I read in USA Today that states are cutting back health care for underprivilidged children. Children are suffering because of a financial status they have no control over.
Don't tell me America could not afford a national health care.
My proposed flat tax (called a spending tax on my web site) would produce more money than even our wasteful politicians could spend.
The powerful AMA is against a national health care,this alone makes it worth looking into.
Most people compare national health care to Canada and speak of a waiting list. But I am sure a person on no list at all would not mind a little waiting.
Besides those that can afford health care now would still be able to do so. Probably cheaper with guidelines on health care cost and prescription cost.
Remember also that our goverment has many sources of income other that personal income tax.
Government spending control is the answer. To me the citizens of America and their needs take priority.
Thank you for your replies.

I'm against national health care because I don't think the government is capable of administering it. Everything the government tries, no matter how noble, ends up being a money pit where most of the cash goes to the bureaucrats. I would very much like to see the poor have medical coverage, but having the government handle it is a bad idea.

If the government (our goverment that we vote for) can't handle it then maybe it's time for new faces?

The real problem is not whether it can be done, it comes down to greed. Our money is allways going towards stupid sh**, while we keep screwing the disabled, old, and young.

ok, give me candidates i can trust and i'll give healthcare over to the government if they're elected... but seriously, what doctor will want to give up his job helping patients and run for a political offeice where no matter what he wants to do he has to avoid stepping on the toes of his campaign contributors or deal with the beauracratic nonsense that is inherent with a government job?

Maji, Dean is the only Doctor I know of that gave up helping patients to run for office :D

Corporate interests make too much money on healthcare.

Beauracratic nonsence does not stop with the government. It exists in all large organizations/Corporations.

Government doesn't have to run it, they can set up a non-profit corporation and have just as much success. Profit motive only means the health care industry is going to lean more towards more profitable procedures then ones that are actually necessary.

Originally posted by Pepper
Corporate interests make too much money on healthcare.

Beauracratic nonsence does not stop with the government. It exists in all large organizations/Corporations.

Government doesn't have to run it, they can set up a non-profit corporation and have just as much success. Profit motive only means the health care industry is going to lean more towards more profitable procedures then ones that are actually necessary.

True, but for-profit organizations have a major incentive to eliminate bureaucracy and streamline the process (increased profits), whereas the government organization has no such incentive. I agree that a non-profit corporation could do a reasonably good job, as long as the government didn't make it operate like a government organization - i.e. civil servants that can't be fired, rules that encourage paperwork, etc.

Corporate interests won't be making squat from health care in the near future when no one has any insurance. It's coming and sooner than people think. Simple math -- health care increasing between 12 - 18 % (depending on who you listen to) and it isn't long before companies are dishing out more for insurance to an employee than they are wages.

'Nudder thing -- some companies now have more retirees than active employees. They can't continue paying for the retiree health care when that retiree is no longer contributing anything back to the company.

Look for many if not most companies to dissolve (read renege) their promises of retirement health care.

As a side note -- I spent the better part of today at the VA Medical center in Phoenix where, while waiting in line, I heard some pretty pathetic (hillarious to me) stories. Most were from people in their 50's, 60's and 70's, that had health care most of their lives (employer paid) and now don't have that insurance (cut backs, layoffs, job sent to India, whatever) and are now turning to the VA only to find out that if they're still working they will be in group 7c or 8 or whatever the losest one is these days which means their VA care will be not better and no cheaper than the standard HMO. And they can (read will) wait as long as 6 months for an appointment just to get a primary care physician. BWAhahahahahahahaha.

These people are shocked to suddenly find themselves in this position but I don't feel sorry for them a bit. They're the same ones that will vote against any kind of national health care every time it is brought up. And never mention Hillary to these people -- they might implode.

I guess they would rather have no health care than have one run by the government. You just can't help people like this.

I wish each and every one of them a healthy life which, unless I miss my guess, will be a very short life. Seems though the human body just doesn't do too well once someone reaches their 60's and beyond and then neglects themselves due to not having workable health care. These losers that in the past help destroy any possiblity of a national health care plan are now getting just what they asked for ... NO HEALTH CARE.

Dop

As long as there are doctors, there's healthcare

As long as there are doctors, there's healthcare
Not if they aren't getting paid. Now there are some free clinics. But they get funded by the government(I think, pretty sure). If it goes how these people want it, there will be no Medicare. And if Bush's plan works out... giving it over to companies... sheesh.

If doctors aren't paid, why would they become doctors in the first place (if they're getting funding from the government, they're getting paid)?

