I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
Latest Popular Most Bookmarked Most Emailed Top Rated My Favorites Random Chat
All Games Funny Entertainment Quizzes Weird Tech Lifestyle, Arts & Lit. News & Politics Science Sports Misc
T-Shirts   Submit Content  

Study Finds Obamacare = Less Abortions/Pregnancy

Way less, among low-income women that could access free birth control. A win for Obamacare?

submitted by: patchgrabber
< Back Next >
Study Finds Obamacare = Less Abortions/Pregnancy. Way less, among low-income women that could access free birth control. A win for Obamacare?
+ Add to Favs
View/Add
Hits: 4880 | Favorites: 0 | Emailed: 0 | Rating: 2.6 | Category: News & Politics | Date: 06/05/2013
 
 popular today
Oops! Math Textbook Cover Error! [Pic] Uses a picture of a Thai p0rn star, from a p0n film. Textbook = recalled!
The Hairlander [Pic] She travels the world defeating other gross-haired people, absorbing their hair into her own with each kill.
Creepy Images From The History Of Medicine [Pix] Disturbingly odd and rare photos from the past. Early medicine Y U so creepy? Some images NSFWish Graphic
If Elijah Wood & Steve Buscemi Had A Kid [Pic] Oh that`s just wrong.
If Men Wore Outfits Like Women In Video Games[Pic] Turn about is fair play. [NSFW]
More Comments >

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, June 6, 2013 4:13:01 PM
@Wizard

Ok first, no.

The link Cajun provided, which utilizes data from the IRS among other notable sources, refutes your statement. The link demonstrates that, not only do the wealthy contribute more total resources to charity, they also contribute a larger percentage of their income.

Additionally, their charity tends to be skewed toward education and healthcare, compared to the average citizen who contributes heavily to religious organizations.

[quote]why would they take their money elsewhere if there were none?[/quote]
The Laffer curve. Without any taxation, a government and society could not exist. Thus, the moeny would be both worthless and unprotected. There is a minimum level of taxation necessary in order to maintain a society.

They would leave for the same reason that they do not move their money to Somalia.

WizardofCOR
Male, 40-49, Western US
 156 Posts
Thursday, June 6, 2013 3:51:33 PM
"In a nutshell, people (especially the rich) would certainly be more generous if taxes were A LOT lower than what they are now. But they'd take their money elsewhere if there were no taxes."

Ok first, no. Individual income taxes are lower now than they were in the 1950`s. Capital Gains taxes are so low, and the off-shoring loopholes so plentiful that the wealthy pay a lower percentage overall than school teachers do.
The wet dream of the wealthy is no taxes - why would they take their money elsewhere if there were none? Why do they take their money offshore now?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:28:01 PM
I should rephrase - I prefer not to have any FORCED wealth redistribution. Rather, wealth should be redistributed through voluntary exchanges.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:26:25 PM
I don't think HumanAction necessarily wants taxes to be eliminated

I don`t. I even directly stated earlier in this conversation that I am not opposed to all taxes; I just have a preference for the states to handle tax collection.

However, I am against the repetitive wealth redistribution in this country. Few people seem to recognize that a "progressive" income tax, such as we have, is the most pervasive and aggressive form of wealth redistribution we have.

Although I prefer not to have any wealth redistribution, the best compromise I have heard thus far is Friedman`s negative income tax implemented by the states - who have the authority to do so. Every person in the US is guaranteed a base minimum salary; any income in excess is taxed at a flat-rate. Those who fail to earn the minimum receive the difference.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10232 Posts
Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:45:28 AM
Do you actually believe HumanAction's assertion that if taxes were eliminated completely and government funded social programs


I don`t think HumanAction necessarily wants taxes to be eliminated (see Laffer Curve). Some level of government spending is necessary for a civil society (see Somalia). The programs you list out are one of four things:
Generic (children services, welfare, social programs)
Generously funded privately (free clinics)
Need to be fixed (MedicAid, Food Stamps)
Should be elminated entirely (Housing)

In a nutshell, people (especially the rich) would certainly be more generous if taxes were A LOT lower than what they are now. But they`d take their money elsewhere if there were no taxes.

More Comments >
 


Bored | Suggest a Link | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.