Figures… Congressional Raises Topped Insurance Company Profits Last Year
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, October 25, 2009, 11:05 AM
Democrats are quick to accuse the evil health insurance industry of massive profits. …But insurance companies ranked only 35th on the list of most profitable American industries in 2009.
In fact, the members of Congress enjoyed a better raise than the insurance companies this year.
The AP reported, via Free Republic:
Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry.
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.
The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.
They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet…
…Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better – drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.
More… This year, during the worst recession since the Great Depression, the average member of Congress will realize a 2.8 percent raise.
That means their profit margin is larger than the insurance companies they are demonizing.
ADVERTISEMENT
Chisum commented:
So, does this mean that Congress will be demonizing themselves in the future?
averagemelon commented:
Never, ever trust the words that come out of this current democratic Administration.
People's Front of Judea commented:
Why not just lesgislate a mandate that every business is required to make a profit? Recession over!
LarryG commented:
Using an analogy:
Our society functions due to just a few key industries, which perform like a keystone in an arch. Obama & his administration of progressive ideologues are seeking long term power through the compromising of these keystone: remove or damage the keystone and the bridge crumbles.
Ken commented:
We’ll solve the problem of Congressional hypocrisy when we solve the problem of human hypocrisy. In the meantime, it’s immoral for insurance company execs to make huge profits by denying coverage to policyholders.
gus commented:
Ken are you retarded?
DaveinPhoenix commented:
Private sector profits=”obscene”
Public/government sector profits=”hey, no problem”
People's Front of Judea commented:
Medicare denies more claims than any private insurance company, Ken.
Mahon commented:
Look, guys. I know math is hard, and I agree with your underlying point – but it makes no sense to compare the rate of increase in Congressional salaries with the profit margin of insurance companies. One is a rate of change over time and the other is a ratio of two quantities (revenue and profit) at the same time. You could validly compare Congressional raises with the annual increase (or decrease) in insurance industry profits, but the comparison you made is statistical gibberish – like something you’d hear on the MSM. We should do better.
Callipygian1 commented:
Sorry to hijack these comments, but I was sent this link to Lord Moncton’s speech on October 16th, and if anyone thinks it needs to be seen by everyone that is concerned, I would appreciate it if someone would get this to Jim Hoft, as I cannot find his email info since the move to this new site. Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQvhdCyhe4&NR=1
Solaratov commented:
it’s immoral for insurance company execs to make huge profits by denying coverage to policyholders.
If someone is a “policyholder”, they are provided coverage according to the terms of their policy. That’s why they call them policyholders.
And the execs do not make “profits” by denying coverage. Execs are paid salaries and bonuses.
You don’t seem to understand business very well, ken. If a company consistantly denies providing a service for which they have contracted to supply, they soon go out of business. Even you should understand that.
And, cite the Biblical injunction against profit, please.
Jim commented:
I’m sorry; I like the sentiment that Congress is wrongly demonizing the insurance companies, but the comparison is wrong here. There’s a big difference between profits and salary increases. If we are to make a legitimate comparison, what was the percentage increase in salaries among insurance executives?
Incidentally, it should probably be less than it is because the Gov says compensation should be connected to the successes of the business, and they have been unable to improve their profits.
(Looks like Mahon beat me to the point anyway.)
People's Front of Judea commented:
Incidentally, it should probably be less than it is because the Gov says compensation should be connected to the successes of the business, and they have been unable to improve their profits.
Well then, according to this metric, Congress’ salaries and perks should be declining, not increasing.
Guess Who commented:
You’re comparing congressional increases in salary to health insurance profit margins. And profit margins is a stupid way of comparing something like this anyway. You should be looking at return on equity or something like that.
By the way, I agree that Congress shouldn’t be getting raises right now either, but that has nothing to do with health insurance.
Ken commented:
Solaratov,
I have notihng against profit; I have something against the very rich profitting hugely off of the most needy.
Have you never had to talk with a doctor about whether or not insurance will pay for a certain consultation or treatment? Insurance companies, like all companies, are sometimes less than decent and good for their promies, and they fight to deny policyholders coverage for insured conditions. The increased profit for the insurance industry allows industry execs to get larger salaries and bonuses.
If a company consistantly denies providing a service for which they have contracted to supply, they soon go out of business.
