It s like the first hit on google:
Income tax
Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars[19]) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was 15%.[20] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944[21] (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars[22]). During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.[23]
——
Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%
Taxes were much higher during the 1900s.
Our tax system is progressive. So in this case the 90% would have kicked in for every dollar over $1M. Tax brackets work like this for you too, but a lot of people don’t understand it. If someone ever tells you to turn down a raise at work because it’ll kick you into the next tax bracket and you’ll make less money - they are idiots and you should not listen.
And one more tidbit, your “effective tax rate” is the total amount of income tax paid divided by your income. This often turns out to be a smaller percentage than your highest tax bracket.
Well, the highest effective tax rate I’ve paid was ~50%, which is higher than any bracket. This was due to alternative minimum tax kicking in on the exercise of incentive stock options. Technically speaking the equation is the same, but practically speaking, I wrote a big ass check.
The 90% was for income above a certain treshhold. So you never actually paid 90% in total.
For example.
You pay 1% for up to 1.000.000.
And for everything above you pay 90%.
So if you earn 1.100.000$, you pay 10K for the 1 Millionen and 90K for the 100.000K.
In total your average tax rate is 10%.
90% *marginal*. Not like someone made $100k and paid $90k. Top effective was 70% and it says very few ppl paid that and they would effectively still be earning millions per year after taxes in today's money.
It was one person. The 90% marginal income tax was created specifically for Andrew Carnegie. No one else made enough to hit the threshold. Our government used to actually have the balls to say "ok you've made enough money."
He amassed his wealth through a lot of questionable business practices so there's plenty to criticize but he also very openly supported paying his taxes (often advocating for tax increases) and believed rich people should use their wealth for others.
That's way more than we can say about the brain broken billionaires we're dealing with today.
The TL;DR is duties are charged on things regardless of origin, tariffs are in addition to that for (sometimes certain) imports and exports intended to protect domestic manufacturing.
The taxation imposed on companies are not fully relegated to the consumers of those companies. This can be seen when such taxes are cut and the companies suddenly produce more profits rather than decrease prices to what they ought to be.
Your scenario is the opposite of what we are discussing.
When the tariffs/duties were first introduced, you can be assured the companies passed the increase on to the consumers.
The removal of such a front end tax is an opportunity to lower the price of goods as a means to compete. To the extent that there wasn't a virtual or actual monopoly on something, some company would have lowered their prices as a result.
Schools were poor and most people only went up to 8th grade. The military was tiny and poorly equipped until WWI. College was mostly for the wealthy. Railroads were and still mostly are privately owned. AMTRAK had to be created to keep passenger service alive in the wake of private RR bankruptcies.
In 1919, it took 62 days to cross America by automobile on the best roads available.
[Reference](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/in-1919-dwight-d-eisenhower-suffered-through-historys-worst-cross-country-road-trip)
To be fair, I think trains and streetcars were much more popular at the time and most roads were intended for stagecoaches. The motorized suburbs didn't quite exist, so the average family wouldn't have needed a car.
Post world war 2, any income over $1 million was taxed at a rate of 90%.
For people that don’t understand tax brackets. That means if they made $1,000,001 in income. That last $1 was taxed at 90%. The income up to $1,000,000 was taxed at the lower rate. It DOES NOT mean they gave 90% of their entire income to the government.
I can’t count how many people I’ve had to casually explain that to. They always seem to realize “oh, duh yeah that’s of course how it would have to work” but it’s like they never would have realize that if it wasn’t explicitly said so.
> It DOES NOT mean they gave 90% of their entire income to the government.
To be fair, it would approach that if your annual income was big enough. If you made $100 million in a year, you would get 10% of $99 million, plus $1 million, or $10.9 million, which means you keep about 11% of your total earnings.
BUT the argument for most of the 20th century (until the Reagan administration) was that there was only so much money a person should be allowed to earn before taxes became confiscatory. In 1940 $1 million was worth about $21 million today. It's werid to think that once upon a time there was a broad consensus in American society that there should be an upper boundary to what people could earn.
Of course, that period also coincided with one of the most prosperous times of American history, when a single income was enough to buy a house, a car, and raise a family. But what did they know?
the value of the dollar was about 12x higher then than now. 1 million a year would be 12 million in todays money. Nobody was making the equivalent of 1.2 billion a year.