I think it's a personal responsibility issue. Government should not pay for healthcare as long as the malady is a product of the individual's own irresponsibility and/or genetics. Like it or not, capitalistic healthcare streamlines our society so future generations won't be exponentially burdened with healthcare problems, while socialized healthcare ignores that inevitable result.

For example, if you have a person who smokes and eats junk food all of their life, it seems illogical to me to make someone with comparatively healthy habits pay the same healthcare costs as the smoking overweight individual.

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would and should get total healthcare coverage, but we do not live in a perfect world. Therefore, we must face the reality of limited resources and our society's inability to give everyone the healthcare coverage they want. That's where capitalistic healthcare comes into play.

Think about it. Bush is to busy spending our tax dollars fight a war in Iraq that no one is winning and treating our troop like crap, to be able to spend it on something our nation could actully use, like nationwide health care.

A national healthcare system would be overburdened with administrators & other empire builders & become mired in endless red tape in a way that would put the welfare & medicare / medicaid systems to shame.

Originally posted by Shouka
Think about it. Bush is to busy spending our tax dollars fight a war in Iraq that no one is winning and treating our troop like crap, to be able to spend it on something our nation could actully use, like nationwide health care.

Treating our troops like crap, LMAO, these guys are not hyper sensitive college boys, they are hardened soldiers. Sleeping in mud with no food is home to them. No one says they like it, but they dont expect anyhting better.

Originally posted by es347fan
A national healthcare system would be overburdened with administrators & other empire builders & become mired in endless red tape in a way that would put the welfare & medicare / medicaid systems to shame.

I think you describe the current medical situation in the united states to a tee. I don't know how many times I have gotten 4 or 5 forms from one visit, all telling me money is going from here, to there, this is not a bill etc etc.

Government can give us much more affordable healthcare then the current HMO. The US spends much more per capita then any other industrialized nation and we still have 43 million uninsured. Not even counting those who are under insured.

Capital is the main thrust for hmo's, capital at the expense of human health. I would rather see those profits returned to the system, then line some rich ceo's pocket.

The only people that are for national health care are people that don't want to pay for anything. They want to get food, housing, defense, law enforcement, education and healthcare, all at government expense. Then there would be no need to work.

Enlarging the government to take on all these roles is the worst thing to do...at least it is for the working class. Workers will have to pay for all these services. Non-workers will reap all of the benefits.

Government health care will also erode the quality of health care we are getting. How can this happen, you ask? SIMPLE. You see that the public is very reluctant to raise taxes, right? This will be the case with health care, as well. How will the government pay for health care without raising taxes? The way that they do in all of the other brances that they run: they will cut salaries. I am quite sure that the "pro-government health care faction" will be quick to point out that those greedy doctors are wayyy overpaid. Unfortunately, these same people don't seem to realize all of the schooling that is required to obtain an M.D. They think that they spent half of their lives just to service them, and that doctors do not deserve to make that "filthy amount of money." This reasoning will justify the cutting of doctor's salaries. In turn, this will discourage people from becoming doctors. Why go to school for 4 years of college, 4 years of med. school, 2 years of intern only to get crapped on by the public and by the government? Teachers go through the same thing. So they will quit, use their intelligence for something that is more rewarding. And there you have it folks. Our medicine, which right now, is wayyyyy better than any other country's will fall a lonngggg way. And no one will understand why.

Kara

You gotta be kiddin' me.

Every recent major study on health care shows the U.S. doesn't even place in the top 10 for health care. In fact some studies don't even include us in the top 20 countries.

Take a look at France and see what health care is supposed to look like. They do it right.

Dop

ya, France has it right, thats why 10,000 people drop dead in a minor heat wave, good thing they dont have the equivalent of Arizona out there, or it would be a deserted waste land.

So what's your point Trav? Hundreds drop dead in Chicago every time there's blizzard sub zero weather. Ever hear of old people or better yet poor old people?

You really need to do some travelling and see how the rest of the world lives. It'll add to your maturing process.

Dop

"If government is powerful enough to give you everything you need, it also has the power to take everything away form you."

Or words that effect.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
So what's your point Trav? Hundreds drop dead in Chicago every time there's blizzard sub zero weather. Ever hear of old people or better yet poor old people?

You really need to do some travelling and see how the rest of the world lives. It'll add to your maturing process.

Dop

ya, hundreds drop dead, shut the hell up, you know thats not true, and if it were, hundreds is nowhere near 10,000, you better go back to school, and I have traveled the globe, so please stop acting like a know it all you old hard headed bastard.