That would be true if they were alone in doing so.
drjohn commented:
Hey- I know a dumbass President who claimed that insurance companies have been “wildly profitable” over the last decade.
Guess Who commented:
Hey- I know a dumbass President who claimed that insurance companies have been “wildly profitable” over the last decade.
Well, they have been. What’s your point?
People\'s Front of Judea commented:
Then let’s tie congressional raises and perks to the programs that they create. If the program achieves the stated goal and comes in under/on budget, they get a raise. If the program fails to achieve the goal and goes over budget—no soup for you!
LytnUp commented:
Aren’t the raises that Congress gifts itself sufficiently obscene without false analogies? If we didn’t give them raises, would they quit and look elsewhere?
Why, by the way, are House/Senate salaries not determined by the states? It seems odd that once an employee is hired, they get to set their own pay rate. Sure, you can fire them, but you can only hire the new one at the new and improved rate. Perhaps, if we are to acknowledge that things in politics often seem to follow logic opposite that of the rest of the world, we should have a salary structure that starts at a certain rate and then decreases the longer that politician stays, in accordance with their level of exposure to beltway flu. Perhaps they could get paid bonuses for working shorter hours.
drjohn commented:
Seriously, why does no one in the mainstream media ever bother to fact check Obama?
WhoDat commented:
Ken
October 25th, 2009 | 10:09 am | #17
re: “I have nothing against profit; I have something against the very rich profiting hugely off of the most needy.”
Well, whom do you propose they profit off of – just the middle class? How do you believe the very rich accumulated their wealth, from the lottery? From my observations, it’s been principally many years of 14 hour days – whereas the less well-to-do hunger after a 32 hour work week and wonder why they can’t get 4 weeks of vacation a year.
Chisum commented:
“By the way, I agree that Congress shouldn’t be getting raises right now either, but that has nothing to do with health insurance.”
It has everything to do with this administration demonizing certain industries profit margin.
Profits are BAD, unless BO says it’s not.
This administration has made the insurance industries’ profits the center point of the need for “healthcare insurance reform”. Without this meme they will have to accuse doctors and nurses of being greedy, or patients of being too demanding, or something. Make no mistake, SOMEONE will be demonized. It’s the Chicago way!
Ken commented:
WhoDat, I said profit “hugely.” That’s what I object to.
Beyond that, I think there is something to what you say. Many of the most wealthy have worked very hard for what they have. But many struggling people who have been given fewer brains and opportunities and more handicaps work those 14-hour days too. And it’s just wrong them to go needy when there is wealth enough to help them.
Guess Who commented:
It has everything to do with this administration demonizing certain industries profit margin.
OK, so Congress would deserve a raise as long as they didn’t demonize any industries? We ran a $1.4 trillion deficit last year, Congress shouldn’t be getting a raise even if it’s a very small amount of that $1.4 trillion.
Chisum commented:
“WhoDat, I said profit “hugely.” That’s what I object to.”
==============================
Let me guess. YOU get to decide what is “hugely”.
Oh, and if you think that people get “rich” by working eight hour days you are delusional. But because YOU feel that they have been gifted with more brains and opportunities YOU should make them give their “excess” wealth to those YOU feel are less fortunate.
Did it ever occur to YOU that they have a stronger work ethic?
And who are YOU to decide?
LytnUp commented:
I have no doubt that the wildly profitable insurance companies can be replaced by a wildly unprofitable publicly managed system that is constantly tweaked by politicians who want it to appeal to the demographic of the week by flogging the villain of the week.
Chisum commented:
Guess Who = Davein NYC/Nobody.
Same dishonesty and dissemulation.
gus commented:
Ken, the rich are the ones that pay the taxes so failure libtards like you don’t starve.
The rich are the ones who invest in society and create jobs so your 2 Dads can provide you with panties and cheerios.
Ken you’re not real bright, but don’t worry, the RICH are the ones that pay taxes so you can collect food stamps and welfare.
Being poor or being a failure isn’t a good thing.
Ken you are a leech.
gus commented:
Obama spent over 800 milion dollars to get elected, don’t you libtards find that offensive.
Think of how many LIBTARDS that could have fed and clothed. Isn’t that immoral?
gus commented:
Profits are bad unless it’s Obama reaping the profits.
Obama collected a half million dollar book advance 5 days before taking office.
Does that bother you Ken?
Chisum commented:
Gus,
The end justifies the means, donchaknow?