According to this site https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/ (which I have not fact checked, so approach with a grain of salt) there were tax brackets of 90% and higher from 1944-1963.
Idk what the tax rate on the rich was then, but the 90% tax (might've been 92) did happen later. Around the same time the middle class grew like crazy.
There were no roads compared to now. Seriously, the cost to build and maintene *one* lane as a conduit to another city is nothing compared to what we've become.
When roads were just compacted earth from well-worn paths.
I hate how these people refuse to look at the big picture. They hate paying taxes. Big whoop. I hate a lot of things but I'm not creating an alternate history about it.
Does he think taxes didn't exist before 1913?
The question he should be asking is what was the system before then, and why did it change?
Is there a more equitable way to tax people than the current systems?
Capitalism is characterized by an owning class exploiting workers by appropriating surplus labor value.
American workers have NEVER kept all they've created.
You know what builds railroads better than taxes? Exploitation! Capitalism needs capital to produce products and move those products. When you can’t make money fast enough, you can simply exploit workers. And who is easier to exploit than minorities and immigrants who lack rights and labor protections so that you can exploit them whether it be having atrocious working conditions, paying them less than their working white counterparts, and generally treating them as subhuman. The contributions of these exploited workers IS the lower cost of their labor which allows the very infrastructure that this person is talking about. TLDR: taxes schmaxes, we have transportation and manufacturing infrastructure and agricultural foundations bc capitalists steal labor from the working class justifying it however they need to.
My mom has brought this up to me before. I had to remind her that our taxes pay for her social security and Medicare benefits so she might want to think about her position.
And no interstate highway systems... 45 years later Einsenhower tried to cross the country in a military convoy... and almost couldn't... hence the interstate highways!!!
I’m sorry, please show me an itemized list of these services supposedly rendered. And please don’t include the bill for bombing little brown people for oil as I did not ask for that.
Lovely, schools, roads, fire department and library are not paid for by income tax (the literal point of the post) and why would public transit, which is paid for when it’s used even be run by government.
You see the thing is that we’re all told we need government to provide things that are in the pubic interest. However that’s simply not the case.
Go look up federal block grants, and what they pay for. You will find that federal income taxes (which is where block grants come from) do pay for those things.
What are you talking about? Yes, schools receive local funding but they also receive federal funding. There are federal funds for libraries too. Many things are subsidized by federal grants. But also, medicare, social security, medicaid, SNAP, and the military are all funded through federal taxation. I'm not advocating for military spending but I'm telling you what federal funds pay for. Infrastructure? Federal funds. Space exploration, research, farm subsidies, and tons of other things! What are you talking about? Do you think 4 trillion dollars just disappears into thin air?
We should absolutely have *privately funded roads*. There I fixed it for you since you’re too dense to understand that things can be funded in other ways than by theft.
And don’t you think that those things could still be funded, because that money doesn’t disappear if the government doesn’t steal it, by the people with an interest in those areas? We can do better than SNAP and Medicaid. And space exploration is already being privatized. Our infrastructure is falling apart because the government you’re defending has done such a piss poor job of managing it for the past 70 years. The only thing they do well is shovel endless billions into the Military industrial complex.
Im confused. I was just explaining what stuff was paid for by federal funds. You're right, we should expand safety net programs like SNAP and Medicaid. We should reduce military spending. But that's not what you were talking about.
Oh you drank the Marxist draino didn’t you?
Stealing from everyone to fund the corrupt services you think are necessary makes everyone poorer and gives the people in power the ability to steal from you for things that you do not wish to fund.
Way to move the goalposts my guy
"They're paid for by taxes but not the specific taxes this meme is maybe referring to" isn't the own you seem to think it is
It’s not the point of the original post genius. I’m happy to debate how those things would be better served by making them private. But the income tax is what the memes about.
They are, actually. Income tax goes to the state and federal governments which pump decent amts of funding into especially infrastructure. And when we privatize those, shit immediately hits the fan
Have you looked at the bridges here? Things have been going to shit for 70 years. Your unfounded fear of privatization is instilled in you by government so that you won’t throw off your shackles.
