addicted. I mean, I'll never try heroin unless I'm old as fuck, have a chronic illness that leaves me in pain, or have a terminal illness just because I've heard the high is like nothing you can imagine.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Did you ever wonder why people can have a drink and not be alcoholics, while it's not the same with Cocaine or Heroin? Once again deflating is not the answer.

Different strengths of drugs. The modern, engineered drugs are even more addictive than in times past and even potent enough to kill with very small traces. Read up on a drug called Fentanyl if you aren't familiar with it. Nasty shit...

 

[Dan Epstein]

Well, anyone been in an operation under heavy Opium based pain killers for three days? How could you quit so seamlessly?

 

[Dan Epstein]

Wait, it is the same. I have lots of friends who love coke. It's a fun party drug. But if you're doing it every night, you're probably addicted. Same for alcohol, if you do it every night, you're probably addicted. You can do it on occasion and have it be just that, though.
Also, I'd like to point out just because you try a drug, doesn't mean you'll be addicted. I mean, I'll never try heroin unless I'm old as fuck, have a chronic illness that leaves me in pain, or have a terminal illness just because I've heard the high is like nothing you can imagine.

Extasy was a party drug, in the 90's. That's why we had Screamadelica by Primal Scream in the morning. Damn I'm old...

 

[CharlieCharma]

Extasy was a party drug, in the 90's. That's why we had Screamadelica by Primal Scream in the morning. Damn I'm old...

Molly is still a party drug. Coke was a party drug then too, I'm sure. I mean, who wants to do coke when they aren't drinking?

 

[Dan Epstein]

Cocaine is not a fun party drug, it's expensive and destructive. Don't touch it.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Molly is still a party drug. Coke was a party drug then too, I'm sure. I mean, who wants to do coke when they aren't drinking?

You are fortunate not to know the inner works of this drug. Your pilot or doctor or judge can be on it right now, ostensibly functioning perfectly. It's not hallucinatory, yet horrible.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

WTF is up with this bullshit "fair share" fallacy you're so enthralled with? What is "fair share"? Hmm... let's ponder this for a minute...

Let's use your beloved healthcare for example... You understand the concept of insurance, I'd assume? Everyone pay in to the insurance company. But, few actually use it. Only those with a need. Therefore, if you and I paid in the same amount. But, I had a medical condition and had to use more than what I paid in, while you're perfectly healthy and used very little, I'm using more than my share. Is that fair? No. But, it's also the design of how insurance works. Which, up until recently, was voluntary.

Also, explain to me why a family of eight (2 adults, six kids) , and a family of three (two adults and one child) pays in the same amount as a family of four? Why should the family of three who's responsible with finances, as well as not having more kids than they could possibly afford be forced to pay more? Where's their "fair share"?


Now, to get back to my post on why companies laid off thousands of employees here in America and transitioned work to other countries... Those companies left the US to move to a country that charges less taxes than here in America. Just to set the record straight... America has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world at approximately 39%. Relocating to a country with lower tax rates isn't illegal. Just like if you decided to move to another city, county or state because you don't agree with laws of the state isn't illegal. As long as said company pays taxes on the revenue they generate in the US, they're legal. That's not skirting tax laws, that is smart ecomomic sense.

Same with labor rates. Why pay American workers a high salary, when you can get less expensive labor elsewhere? Oh, and that "free universal healthcare" you keep talking about? That's paid for by part of those higher American salaries. Kind of shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you?

As to EPA regulations... don't demonize the companies that move to a country with more lax environment regulations. Perhaps you'd like to go to those countries and tell them how fucked up they are for being so lax on those laws... I'm sure Al Gore will let you make that flight in his personal jet, and Escalade entourage. Or, perhaps you can catch a ride with Prince Charles or Obama when he collected his $3.2 million dollar fee for a 90 minute speech. Kind of makes "Green" people look pathetic, and those "Millionaire CEO's annual salaries" look like chump change.

Yep. Hypocracy runs rampant in this fucked up world we live in...