Ken said so.
gus commented:
Libtards, do a cursory google of HEINZ PROFITS, then tell us about greed.
Otter commented:
Hmmm. A 2.8% raise for congress, but NO C.O.L.A. for senior citizens.
These guys are snubbing their voting base right and left recently.
Lee Rallings commented:
Related parody: Obama Credits Handful of Green Eyeshades with His Decision to Radically Reinvent Entire Health Care System http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-credits-handful-of-green.html
WhoDat commented:
Ken
October 25th, 2009 | 10:36 am | #25
re: “But many struggling people who have been given fewer brains and opportunities and more handicaps work those 14-hour days too. And it’s just wrong them to go needy when there is wealth enough to help them.”
OK. And so, what’s your point?
BACK TO BASICS: Life is fair. Everyone is given a limited amount of resources and it’s up to them to use those resources. The only constant is TIME. Everyone is given the same amount of time, 1440 minutes per day, to spend as they wish.
One person has more resources (abilities, ambition, etc) than another: tough, time to ‘nut up’, as they say. To consistently and constantly be supplying another segment of societies needs is an insult to their humanity. Short term relief aside, it’s a total waste on everyone’s part. Even with short term relief, repayment needs to be made – sucking air does not qualify anyone for anything. Even birds know enough to kick Jr. out of the nest at the appropriate time.
One thing that has always puzzled me is that although liberals consistently want to ‘help’ their fellow man, they never want to impoverish themselves to do so. There always has to be that ‘social boundary’ visible for everyone to see – and they always trumpet their good deeds. Sickening. AND, off-topic, while I’m at it, why don’t more liberals and atheists volunteer to be part of Darwin’s grand theory? Selection of the ‘fittest’ obviously applies only to them. Liberals love prisoner rehabilitation and women’s rights (abortion) – keep the rapist alive & kill the baby!
Ken commented:
One person has more resources (abilities, ambition, etc) than another: tough, time to ‘nut up’, as they say.
Time for _them_ to toughen up, that’s true, but what about our part? What does the scripture say about caring for the poor?
One thing that has always puzzled me is that although liberals consistently want to ‘help’ their fellow man, they never want to impoverish themselves to do so.
You’re puzzled by human selfishness? One thing that bothers me about liberal _and_ conservative Christians is how little we evidently really care about the needy. Forget the American poor if you think they’re undeserving — what about the Third World poor? Think of all the money most of us spend on luxuries. That money could save lives. Obviously we don’t really care. That bothers me a lot, and when I saw “we,” I mean “we.”
Norman Kirk commented:
What incredibly low discourse. It appears that the barbarians have entered the gates. Do you kiss your children with those lips?
gus commented:
Ken we have luxuries because we have Capitalism. We give more to other nations than any country in history. You LIBTARDS want to destroy the best system any nation has ever known in order to pacify the LOSER LIBTARDS. Meanwhile back at the KOBE BEEF STORE, Opie is eating and drinking like a king, Nancy Peloser is rich and flying in luxury, John Kerry is riding his windsurfer and Gulfstream and you fux want businesses to stop profiting.
The profit goes to the stockholders who retire on that money. Liberalism is a disease.
People's Front of Judea commented:
Third World poor? Ken, how much aid has been given to Africa? How many missionaries have gone there? Ever heard of the Peace Corps? George Bush sent more money and aid to Africa than anyone in history, and what effect did it have?
If it were just a matter of money and resources, Africa would be one of the wealthiest places on earth. Aren’t we constantly told what a rich culture Africans possess? At some point, the choice of better leadership should be sought.
My bet is that the young women who graduate from Oprah’s school will opt for a better life in the USA and bring their family with them, rather than remain in Africa and help their fellow countrymen.
Good luck with your Christian stewardship! I’m sure it serves you well in your effort to gain entry into your Father’s House.
Ken commented:
Good luck with your Christian stewardship! I’m sure it serves you well in your effort to gain entry into your Father’s House.
Sheesh. I know I’m saved by grace and grace alone, thanks. You too, despite your insult.
and what effect did it have?
It saved lives. No many can’t change everything, but when people are starving, food will keep them alive.