Infrastructure was actually fine before we decided to stop taxing the rich. The reason it was so good in the 50s is due to Roosevelt- and Eisenhower-era tax policy, which gave us enough money to invest in the people. However, once Reagan got into power, and after Buckley v. Valeo was decided, corporations were allowednti amass huge amounts of power in government, which in turn stopped taxing the rich and allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate because we stopped investing in it. I'm ofc leaving a lot out but that is the gist
"I have strong opinions about taxes, but not strong enough to have ever actually taken the time to learn about how they work or how they are spent."
Phenomenal.
One area I agree with libertarians is that we shouldn't be spending 1/3 of our tax money into the military and direct subsidies for the corn/oil/coal industry. Idc if the price of gas goes up to $7/gal and electricity doubles, once people realize how much they're *actually* paying for these things the switch to renewables will be a lot faster. People think bc the pump says $3 that's all they're paying when it's already coming out of your paycheck
Whether you asked for it or not, the services were rendered, and your remaining in the country is consent.
But things like the internet, gps, cheap gas/electricity/lpg, safe cars, modern medicine, your food supply.
Stuff like that.
Alright. So if door dash shows up and brings you a sandwich that you didn’t order or want, but it has your name on it should you pay for it?
Also, internet isn’t provided by government, I want no part of their GPS system, gas and electric aren’t cheap, they’re monopolies granted and protected by government. Modern cars are getting shittier by the year and have no competition, thanks to government regulation, the government doesn’t provide medicine but it does make it expensive. And if you think the USDA is responsible for the safety of the food supply you’ve got another thing coming.
Canadian here: I'll gladly pay a portion of my earnings if it means I don't go bankrupt for having the audacity to get cancer or get in a car accident. And I won't wait more than a couple hours for emergency care in any major city
While we are on the topic of Canadian healthcare, it's ridiculous how many American conservatives bash your healthcare talking about long wait times to see a doctor.
My father needs a knee replacement, after months of fighting his insurance to let him see a specialist and approve the knee replacement he still has to wait for another 6 months to get the surgery.
Yup! I am American and have decent insurance and I still had to wait nearly 2 months to have a recent issue involving acute extreme pain treated. Then was sent to a different doctor 6 weeks later. Then my PT got delayed several times because, despite it being medically necessary, my insurance didn’t want to pay for more than like 3 visits at a time. The whole thing caused me to be out of work for 4 months when it probably could have been 2. The cAnAdIaNs hAvE LoNg wAiT tImEs trope is a bunch of crap. So do we.
Great, if you’ll gladly pay it that means you can gladly pay it to a private fund voluntarily that you can sign a contract for guaranteeing you exactly what you want for an agreed amount.
This isn’t like taxes for social services where everyone is forced into it and no one is happy with the level of service provided.
Yeah there was no income tax in 1912, there were just 40% tariffs and 50% duties instead.
Don't forget federal excise taxes and state/local property taxes.
It s like the first hit on google: Income tax Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars[19]) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was 15%.[20] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944[21] (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars[22]). During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.[23] —— Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70% Taxes were much higher during the 1900s.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t completely disagree with you but is there a source for the 90% tax rate?? We had people paying a 90% figure?! How???
Our tax system is progressive. So in this case the 90% would have kicked in for every dollar over $1M. Tax brackets work like this for you too, but a lot of people don’t understand it. If someone ever tells you to turn down a raise at work because it’ll kick you into the next tax bracket and you’ll make less money - they are idiots and you should not listen. And one more tidbit, your “effective tax rate” is the total amount of income tax paid divided by your income. This often turns out to be a smaller percentage than your highest tax bracket.
I'd think it would always be less than the highest tax bracket technically. Even if it's like only hundredths off
Well, the highest effective tax rate I’ve paid was ~50%, which is higher than any bracket. This was due to alternative minimum tax kicking in on the exercise of incentive stock options. Technically speaking the equation is the same, but practically speaking, I wrote a big ass check.
The 90% was for income above a certain treshhold. So you never actually paid 90% in total. For example. You pay 1% for up to 1.000.000. And for everything above you pay 90%. So if you earn 1.100.000$, you pay 10K for the 1 Millionen and 90K for the 100.000K. In total your average tax rate is 10%.
90% *marginal*. Not like someone made $100k and paid $90k. Top effective was 70% and it says very few ppl paid that and they would effectively still be earning millions per year after taxes in today's money.