Anyway... You won't change your opinion, and neither will I. Therefore, you go your merry way, and I'll go mine.

Why, hello Mr Capitalism! Didn't see you there!

 

[Dan Epstein]

To anyone who thinks they know about drugs and the systems behind them, I highly recommend 3 journalists authors to read. Roberto Saviano, Anabel Hernandez and Ioan Grillo. Reality makes Beaking Bad look like Disney World.

 

[CharlieCharma]

You are fortunate not to know the inner works of this drug. Your pilot or doctor or judge can be on it right now, ostensibly functioning perfectly. It's not hallucinatory, yet horrible.

I'm talking about casual users. Also, I was a bartender. Most of my friends are in the service industry or comedians. So I guess I remembered why you'd do it when you aren't drinking, but still it's really common for casual users to do it while drinking. I know that since I quit working at strip clubs, bars, and restaurants I haven't done any without alcohol involved. I'm no longer working 12+ hour shifts dealing with customers that make me want to shove their face into the floor. Lol.

I honestly am not too worried about that. That and Adderal are probably the highest functioning drugs. If they get caught or fuck up, that's no good, but they're so fucking common.

EDIT: Coke is a very common drug to use while partying. It is also used to get through days. It can be both.

 

[Dan Epstein]

I'm talking about casual users. Also, I was a bartender. Most of my friends are in the service industry or comedians. So I guess I remembered why you'd do it when you aren't drinking, but still it's really common for casual users to do it while drinking. I know that since I quit working at strip clubs, bars, and restaurants I haven't done any without alcohol involved. I'm no longer working 12+ hour shifts dealing with customers that make me want to shove their face into the floor. Lol.

I honestly am not too worried about that. That and Adderal are probably the highest functioning drugs. If they get caught or fuck up, that's no good, but they're so fucking common.

EDIT: Coke is a very common drug to use while partying. It is also used to get through days. It can be both.

I was a bartender and a waiter for 15 years before starting as an online payment rep, you're preaching to the choir I'm sure that while modeling, you come across high maintenance complainers too. I never for once doubted the hardship of your job, even with no substances involved.

 

[CharlieCharma]

I was a bartender and a waiter for 15 years before starting as an online payment rep, you're preaching to the choir I'm sure that while modeling, you come across high maintenance complainers too. I never for once doubted the hardship of your job, even with no substances involved.

Camming? I do that shit sober. People are obnoxious, but nothing like what I'm used to. Dealing with drunk fucks and "may I speak to the manager" haircuts? Fuck all that nonsense. I get why they do drugs.

On a serious note, fentanyl laced drugs are a HUGE issue in America right now. If you do drugs like cocaine and heroine, consider investing in a testing kit. They're cheap as fuck. Fentanyl is dangerous. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/gybkj9/how-overdosing-on-fentanyl-laced-cocaine-changed-my-life

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Did you ever wonder why people can have a drink and not be alcoholics, while it's not the same with Cocaine or Heroin? Once again deflating is not the answer.

Lots of people use Cocaine occasionally without becoming "addicts". It's not a drug with a physical addiction- as in you won't die or feel negative physical effects if you stop taking it. It is highly addictive, largely as you are always chasing the high. Alcohol is a different kind of addiction, and lots of people are addicted without realising it. For example, you might call someone a coke head if they sniff a few lines every evening after work, but you wouldn't call someone an alcoholic for having a glass or two of wine at and after dinner each night and maybe a little more at the weekend. Coke is much the same as alcohol in that way, some people might have a few lines every now and then with friends, just as some people might get drunk during the odd night out, but never touch it at any other point and don't feel the need for it in their every day lives. I also know some people who only crave coke once they've had alcohol as it acts as a trigger. I also know plenty of people who crave the high rather than the drug itself, those people will crave any upper like coke, MDMA or speed.