People's Front of Judea commented:
Modern farming and public utilities would go a lot further in improving their situation, but they’d rather kill each other. Most of the aid is syphoned off by their “supposed” leaders”, or stolen by warlords, that’s why they’re still starving. Please keep deluding yourself that foreign aid helps those that actually need it, rather than face the fact that organizations like the UN end up empowering the tyrants that couldn’t care less about the starving masses.
Hey, maybe the Human Rights Commission could do a report on it…oh wait, they’d rather do a report on the housing problem in the US. Funny that!
Ken commented:
People’s, do you think Christian aid agencies do no good?
Solaratov commented:
Norman Kirk
October 25th, 2009 | 12:43 pm | #40
What incredibly low discourse. It appears that the barbarians have entered the gates. Do you kiss your children with those lips?
.Yeah. What do you kiss yours with?
People's Front of Judea commented:
Temporarily, yes! Long term, no! BTW, do you agree that they’re still starving regardless of the aid? It may make you feel better, but it doesn’t address the systemic problems, and basically keeps the same people in power to the detriment of the poor. This may seem cynical, but as I wrote earlier, if money and resources were the solution, Africa would be self sufficient by now.
SomeOtherSteve commented:
I posted an article on my blog Friday called “What is price gouging?” In it I compared net profits from some companies in vastly different industries. I specifically selected Exxon-Mobil and Wal-Mart since they are often the focus as companies that are evil profiteers. As an afterthought I added Aetna since that company has gained publicity lately over the Obamacare crap. Little did I know that the AP would follow my lead and dig deeper.
Evil Otto commented:
Ken,
You are free to spend as much of your time and money as you wish helping the poor. You are free to attempt to convince others to do the same.
That’s not what is going on right now. Currently, money is being TAKEN from some to be given to others, all in the name of fairness. It’s the easiest thing in the world to be generous with other people’s money.
How much money has this country poured down the rat-hole of public welfare? How much have we spent on food stamps, welfare, and other “poverty-fighting” programs over the last few decades?
Trillions, Ken. TRILLIONS.
What amount is enough? At what point do we say “no more?” Right now our economy is staggering under the burden of social spending, and yet the left demands more.
crystal commented:
gus
October 25th, 2009 | 10:52 am | #30
… the rich are the ones that pay the taxes so failure libtards like you don’t starve.
The rich are the ones who invest in society and create jobs so your 2 Dads can provide you with panties and cheerios.
Ken you’re not real bright, but don’t worry, the RICH are the ones that pay taxes so you can collect food stamps and welfare.
Being poor or being a failure isn’t a good thing.
Excellent. The rich are those who eat at resturaunts and TIP their servers. They vacation at resorts and hotels, where people WORK. Rich people have discretiaonary funds to spend, and as a result people are provided jobs.
I took a break from grad school to pursue my dream, and started a business. As you know. Yet it feels as if I have less money now, than I did BEFORE. Actually, I HAVE LESS MONEY than I did before. It’s alot of sacrificing right now…I count every nickle and dime. I can’t spend what I am earning, it goes right back into my business.
I now understand that it takes determination, and WILL to keep going under pressure. I still work. At two different jobs. I am saying this because I think I’m so great. I’m not, but GOD is.
We have all been given gifts and talents from God. We all have a choice to take the risk, and utilize them. We all have the dame opportunity to supply and good or service, and to make it happen. For some, it may take years. Some, months.
crystal commented:
sorry about typos. those were rather painful:-)
Hypogean commented:
Check it out: As Congress gets raises, Obama is laying the groundwork for regulating the pay of all CEOs in the U.S.:
The guidelines would let banks set their own compensation but give the Fed veto power over pay practices that it determines could threaten the safety and soundness of a bank. They would extend the regulators’ reach into pay practices affecting tens of thousands of bank employees, from senior executives to traders of complex securities…
Putting aside defense firms — which exist on government funds — there are thousands and thousands of companies which get local, county, state or federal contracts. Does every executive of each of those companies fall under the same rule?
Should the Governor of Missouri decide how much the owner of the company which provides the janitorial services in the State House in Jefferson City can earn because he takes State money? Or, the executives of airlines on which government employees fly?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/25/could-see-this-coming/
You know who tried this before? Nixon. And it bombed. It’ll bomb now, too, and go a long way to destroying the Democrats.
Pat the First commented:
The largest health insurance companies are non-profit. CEO’s bonuses/paycheck is hardly the problem.
The problems are the need for tort reform and portability. Fix those . . . health insurance issues are a long way to be solved. PERIOD!