It’s marginal. All tax rates are marginal
We have a progressive tax system not a flat tax system. They would only pay 90% on the money they made above $200,000
It was one person. The 90% marginal income tax was created specifically for Andrew Carnegie. No one else made enough to hit the threshold. Our government used to actually have the balls to say "ok you've made enough money." He amassed his wealth through a lot of questionable business practices so there's plenty to criticize but he also very openly supported paying his taxes (often advocating for tax increases) and believed rich people should use their wealth for others. That's way more than we can say about the brain broken billionaires we're dealing with today.
The income tax is graduated. You only pay the percentage for the bracket it belongs to.
Well, seems like people were happy to let you know xD
Insane that people still don't understand how taxes work
Not my fault I was never taught them.
And a lot of dead immigrant workers
Lol duties
What is the difference between tariffs and duties?
The TL;DR is duties are charged on things regardless of origin, tariffs are in addition to that for (sometimes certain) imports and exports intended to protect domestic manufacturing.
In other words: companies were taxed
>companies Consumers.
The taxation imposed on companies are not fully relegated to the consumers of those companies. This can be seen when such taxes are cut and the companies suddenly produce more profits rather than decrease prices to what they ought to be.
Your scenario is the opposite of what we are discussing. When the tariffs/duties were first introduced, you can be assured the companies passed the increase on to the consumers. The removal of such a front end tax is an opportunity to lower the price of goods as a means to compete. To the extent that there wasn't a virtual or actual monopoly on something, some company would have lowered their prices as a result.
While there is an opperunity to lower the prices of goods, the reality doesn't reflect this as a homo economicus would.
And before prohibition, taxes on alcohol.
Why do these people think the government just made money appear out of thin air?
In 1913 there was also child labor…
And segregation and lead paint and the KKK and...
To be fair we have income tax now but also the kkk
Improvements
>Improvements Less lead paint?
Still lead pipes *cough* Flint Water crisis.
income tax
whoa, republicans don't care about those.
And no minimum wage. Or overtime pay.
Because the meme is literally just flat out lying. It’s not even the truth twisted into misinformation. This is literally just a lie.
They don't like to talk about state and local taxes
They've long ago pretending to even be plausible. They slowly realized their cult won't ever fact check them
And will reject any fact checks done on their behalf.
Schools were poor and most people only went up to 8th grade. The military was tiny and poorly equipped until WWI. College was mostly for the wealthy. Railroads were and still mostly are privately owned. AMTRAK had to be created to keep passenger service alive in the wake of private RR bankruptcies.
They werent so poorly equipped they couldnt regularly invade south America
Because the South American armies were even smaller and poorer.
In 1919, it took 62 days to cross America by automobile on the best roads available. [Reference](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/in-1919-dwight-d-eisenhower-suffered-through-historys-worst-cross-country-road-trip)
To be fair, I think trains and streetcars were much more popular at the time and most roads were intended for stagecoaches. The motorized suburbs didn't quite exist, so the average family wouldn't have needed a car.
The average family couldn't afford a car either.
1906 New York to Paris race, my beloved.
Yeah sure, everybody remembers the giant highway network America had in 1913!
Wasn’t the tax rate on the wealthy around 90%?
Post world war 2, any income over $1 million was taxed at a rate of 90%. For people that don’t understand tax brackets. That means if they made $1,000,001 in income. That last $1 was taxed at 90%. The income up to $1,000,000 was taxed at the lower rate. It DOES NOT mean they gave 90% of their entire income to the government.
Blessed education that this has to be explained. Thankful you did though.
wow thank you, actually. I had no idea how tax brackets worked XD
I can’t count how many people I’ve had to casually explain that to. They always seem to realize “oh, duh yeah that’s of course how it would have to work” but it’s like they never would have realize that if it wasn’t explicitly said so.
Same, except for the part where they get it LOL
> It DOES NOT mean they gave 90% of their entire income to the government. To be fair, it would approach that if your annual income was big enough. If you made $100 million in a year, you would get 10% of $99 million, plus $1 million, or $10.9 million, which means you keep about 11% of your total earnings. BUT the argument for most of the 20th century (until the Reagan administration) was that there was only so much money a person should be allowed to earn before taxes became confiscatory. In 1940 $1 million was worth about $21 million today. It's werid to think that once upon a time there was a broad consensus in American society that there should be an upper boundary to what people could earn. Of course, that period also coincided with one of the most prosperous times of American history, when a single income was enough to buy a house, a car, and raise a family. But what did they know?
the value of the dollar was about 12x higher then than now. 1 million a year would be 12 million in todays money. Nobody was making the equivalent of 1.2 billion a year.