The problem with cocaine is that it is a drug which gives you energy, makes you chattier and generally feel better about life at that moment. It's good escapism, and it's a good way to keep yourself up and buzzing while on a night out. None of these things are necessarily bad seeing as it's paired with not being out of control or appearing wasted. This makes it easy for people to keep wanting to take it, and as it's social you'll often start by taking it for free. Then you start to realise that nights out are kind of boring without it and that alcohol makes you feel sleepy much earlier. I think this is one reason it tends to be very popular with men who work long hours in higher stress jobs, whether hospitality or banking. It suits people who want a bit of escape or need extra energy to have a social life. The problem is, you then get involved in the culture and can easily become addicted. I don't think addiction to cocaine happens any more over night than alcohol, it's just that it hits you a lot harder.

I have never taken heroin and I know very few people who have, and once they go down that road it appears very difficult to come back. It seems like a very different kettle of fish, possibly because the high itself removes you from reality. From what I have heard from friends, you can take it once, maybe twice and not become addicted, but after that it is very easy to get hooked. But of course everyone is different. But yeah, heroin is definitely a whole different category to other addictions in terms of not being able to use it casually, except maybe crystal meth and crack cocaine. But then again, the kind of people I know who've taken those drugs tend to be the kind of ones who are already holding addictions.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Camming? I do that shit sober. People are obnoxious, but nothing like what I'm used to. Dealing with drunk fucks and "may I speak to the manager" haircuts? Fuck all that nonsense. I get why they do drugs.

On a serious note, fentanyl laced drugs are a HUGE issue in America right now. If you do drugs like cocaine and heroine, consider investing in a testing kit. They're cheap as fuck. Fentanyl is dangerous. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/gybkj9/how-overdosing-on-fentanyl-laced-cocaine-changed-my-life

I will never refer to camming as sugar honey ice tea. I'm not versed on what goes on in the sessions for a simple reason, I work on the models' behalf as a payment rep. That does not mean I lack respect for the effort and freelance work. I can't interact as a consumer member, and for the best reasons I believe

 

[Dan Epstein]

Lots of people use Cocaine occasionally without becoming "addicts". It's not a drug with a physical addiction- as in you won't die or feel negative physical effects if you stop taking it. It is highly addictive, largely as you are always chasing the high. Alcohol is a different kind of addiction, and lots of people are addicted without realising it. For example, you might call someone a coke head if they sniff a few lines every evening after work, but you wouldn't call someone an alcoholic for having a glass or two of wine at and after dinner each night and maybe a little more at the weekend. Coke is much the same as alcohol in that way, some people might have a few lines every now and then with friends, just as some people might get drunk during the odd night out, but never touch it at any other point and don't feel the need for it in their every day lives. I also know some people who only crave coke once they've had alcohol as it acts as a trigger. I also know plenty of people who crave the high rather than the drug itself, those people will crave any upper like coke, MDMA or speed.

The problem with cocaine is that it is a drug which gives you energy, makes you chattier and generally feel better about life at that moment. It's good escapism, and it's a good way to keep yourself up and buzzing while on a night out. None of these things are necessarily bad seeing as it's paired with not being out of control or appearing wasted. This makes it easy for people to keep wanting to take it, and as it's social you'll often start by taking it for free. Then you start to realise that nights out are kind of boring without it and that alcohol makes you feel sleepy much earlier. I think this is one reason it tends to be very popular with men who work long hours in higher stress jobs, whether hospitality or banking. It suits people who want a bit of escape or need extra energy to have a social life. The problem is, you then get involved in the culture and can easily become addicted. I don't think addiction to cocaine happens any more over night than alcohol, it's just that it hits you a lot harder.

I have never taken heroin and I know very few people who have, and once they go down that road it appears very difficult to come back. It seems like a very different kettle of fish, possibly because the high itself removes you from reality. From what I have heard from friends, you can take it once, maybe twice and not become addicted, but after that it is very easy to get hooked. But of course everyone is different. But yeah, heroin is definitely a whole different category to other addictions in terms of not being able to use it casually, except maybe crystal meth and crack cocaine. But then again, the kind of people I know who've taken those drugs tend to be the kind of ones who are already holding addictions.

