this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5203 readers
2758 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bye@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Our taxes fund more public health dollars per capita than almost anywhere else in the world. Medicare and Medicaid spending is higher than DOD budget, and that’s before you include medical research funded by NIH and DOD or VA spending.

The issue is that our prices are out of control because of regulatory capture and downstream inability of the government to negotiate lower prices.

What we need are price controls.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

That's what happens if you don't have public health care.

A small insurer or even an uninsured person cannot bargain with large pharma companies. If they try to, the pharma company will just not sell the product, because it's more expensive for them to lower the prices for everyone compared to losing one small customer.

But if your whole country's health system bargains at once, it can get much better deals, because not taking a deal means for the pharma company that they'll lose access to millions of potential customers.

That's why for example in Europe Insulin costs about 10% per dose compared to what people in the USA have to pay.

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the military like 3% of the gdp and Healthcare somewhere around 20% in the US?

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Id lump benefits for veterans as part of the military.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

As well as the expenses of WIC for military families, since they don't get paid enough.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don’t like paying taxes, but holy hell not having the things they’re supposed to pay for sucks. You ever use a toll road or get caught in an intentional speed trap? Holy hell it sucks. And also we’re only kinda sure our food is safe and our medicine works. But the cops have tanks and the beef and gas are subsidized

[–] force@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

I mean toll roads make sense, I'm not sure why we're expected to pay to use public transport but not roads, when roads are far more expensive to maintain and us driving literally causes them to be damaged.

If roads and parking are free then public transit should be free. Otherwise toll roads are fine by me, although they're technically a regressive charge in the US and Canada since you're kind of forced to use a car in most areas... I mean car dependence itself is a giant regressive charge so that's just one part of it.

But assuming we had actual functional transportation infrastructure, toll roads would actually be preferrable near more densely populated areas since it makes you think twice about using your car instead of taking a train or biking.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Canada doesn't have tolls. And, at least in BC, good transportation.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

It's just a matter of how much they want to invest in what.

In many cases toll roads mean that the government didn't want to/wasn't able to invest in building a road, so they let a private for-profit company do it for "free" (meaning without tax money) and that company then recoups their investment using toll.

Some times toll roads are used to steer traffic. Some cities for example have a city toll that's meant to discourage commuters from using their car to get into the city and instead get them to use public transport.

The first case means the country doesn't raise enough tax, wastes too much tax money or has other priorities than road infrastructure.

The second case is totally valid since it uses tax to discourage unwanted behaviour.

[–] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

toll roads are fine by me

Invalid feelings + wrong opinion

[–] force@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Why shouldn't you pay for using car infrastructure? You're damaging the environment and damaging the roads, it's a lot more sensical for the cost to be put on you, the driver, instead of burdening everyone else with higher income/sales taxes.

[–] cryostars@lemmyf.uk 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Funding for the development and maintenance of roads in the U.S. come from a variety of taxes such as vehicle registration fees, wheel taxes and taxes on gasoline and motor fuel. So , we do pay for using car infrastructure

[–] force@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, but not nearly enough. Those kinds of taxes are extremely low (especially compared to e.g. the EU) and form only a fraction of the costs of car infrastructure.

All those hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars in infrastructure bills, all the regular car infrastructure maintanence costs, a large chunk is paid for by taxes that everyone gets regardless of how much they use a car. And all the extra non-tax costs (in both time and money) that non-drivers have to pay because car-dependent infrastructure fucks up transportation for everyone else, that is a massive charge.

[–] ugh@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

People who don't drive don't pay any of those taxes that were used as examples. I'd love to see the numbers that you're basing your argument on.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

Let me google that for you: https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/

There are literally tens of thousands of articles like this one.

TLDR:

  • less than 50% of car infrastructure cost is paid for by driving related taxes
  • An average of $1100 in general tax per household per year is used to subsidise driving
  • Car infrastructure receives more subsidies from general tax than transit, passenger rail, cycling and pedestrian programs combined.

No, drivers pull their own weight in regards to car related taxes.

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

Even in the EU, car related taxes can't pay for all the car related infrastructure. Building and maintaining roads is crazy expensive.

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The way toll roads work in a lot of places is that they are built with public funds, then a private operator gets a lease for a set amount of time and gets the lion's share of the revenue.

And yes, public transport should be free.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Won't that encourage overuse of transport, which will actually make it harder to reach emissions targets and similar?

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

It'll encourage the use of public transport over private vehicles (provided there is a good public transit network present). Public transport has got better efficiencies, and if it can supplant individual transit to a good degree, that's not a bad thing.

As far as 'overuse' goes: how many people do you know who just travel on public transport for the fun of it? Even in places where people can travel for a flat monthly fee, very few people spend any more time on public transport than they need to. I doubt that free public transport would substantially change that.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I always find it amusing when Americans can only come up with paying less taxes as the answer, then they don't understand why they get less services. It's almost like you should expect more from the tax dollars you already spend. But I guess that's the point of this post and I'm just beating a dead horse.

[–] ugh@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's my argument. There's no need to raise taxes. It's all scare tactics from the GOP. In Texas, a hot topic last election was our increased property taxes. The democratic nominee for governor proposed legalizing weed and using those tax dollars to lower property taxes. He lost the "moderates" when he proposed stricter gun control the last time he ran and they never got over it. Conservatives would rather pay extra money and complain about it than legalize the devil's lettuce.

Politics is theatre. They use buzz words to win the ignorant votes. I don't think we'll ever see a return on our taxes because of how much it would take to completely flip the system. Businesses would go bankrupt if we had access to socialized programs, and that goes against the capitalism that the country stands on.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Removing tax havens within the country would also do a fair bit, and people wouldn't notice any difference from that, except that there is a lot more money that the country could spend on more useful things.

[–] DEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Too bad spending money is considered "free speech" and all those tax haven dollars are used to buyout the people with the power to fix that problem

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

What would be considered corruption in most of the world is just the modus operandi of US politics.