Evil Otto commented:
test
Callipygian1 commented:
Because the person that thought of the pay cap for CEO’s has a brain of a goldfish, I have to wonder when the first stories will appear detailing how subordinates are making more than their bosses, and how CEO’s are purposely taking demotions for pay raises…
Make it Happen commented:
Forcing insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions, is akin to allowing someone to call and place homowners coverage while they’re watching their house burn down.
One can argue for coverage on pre-existing conditions, but it’s not insurance. It’s a giveaway. Insurance balances cost versus risk, there’s an underwriting process. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, destroys the underwriting process, throws the risk versus cost ratio out the window, and someone ends up paying for it.
It’s still amazing to me that a single person is willing to buy into this notion that government healthcare is (1) going to be budget neutral, (2) not result in worse care, and (3) won’t result in an increase tax burden on the middle class down the road.
liberalsabide commented:
MakeItHappen, they’d crown zero king if they could, hoping for the “enlightened despot” to create an utopian monarchy.
jjones commented:
Comparing these two numbers makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
Eric the Red commented:
Evil Otto
Excellent point, but Ken will never get it. He would rather throw around leftward pablum than accept obvious logic.
Eric the Red commented:
Make it Happen
You are right on and to think they may destroy the economy of this great nation in the name of fairness.
liberalsabide commented:
Believing government run healthcare will be deficit neutral, provide better care, or cover everyone makes no sense.
LytnUp commented:
Unfortunately, when congress trains its sights on something, it is most informative to look back down the barrel of the shotgun, even though you are likely to get shot for doing so.
If it did not involve our tax dollars it would be comical to hear congress throwing the “broken” moniker at anything. What is the opposite of “Midas touch”?
Guess Who commented:
Ken, the rich are the ones that pay the taxes so failure libtards like you don’t starve.
gus, what have you been a success at in your life?
Chisum commented:
What is the opposite of “Midas touch”?
===========================
Stink Finger?
liberalsabide commented:
Gus has been successful at making fun of @$$hats like you, Guess Who! What’s your claim to success. Please let’s hear about your advanced degrees, abundant wealth and you beautiful cabana boy. As if stating anything on a blog comment section is meaningful, or true.
Where’s Dave Noble when you need a good, “my IQ is…” comment?
Ken commented:
Currently, money is being TAKEN from some to be given to others, all in the name of fairness. It’s the easiest thing in the world to be generous with other people’s money.
Yes it is, but to be consistent, shouldn’t you oppose almost all social programs, including Medicare? Are you a libertarian?
SomeOtherSteve commented:
Ken, I believe that is the fallacy of “If you disapprove of one, you must disapprove of all.”
After all, if you do think it’s fair, do you take all money you have left over after expenses and give it to others, forsaking any savings for yourself? Do you take from your place of work and give the proceeds to the poor?
Chisum commented:
Harry Reid’s Vivid Imagination
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s comments about American business during the health care debate could fill a thesaurus of inanity. Just last week, while the Majority Leader was appearing as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid told this whopper:
As for insurance companies, “There isn’t anything we could do to satisfy them in this health care bill. Nothing,” Reid said. “They are so anti-competitive. Why? Because they make more money than any other business in America today… What a sweet deal they have.”
It is uninformed, moronic demagoguery such as this that passes for debate in the world’s greatest deliberative body.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/10/25/harry-reids-vivid-imagination-1.php
Ken commented:
Steve, I think liberals and conservatives can debate what is and isn’t fair taxation, but if someone complains about the very principle of money being taken from the rich to help the poor, that person ought to be a libertarian and make darn sure not to take more from the public till than they put in.
No I don’t give all my disposable income to charity, as I said earlier. I’m too selfish. That bothers me, and it bothers me that the standards most of us, including the people I respect the most, hold ourselves to such low standards.
Evil Otto commented:
Yes it is, but to be consistent, shouldn’t you oppose almost all social programs, including Medicare?
Yes. I do.
However, money is TAKEN from me for Medicare against my wishes. If I could get out of these programs I would do so without hesitation. I am not given the option. Even if I never use Medicare, my money is taken from me to pay for it. Social Security will be long bankrupt by the time I am ready to retire, but I am given no option to opt out.
Forced charity, designed to buy votes and soothe the consciences of liberals. It is wrong, and you know it.
