ENSLAVED BY MONEY I

Read this article on health insurance and the middle class...
Most of the uninsured are suffering, because they do not contribute enough in terms of jobs or profits to deserve health insurance in the first place. Even those that do, they still have to pay some of the expenses out of their own pockets. Is it difficult to figure out why? Considering that even the "middle-class" is suffering or in other words the majority of American people, there seems to be at least one formula that needs to be eliminated.
This is Scott Hauge, president and owner of a San Francisco insurance brokerage firm:"A lot of small businesses can't afford the insurance premiums and still want to cover major catastrophes," he says. "But everybody is looking at how they can reduce their costs."
This is what casting director says:"My mother works for the post office and has the best health insurance""But my father's costs came in at $150,000 -- and they covered just $120,000. So the insurance company picked up a huge portion of it, but they still have a $30,000 bill, which they're paying from retirement funds."
In other words the value of money is more important than the value of human life in some people's minds. Ultimately, small businesses or big corporations exist in the environment where the goal is to maximize profits and minimize costs. This can be understood but should not be accepted. There is no perfect national healthcare system. We've heard about the higher taxes (we'll cover that), long lines, low wages in hospitals, lack of options, government control, and the transition might not be easy. However, the ideology of universal healthcare is still going to be stronger since it's the one that seeks to eliminate influence of money on people regardless in what or what kind of spectrum they exist.

Dueling Tax Plans

There has been a lot of talk about the candidate's tax plans, but let's get one thing straight: neither of them will appreciably decrease spending. The political will just isn't there, unless the Republicans manage to get power of Congress with a large number of fiscal conservatives (which I doubt because of the rise of the social conservatives). Anyway, on to the numbers:

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

Compare this to the fact that the national debt has grown from $5.674 trillion in 2000 to $9.008 in 2007. Where's the plan to pay off the $3 trillion that we have accumulated in the last 7 years? I guess they'd rather buy more toys than pay the bills.

The myth that higher taxes bring the government more money

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/08/obama_i_will_raise_taxes

Its election time, and oh so predictably come the clamors from the Democrat party about raising taxes to really stick it to those evil, evil CEOs and "Rich People" (an intentionally vague moniker designed to make people irrationally envy/hate those who prove that anybody can be successful in America despite the government's constant interference, but thats a rant for a different time). But does raising taxes truly bring in the money needed to magically make all those wonderful but "underfunded" (read, pilfered) social programs break even? While raising taxes does bring in an immediate influx of cash into the black hole that is the National Budget, in the long run they miss out on all that wonderful growth that money could have generated in the long run. To demonstrate, lets look at a very simple math problem:

Lets say we have an initial capital of $5000 with both a 20% and 80% tax rate and a yearly 5x growth over a period of 5 years.

Gross Capital - Tax rate = Net Capital x Growth = Gross capital

80% tax rate: 5000 - 4000 = 1000 x 5 = 5000 - 4000 = 1000 ad infinitum
Yearly intake of $4000 for a 5 year intake of only $20,000 for the government

20% tax rate: 5000 - 1000 = 4000 x 5 = 20000 - 4000 = 16000 x 5 = 80000 - 16000 = 64000 x 5 = 320000 - 64000 = 256000 x 5 = 1280000 - 256000 = 1024000
1000 + 4000 + 16000 + 64000 + 256000 = $341,000 intake over a 5 year period

As one can clearly see, a lower tax rate generates more taxable income over a long period of time as opposed to a higher tax rate. I encourage you to try out your own numbers, and to check out these pages for more info (and cool charts)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2095.cfm