Isabella, when you have time, I'd recommend you to read "El Narco: The Rise of The Mexican Drug Cartels", by the British Ioan Grillo. I believe you'll like it.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Isabella, when you have time, I'd recommend you to read "El Narco: The Rise of The Mexican Drug Cartels", by the British Ioan Grillo. I believe you'll like it.

Funny you say that, I am watching Narco's right now.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Funny you say that, I am watching Narco's right now.

Not the same, this British journalist is quite the opposite. Plata o plomo

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Why, hello Mr Capitalism! Didn't see you there!

Every model who bitches about freeloaders, beggards and the like in their rooms are capitalists. If not, then it's free flasshed and cum shows for everyone!!

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Every model who bitches about freeloaders, beggards and the like in their rooms are capitalists. If not, then it's free flasshed and cum shows for everyone!!

That is not really how capitalism or communism works...

True communism doesn't mean everyone works for free or gives out things for free. It means that everyone works and an equal share is given to everyone within the society. So say, children's role is to learn from their elders and grow up. Elders role is to pass on wisdom to children as they can no longer do physical labour, and for everyone else it would be whatever role they choose to do that helps the community. In true communist societies while there may be an elected "leader", that leader's role is in organisation rather than having authority over others. The leader will also not get a bigger share of anything.

So no, it would not mean that members would be able to walk in and have a free show. And if we were to have a more Marxist society in modern day we would be looking at something similar to in Sweden where taxes are high but you can live off the government. So you would still be able to earn, but your tax would be higher. But this would also mean you wouldn't need to spend as much and if you were out of work for whatever reason you would still be looked after. In this situation the majority of people choose to work and the economy is booming. The idea of having higher taxes for higher paid jobs is to try to level out the amount people can earn so that rather than a small selection of people earning enormous amounts and sitting on more cash than they need while other people starve, you have lots of people having an income which they can live off and no people starving. The rich people have less in their savings accounts and maybe less houses, but they are still able to live a luxurious lifestyle.

When I say you are being capitalist, it is because your post was very much of the capitalist belief that every one should be out for themselves and that people who earn lots deserve to earn that amount and keep it all to themselves. America is a capitalist society, England is too though not nearly to the same level, so most people have been conditioned to believe this is normal. While I do not believe a truly communist society would necessarily work in such complicated and widespread societies, I also don't think Capitalism is a good system to follow. You say, why is it fair that one person gets more from their insurance than someone else? Well why is it fair that one person gets sick at one time, or that women by being female have to pay more than men? Why is it fair that some people are born into rich families and have a foot in the door for higher paid jobs which take the same amount of effort and time as lower paid ones? The definition of fair is being treated equally, so to be fair you would fairly divide government income between everyone who happens to need it. If you don't get ill then great for you, but you might get ill in a years time, or ten years from now. Or maybe your child will become ill. Some people may take more from the state than you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't available to you if you needed or wanted it. So yes, a state of free healthcare and welfare benefits is a fair system, it only feels unfair if you have always remained on top in life. And if you have always remained on top then I don't really see what the complaint is.

Also, just one thing that was pointed out recently that maybe some Americans do not know about healthcare. How much your insurance is charged for your care is NOT how much it actually costs. Some treatments cost peanuts but charge the insurance much higher amounts. It was pointed out that maybe some people in the US don't realise that a lot of these treatments are really cheap for the government if you have a national healthcare system. It's like going out for a meal in a restaurant, the cost to make it is like a tenth or less than how much you pay.

 

[heybarkeep]

Cocaine is not a fun party drug, it's expensive and destructive. Don't touch it.

Coke is great if used responsibly and in moderation imo. Like a once a month thing. Prefer Adderall or even Vyvanse if options are available but coke is still fun. Won't risk trying crystal or heroin. Shit scares me haha. I'm good about stopping whatever drug I'm enjoying once I start to feel a physical or mental dependence on them but not willing to risk trying either of those. Seen what it does, not for me.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

My post was more tongue-in-cheek than it was factual...

