Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[Taelas]

Yes, often enough a lot of the taxes you pay do not affect you personally at the moment you pay them, but that's the nature of the system. If you only paid for what you personally needed, the system couldn't exist; there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running.

That doesn't make sense. The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it. The need for that service, also. Thus, if each person payed for the service he received, it would come out to exactly the same as if the population as a whole shared the cost. It is not a matter of income.

It is not a matter of "there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running", it is a matter of the individuals not being able to pay for the service that they, individually, need. And that hurts everybody. Let me give you a personal example.

The treatment for my leukemia has run to, approximately, one and a half million dollars. I have nowhere near that amount of money. But I do have insurance. Now, insurance is basically a large group of people, each betting against himself. The 'winners' get the money. It allows people to get medical treatment that they could otherwise not afford. But it does a lot more than that. The treatment I received was not handed down from on high. It had to be developed. If, of all the people who came down with leukemia, only those that could afford millions could be treated, then there wouldn't have been enough people or money to develop the treatment. So, insurance saved my life two ways. It made it possible for me to get the treatment, and it made developing the treatment possible in the first place.

Now, my example, repeated many times, is a good argument for insurance. But who should supply that insurance? And should we *have* to buy it? Should we have the complete freedom to chose? And what should society do with those who chose not to and then need the services? Is it right to demand that everyone should be insured because everyone shares the cost for those who are not? Is it socially acceptable to allow those who chose not to have insurance to 'pay' for their stupidity -- should we just let them die? If everyone has to have insurance, is it better supplied by the free market, or by the government? If by the government, should it be federal, state, county, other (some kind of special districting)? If the government is supplying everyone with insurance, do we need insurance at all, or should we just socialize the health industry?

Now, take all of that, and think of education, roads, police, fire, retirement, the military, etc., etc.

Your arguments are, at best, shades of gray. The problem covers the complete color spectrum.

It is possible for the private sector to do this, yeah. You're right, I didn't think in those terms at all. I'm not sure that's the right answer, either. Something like this is precisely what I would want the government to take care of -- through taxes.

But this is the general feel in Denmark, at least in my opinion. I guess it's quite different in the states.

The government's job is to decide where and what to spend your taxes on, and if they're not doing it right, you kick them out and get someone new.

"The government's job" is precisely what this discussion is about. Once that's determined, then the cost to run the country is established. That, in turn (and the government's position on deficit) determines what taxes are needed and where they are spent.

As to kicking them out, who determines if they are doing it right? Indeed, what is 'right'? Is it the will of the people? That's mob rule. Is it some higher good? That's elitism or theocracy, depending on whether you take 'higher' straight or with branch water. And how do you kick them out? Popular vote? It has been shown, over and over again, that the popular vote is usually bought by whoever spends the most. Insurrection? You'd better have the numbers, 'cause they have the amps.

"Every real problem has a simple, easy to understand, wrong answer."

--Pete

Currently we kick them out no matter how they did after a certain period -- we take the question out of people's hands, essentially. I'm not sure that's a better solution -- it's quite possible there isn't enough time for new policies to go into effect before the time is up, and if there's no discernible answer by that time, they'll most likely elect someone knew, who have the exact same problem.