Are you a libertarian?
Yes, proudly so.
In any case, you really didn’t address my point or answer my questions. How much have we spent in this country on social programs? How much is enough?
And why do you think it is morally right to force charity?
Ken commented:
Otto, thanks for the response. I don’t have the knowledge or wisdom to know the answer to your first two questions. I do know that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that the first Christians held all things in common.
Believe me, it galls me to see how so of the poor take advantage of the rest of us. I have worked in social services and seen that happen first hand. Still, Christ calls us to extend a hand to the truly needy, and as private individuals we do a lot of that but still leave many without help. And for that reason I favor involving the government, and once we do that, some people will game the system and take advantage of us.
Still, is there anyway to help all the needy without being taken advantage of? And what’s worse, to be taken advantage of or not to help the truly needy?
Stephen commented:
Poor is a relative term, and has lost all meaning in the modern world. The overwhelming majority of the people listed as ‘poor’ in the US really aren’t, indeed they are considered middle class by European standards. They have homes or apartments, their own TV sets, internet connections, running hot and cold water, electricity, plenty of food and even used cars. They aren’t the best off, however compared to the historical meaning of poor, they are aristocrats.
Now shift back 100 years when there were actually poor people in the US, you know the people who were forced to live in groups of 10 in a 1 room apartment, if they had shelter of their own at all. Also back when people had no reliable source of food, people who worked 14 hour days to support themselves and their families, people who couldn’t afford the time for schooling for their children because they needed them to help keep the family sheltered. This definition, the true definition of poverty goes back to ancient times when you actually had poverty.
How anyone can say the two are anywhere near the same is beyond all logic. It is like describing the US casualties in Iraq to the losses of Poland in WWII (4,000 out of 300,000,000 vs 6,800,000 out of 35,000,000). Now there are poor people in the US, however the bulk of the welfare money doesn’t go to support them, it goes to the European-standard middle class.
Now among the pseudo-poor, there are a good chunk who have abandoned working hard to be able to up their TV broadcasting from normal to HD, who instead have been poisoned by greed and envy. They support anyone who will keep their welfare checks coming, because they have been indoctrinated into believing that they ‘deserve’ this money, that it is really ‘theirs’, that they ‘earned it.’ Such is the platform of much of the hard left, here in the US, in Europe, everywhere. Scapegoaters who blame the ‘evil rich’ for their misfortunes and who lead bitter and angry lives, acting much like small children.
With regard to such people, I have no pity, indeed I pity those who they scapegoat. I would not give them anything, but instead would donate money to those who are grateful for help and trying to succeed. In short, help the helpless, not the clueless, for ‘helping’ the clueless is just as bad for them as ‘helping’ an alcoholic by buying them a bottle of whiskey.
With regard to taxation, the only type of tax which is fair and just to all is a flat rate income tax. And that would be the only tax, commodities taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes and capitol gains taxes all being eliminated, save on the state and municipal level. Thus everyone pays the same percentage of their income regardless of how much they make.
In so doing, they all have an equal right before the law. The current system where by over a third of wage-earners pay nothing in federal taxes is beyond insane. If you pay no taxes, you shouldn’t be able to vote, because your putting nothing in the pot. Letting people who pay no taxes vote on how your money is spent is akin to having your next-door neighbor being able to dictate to you what you do with your paycheck, even though they earned nothing.
Ken commented:
What about women who pay no taxes but serve wellborn students their food every morning, having had no time to go to school and learn real skills, and from those meager wages support children abandoned by their fathers? You paint with a very broad brush, Stephen. So much of ability is either inherited genetically or culturally, and we do wrong to presume credit for it.
Stephen commented:
“If I could get out of these programs I would do so without hesitation. I am not given the option. Even if I never use Medicare, my money is taken from me to pay for it. Social Security will be long bankrupt by the time I am ready to retire, but I am given no option to opt out.”
I know what you mean. I was told the history of my family, well my father’s side and Social Security. It began in the 30s when FDR passed SS. My great-grandfather, a cattle rancher in Wyoming, was infuriated regarding the ‘legalized theft’ as he called it. He paid his taxes and thus had the money leached from him, but he got nothing, dying at the age of 54. My grandfather paid more into the system but also got nothing, dying at the age of 60.