When I say you are being capitalist, it is because your post was very much of the capitalist belief that every one should be out for themselves and that people who earn lots deserve to earn that amount and keep it all to themselves. America is a capitalist society, England is too though not nearly to the same level, so most people have been conditioned to believe this is normal. While I do not believe a truly communist society would necessarily work in such complicated and widespread societies, I also don't think Capitalism is a good system to follow. You say, why is it fair that one person gets more from their insurance than someone else? Well why is it fair that one person gets sick at one time, or that women by being female have to pay more than men? Why is it fair that some people are born into rich families and have a foot in the door for higher paid jobs which take the same amount of effort and time as lower paid ones? The definition of fair is being treated equally, so to be fair you would fairly divide government income between everyone who happens to need it. If you don't get ill then great for you, but you might get ill in a years time, or ten years from now. Or maybe your child will become ill. Some people may take more from the state than you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't available to you if you needed or wanted it. So yes, a state of free healthcare and welfare benefits is a fair system, it only feels unfair if you have always remained on top in life. And if you have always remained on top then I don't really see what the complaint is.

A 100% capitalist, or other type of gov't doesn't work. There are mixes of things here and there, and my post was not about everyone out for themselves. It was focused around what many see as class warfare, the "pay their far share" and 1% mentality. I grew up in a family that was not well off. I received no financial assistance from family for secondary schooling. I had to make do with working full-time, going to school full-time as well as raising and support a young family.
I've worked my way up the pay scale through hard work and dedication, with nothing given to me. Yet, I still do not think that a system where one group is penalized for succeeding while another is given money is appropriate. Redistrobution of wealth is not a good model. As I stated, let those people whom want to pay more in taxes do so but do not force others to do it. Based upon your statement of The definition of fair is being treated equally this is where it it starts with tax collection. As I stated, equal percentages is being fair. If you're going to bitch about unfair wage differences between men and women, then you sure as hell cannot apply the reverse to tax collection. You cannot pick and choose between what's "fair" and what's not.
If we are ALL EQUAL, then we should all equally pay in. Therefore, there's two choices: 1) Pay in same dollar amount. 2) Pay in same percentage. Again, if it is same percentage, the rich are already paying in more.

Also, just one thing that was pointed out recently that maybe some Americans do not know about healthcare. How much your insurance is charged for your care is NOT how much it actually costs. Some treatments cost peanuts but charge the insurance much higher amounts. It was pointed out that maybe some people in the US don't realise that a lot of these treatments are really cheap for the government if you have a national healthcare system. It's like going out for a meal in a restaurant, the cost to make it is like a tenth or less than how much you pay.

Most of this is not new by any means. In fact, the problem is much worse than you realize. The reason why many charges are so astronomically high is because people generally do not care about expenses when it isn't directly coming out of their pocket. Sure, you might get people who will say something along the lines of "Oh my god... My hospital bill was $75,000!" and is quickly followed up with "Glad I don't have to pay for it..." This is a major issue here in the US. Make people responsible for the expenses and they'll be a little more cost conscious.

I really do not understand how you, or anyone else thinks that a Gov't program is cheaper. it isn't here in the US. There's too much corruption, under table or back room deals going on to lines people's pockets to land these well sought after gov't contracts. Too many young people believe that the Gov't is the answer to all their problems. "Socialized this" and "socialized that" so they can have "free education" or "free whatever". This has been the case for the last couple of generations. Nothing in this world is free. It's time for the Sanders zombies to wake up and smell the cow pies... Because, unless they flip burgers their entire life, they should be moving into skilled labor which dramatically increases their salaries. With that, their taxes go up. I'm sure many of them would gripe about the amount of taxes they will be paying when they see how much is being taken out.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. As I menitoned before previously, no one will change their views on this. So, let's just go our separate ways...

 

[IsabellaSnow]

My post was more tongue-in-cheek than it was factual...