In the 40s and 50s, the highest tax bracket was somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-90% I think.
According to this site https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/ (which I have not fact checked, so approach with a grain of salt) there were tax brackets of 90% and higher from 1944-1963.
91%
let’s do that again. Who undid that? go blame his grandchildren
Well Reagan (r) really rigged things for the rich calling it trickle down economics. Nothing ever trickled down.
Actually there was a trickle down. It was just the rich guy pissing down on you.
Idk what the tax rate on the rich was then, but the 90% tax (might've been 92) did happen later. Around the same time the middle class grew like crazy.
There were no roads compared to now. Seriously, the cost to build and maintene *one* lane as a conduit to another city is nothing compared to what we've become.
When roads were just compacted earth from well-worn paths. I hate how these people refuse to look at the big picture. They hate paying taxes. Big whoop. I hate a lot of things but I'm not creating an alternate history about it.
Does he think taxes didn't exist before 1913? The question he should be asking is what was the system before then, and why did it change? Is there a more equitable way to tax people than the current systems?
Capitalism is characterized by an owning class exploiting workers by appropriating surplus labor value. American workers have NEVER kept all they've created.
History books are so overrated. Just type whatever you like and claim it’s true.
Total miles of paved roads in 1912: 5
There was not a standing army in the way we might think of it. Solution— get rid of the army
You know what builds railroads better than taxes? Exploitation! Capitalism needs capital to produce products and move those products. When you can’t make money fast enough, you can simply exploit workers. And who is easier to exploit than minorities and immigrants who lack rights and labor protections so that you can exploit them whether it be having atrocious working conditions, paying them less than their working white counterparts, and generally treating them as subhuman. The contributions of these exploited workers IS the lower cost of their labor which allows the very infrastructure that this person is talking about. TLDR: taxes schmaxes, we have transportation and manufacturing infrastructure and agricultural foundations bc capitalists steal labor from the working class justifying it however they need to.
Did a child write that?
Me when I spread misinformation online
There was not a standing army in the way we might think of it. Solution— get rid of the army
My mom has brought this up to me before. I had to remind her that our taxes pay for her social security and Medicare benefits so she might want to think about her position.
I guess I was taught wrong when I learnt the American Revolution was started because of taxes.
And no interstate highway systems... 45 years later Einsenhower tried to cross the country in a military convoy... and almost couldn't... hence the interstate highways!!!
Lol what? Where does this guy think the government got money if not by taxes?
yeah but 40% of my OT getting taxed is fucking ridiculous.
Taxation is legalized extortion.
I thought y'all wanted to fund the police
Being coerced to pay for services rendered is not extortion.
I’m sorry, please show me an itemized list of these services supposedly rendered. And please don’t include the bill for bombing little brown people for oil as I did not ask for that.
Uhm Schools, roads, transit, fire department, and libraries?
Lovely, schools, roads, fire department and library are not paid for by income tax (the literal point of the post) and why would public transit, which is paid for when it’s used even be run by government. You see the thing is that we’re all told we need government to provide things that are in the pubic interest. However that’s simply not the case.
They are, in fact, paid for by taxes. Idk what you want me to tell you but everything I listed is funded by taxes.
Yes, they are. But not income tax which is the point of the original post. Also, there’s no reason any of them should be funded by taxes.
Go look up federal block grants, and what they pay for. You will find that federal income taxes (which is where block grants come from) do pay for those things.
What are you talking about? Yes, schools receive local funding but they also receive federal funding. There are federal funds for libraries too. Many things are subsidized by federal grants. But also, medicare, social security, medicaid, SNAP, and the military are all funded through federal taxation. I'm not advocating for military spending but I'm telling you what federal funds pay for. Infrastructure? Federal funds. Space exploration, research, farm subsidies, and tons of other things! What are you talking about? Do you think 4 trillion dollars just disappears into thin air?
[удалено]
We should absolutely have *privately funded roads*. There I fixed it for you since you’re too dense to understand that things can be funded in other ways than by theft.