Then comes my father. A small business owner for 32 years (17 years as a member of a triple partnership and 15 as sole owner), he was forced to pay huge sums of money into ‘the system’ due to being an employer. Now his business was never massive, at its average consisted of 8 stores (all leased), a warehouse (rented) and 100 employees.
Now how much money did my family loose to the government? If I were to guess, it would be in the neighborhood of $4,000,000.00, most of which being taken from my father. Some may say he’s rich, but assume that as of the current value of the USD he paid in average, $150,000.00 into the system as sole owner of the business due to the ‘corporate obligation.’ That’s $2,250,000.00 right there. Add $50,000.00 for the 17 years of when he was a part owner and you get an additional $850,000.00 for a subtotal of $3,100,000.00. Then one has his individual taxes over that 32 year time period combined with the taxes paid by my grandfather and great grandfather and it’s not hard to imagine that amounting up to an additional $900,000.00.
Given how you get roughly $12,000.00 per year from SS nowadays, it would take 333 years to pay my father back what his family is owed, or until his 398th birthday.
People's Front of Judea commented:
Ah, I see Ken is still pushing his Christian Stewardship meme when confronted with his “theories” regarding the poor. Ohnoes, it’s for the wymens and childr’n!!1!eleventy!!1!
You’re nothing more than a poverty pimp, serving up a steaming pile social justice in order to justify your paycheck.
The Lord loves a working man, don’t trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it. … Navin R. Johnson
Evil Otto commented:
“Otto, thanks for the response. I don’t have the knowledge or wisdom to know the answer to your first two questions.”
The first is available on the internet. The second is an opinion. Not that difficult.
“I do know that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that the first Christians held all things in common.”
Christ said nothing about taking from one in order to give to another. “Loving your neighbors” in no way implies you have that right. In fact, quite the opposite, as by taking money from one person you are showing them no love.
“Believe me, it galls me to see how so of the poor take advantage of the rest of us. I have worked in social services and seen that happen first hand.”
I’ve seen it in my job as well. I’ve also seen many people who were perfectly capable of working reduced to wards of the state, dependent on the government for their money. They are kept in a perpetual state of poverty by the government, their ambition is siphoned away, and they spend year after year doing *nothing*. Is that helping them?
“Still, Christ calls us to extend a hand to the truly needy, and as private individuals we do a lot of that but still leave many without help.”
1- I am not a Christian. Christ’s calls are not an argument for taking my money. 2- People’s needs are not a claim on that money either.
Is that selfish? Yes. Clearly it is. I’m a realist, and if the social safety net were minimal and temporary I could live with it. But that’s not what we have. We’ve taken TRILLIONS from people to give to others, trillions that could have been spent in other ways. The government is a bloated, ever-growing monstrosity that consumes more and more of our money.
Giving money to charity is a noble thing to do, and I do so, along with volunteer work. But I do so because I want to, not because I am forced to do so.
“government, and once we do that, some people will game the system and take advantage of us.”
You favor forced charity. There’s another word for that, Ken: THEFT.
What would Christ think of that?
“Still, is there anyway to help all the needy without being taken advantage of?”
No.
“And what’s worse, to be taken advantage of or not to help the truly needy?”
Then help them. But you have no right to forcibly take money from some to help them. It is not Christian, it is LAZY. It is a way of feeling that you’re helping people without real effort. Like I said, forced charity is merely a way for liberals to soothe their guilty consciences and for politicians to buy votes.
And it’s one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.
People\'s Front of Judea commented:
Well stated Otto. Ken has twisted the meaning of charity to fit his politics, which is quite dishonest, but it suits his needs. Christ didn’t go around telling others of his deeds. Yet, Ken never fails to inform us of his deeds and good intentions. It’s all about Ken. Ken’s right about one thing, he is selfish.
Guess Who commented:
Just asking again, in case he missed it the first time:
gus, what have you been successful at in your life?
What’s your claim to success. Please let’s hear about your advanced degrees, abundant wealth and you beautiful cabana boy. As if stating anything on a blog comment section is meaningful, or true.
liberalsabide, I’m fortunate enough to have a great life, but since I don’t spend my time trolling around the Internet calling other people failures, I don’t have to prove it to anyone.
Guess Who commented:
And my claim to success on an anonymous website like this is that I actually know what I’m talking about. For example, I know the difference between a salary increase and a profit margin, which puts me ahead of most of the people around here, including the host.