A 100% capitalist, or other type of gov't doesn't work. There are mixes of things here and there, and my post was not about everyone out for themselves. It was focused around what many see as class warfare, the "pay their far share" and 1% mentality. I grew up in a family that was not well off. I received no financial assistance from family for secondary schooling. I had to make do with working full-time, going to school full-time as well as raising and support a young family.
I've worked my way up the pay scale through hard work and dedication, with nothing given to me. Yet, I still do not think that a system where one group is penalized for succeeding while another is given money is appropriate. Redistrobution of wealth is not a good model. As I stated, let those people whom want to pay more in taxes do so but do not force others to do it. Based upon your statement of The definition of fair is being treated equally this is where it it starts with tax collection. As I stated, equal percentages is being fair. If you're going to bitch about unfair wage differences between men and women, then you sure as hell cannot apply the reverse to tax collection. You cannot pick and choose between what's "fair" and what's not.
If we are ALL EQUAL, then we should all equally pay in. Therefore, there's two choices: 1) Pay in same dollar amount. 2) Pay in same percentage. Again, if it is same percentage, the rich are already paying in more.



Most of this is not new by any means. In fact, the problem is much worse than you realize. The reason why many charges are so astronomically high is because people generally do not care about expenses when it isn't directly coming out of their pocket. Sure, you might get people who will say something along the lines of "Oh my god... My hospital bill was $75,000!" and is quickly followed up with "Glad I don't have to pay for it..." This is a major issue here in the US. Make people responsible for the expenses and they'll be a little more cost conscious.

I really do not understand how you, or anyone else thinks that a Gov't program is cheaper. it isn't here in the US. There's too much corruption, under table or back room deals going on to lines people's pockets to land these well sought after gov't contracts. Too many young people believe that the Gov't is the answer to all their problems. "Socialized this" and "socialized that" so they can have "free education" or "free whatever". This has been the case for the last couple of generations. Nothing in this world is free. It's time for the Sanders zombies to wake up and smell the cow pies... Because, unless they flip burgers their entire life, they should be moving into skilled labor which dramatically increases their salaries. With that, their taxes go up. I'm sure many of them would gripe about the amount of taxes they will be paying when they see how much is being taken out.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. As I menitoned before previously, no one will change their views on this. So, let's just go our separate ways...

But not all skilled labour increases salaries. Let's take working in restaurants for example, being a waiter in a decent restaurant is a skilled job, something that actually takes years of working yourself up and working long hours, yet it pays fuck all. Yet going into sales you walk into a salary of more than serving staff and you get commission on top for less hours, less stress and less effort. And in my experience, you have to do less training. It's not like the restaurant industry isn't big either, it's just that it is seen as a low income job and companies will try to get away with paying as little as possible. While I was in Australia this is not the case, working in restaurants pays twice as much as it pays in the UK and tends to be based around experience.
Some jobs have equal levels of skill but get paid less. This has been a problem for women in various industries where people were paid well until women started doing them and now they're considered lower paid jobs. When you get people into a position where they have to accept it then it becomes cultural to pay less. Working in restaurants for example traditionally was for very poor people serving rich people. The poor people couldn't exactly ask for more seeing as they weren't in a position to lose work. Fair enough if you are working in an incredibly skilled position which takes 10-20 years of lower earnings to train for wanting a pay off. But if by skilled you mean a year or two of experience, you could say that about so many jobs. Who is anyone to decide one job is more valuable than another?

I agree that I think people should have something to strive towards, and I think that if you want to live a life of luxury you should be able to work your arse off to get that. But I also don't think all jobs reflect the level of skill required. Many minimum wage jobs or just above minimum wage jobs in England expect a year or two of experience at least, which seems ridiculous as they are paying the minimum. Once you start reaching a £150k salary, taxing 45-60% on everything above that is hardly going to put you out of pocket or stop you from living the life you want, but it will fund the economy. While I think it's fine to strive towards something, I don't believe greed is something which should be glorified in the way it is. But greed and capitalism are two things that may well tear our world apart.