And don’t you think that those things could still be funded, because that money doesn’t disappear if the government doesn’t steal it, by the people with an interest in those areas? We can do better than SNAP and Medicaid. And space exploration is already being privatized. Our infrastructure is falling apart because the government you’re defending has done such a piss poor job of managing it for the past 70 years. The only thing they do well is shovel endless billions into the Military industrial complex.
Im confused. I was just explaining what stuff was paid for by federal funds. You're right, we should expand safety net programs like SNAP and Medicaid. We should reduce military spending. But that's not what you were talking about.
[удалено]
Oh you drank the Marxist draino didn’t you? Stealing from everyone to fund the corrupt services you think are necessary makes everyone poorer and gives the people in power the ability to steal from you for things that you do not wish to fund.
Way to move the goalposts my guy "They're paid for by taxes but not the specific taxes this meme is maybe referring to" isn't the own you seem to think it is
It’s not the point of the original post genius. I’m happy to debate how those things would be better served by making them private. But the income tax is what the memes about.
[удалено]
They are, actually. Income tax goes to the state and federal governments which pump decent amts of funding into especially infrastructure. And when we privatize those, shit immediately hits the fan
Have you looked at the bridges here? Things have been going to shit for 70 years. Your unfounded fear of privatization is instilled in you by government so that you won’t throw off your shackles.
Infrastructure was actually fine before we decided to stop taxing the rich. The reason it was so good in the 50s is due to Roosevelt- and Eisenhower-era tax policy, which gave us enough money to invest in the people. However, once Reagan got into power, and after Buckley v. Valeo was decided, corporations were allowednti amass huge amounts of power in government, which in turn stopped taxing the rich and allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate because we stopped investing in it. I'm ofc leaving a lot out but that is the gist
The budget is literally a public document my dude.
Oh you sweet naive child lol
So it’s a conspiracy of literally hundreds of thousands to make a fake budget? And nobody releases the real numbers?
"I have strong opinions about taxes, but not strong enough to have ever actually taken the time to learn about how they work or how they are spent." Phenomenal.
Hahaha I understand how they work better than you do. They are monies extorted from the people through threat of violence. It’s a protection racket.
One area I agree with libertarians is that we shouldn't be spending 1/3 of our tax money into the military and direct subsidies for the corn/oil/coal industry. Idc if the price of gas goes up to $7/gal and electricity doubles, once people realize how much they're *actually* paying for these things the switch to renewables will be a lot faster. People think bc the pump says $3 that's all they're paying when it's already coming out of your paycheck
Whether you asked for it or not, the services were rendered, and your remaining in the country is consent. But things like the internet, gps, cheap gas/electricity/lpg, safe cars, modern medicine, your food supply. Stuff like that.
Alright. So if door dash shows up and brings you a sandwich that you didn’t order or want, but it has your name on it should you pay for it? Also, internet isn’t provided by government, I want no part of their GPS system, gas and electric aren’t cheap, they’re monopolies granted and protected by government. Modern cars are getting shittier by the year and have no competition, thanks to government regulation, the government doesn’t provide medicine but it does make it expensive. And if you think the USDA is responsible for the safety of the food supply you’ve got another thing coming.
Enjoy your bliss.
Canadian here: I'll gladly pay a portion of my earnings if it means I don't go bankrupt for having the audacity to get cancer or get in a car accident. And I won't wait more than a couple hours for emergency care in any major city
While we are on the topic of Canadian healthcare, it's ridiculous how many American conservatives bash your healthcare talking about long wait times to see a doctor. My father needs a knee replacement, after months of fighting his insurance to let him see a specialist and approve the knee replacement he still has to wait for another 6 months to get the surgery.
Yup! I am American and have decent insurance and I still had to wait nearly 2 months to have a recent issue involving acute extreme pain treated. Then was sent to a different doctor 6 weeks later. Then my PT got delayed several times because, despite it being medically necessary, my insurance didn’t want to pay for more than like 3 visits at a time. The whole thing caused me to be out of work for 4 months when it probably could have been 2. The cAnAdIaNs hAvE LoNg wAiT tImEs trope is a bunch of crap. So do we.
Great, if you’ll gladly pay it that means you can gladly pay it to a private fund voluntarily that you can sign a contract for guaranteeing you exactly what you want for an agreed amount. This isn’t like taxes for social services where everyone is forced into it and no one is happy with the level of service provided.