The national health care system in the UK - sucks - good luck if you need an operation, you might wait only 1 or 2 years. Sure if you are on deaths door you will get attention, otherwise you'll probably be either dead or very old before they get to you.

Nobody in the US is denied healthcare. My wife is a nurse and she must have told me a thousand stories over the years about the level of care people with no insurance get - it's the same as those with insurance, only the people with insurance end up paying.

Although the system in the US is far from perfect - it beats national health care hands down. The government has no business managing anything that needs to be efficient.

10,000 people have never died in Chicago due to heat or cold - but of course everybody already knew that.

People that are treated without insurance do end up paying in most cases. Otherwise they lose their homes, cars, savings accounts, retirements and kids education funds. They are literally stripped of everything and haunted for the rest of their lives until every penny is paid back.

The ones that don't have insurance and don't have anything to lose are paid for by the general fund in DC. It comes out of tax payers money.

Get your story straight.

The real problem with the lack of a national policy is it leaves too many people no choice but to go to the emergency rooms when they could be treated by primary physicians -- if they had one.

When little johnny falls off his bicycle and gashes his knee his emergency room bill will be $600 where it shoud have been $60 if he had a primary physician in a HMO.

This isn't rocket science.

The day is coming when only the very rich will have decent health care.

Yeah I know, as long as there are doctors there will be health care and to that I say "as long as there is string there will be yo-yo's."

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
People that are treated without insurance do end up paying in most cases. Otherwise they lose their homes, cars, savings accounts, retirements and kids education funds. They are literally stripped of everything and haunted for the rest of their lives until every penny is paid back.

Nice dream, but regardless - if somebody can afford health care and chooses not to get it - then they should lose everything in such a situation. The issue is not lazy rich people - it's people that cannot afford health insurance, but get the exact same coverage as you or I - ie defacto national health

A friend of mine has no health insurance - his wife is pregnant, she gets home visits. I have health insurance, my wife is pregnant & she doesn't get any visits - go figure. What's his bill??? $0

Every recent major study on health care shows the U.S. doesn't even place in the top 10 for health care. In fact some studies don't even include us in the top 20 countries.


Lungdong, I am not talking about government health care. I am talking about health care and the quality of it, in general. Of course we suck at government health care. We don't really have it! That's what we are debating here!

In the meantime, all of the pre-med majors I went to school with always attempted to get into various American medical schools. In fact, the ones that could not get into American medical schools were then forced to look at international schools. I think you will find that the US has a pretty firm lock on the top doctors world-wide. In fact, students from around the world come to the US to study medicine. It's not vice versa

The statement that the US does not rank in the top 10 for health care is a very false statement.

I am sure there is some metric that can give you any ranking you want - but in terms of medical technology - the US is No.1

The only ways one can really gauge quality of healthcare, at least the only way I can think of that gives you a definite number rather than a subjective "level of technology", is Life Expectancy. The U.S.'s is 77.1. Japan's is the highest, at 80.9, with Austalia, Sweden and Switzerland also in the 80's.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

Negative, that's not a good way to gauge either. If that's the case, then men receive worse health care than women.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Negative, that's not a good way to gauge either. If that's the case, then men receive worse health care than women.
I'd say it's a decent average, at least, if you average everyone together. I suppose you could use per capita spending, too, but money does not always equal quality. Just look at Jaguars (the car)

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/charts/healthcaresystem/chapter1.pdf Table 23 shows that the U.S. is significantly higher than any other country in per capita spending on healthcare.

Off-topic but worth mentioning -- for all of you who 'hate-the-French-cause-they-have-good-health-care :)' ...

Looks like our Neocons in the pentagon have France squarely in their sights for pre-emptive attack. These are some sick puppies.

And yeah I know -- it didn't come from FOX, Rush, Sean or Bill so it can't be true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/31/wcons31.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/31/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=124452

Dop

Originally posted by BorgHunter
The only ways one can really gauge quality of healthcare, at least the only way I can think of that gives you a definite number rather than a subjective "level of technology", is Life Expectancy. The U.S.'s is 77.1. Japan's is the highest, at 80.9, with Austalia, Sweden and Switzerland also in the 80's.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

That just shows that Americans like donuts and Cheetos more than other countries. It has little to do with healthcare. Arguably, the fact that we're as high as 77.1 in spite of the donuts shows we must have one hell of a health care system.

Here's another example of why, in the near future, there will be no health care for the majority of americans. Yes there will be doctors but unfortunately they won't be able to afford to practice.

BWAhahahahahahahaha

Dop

Originally posted by es347fan
A national healthcare system would be overburdened with administrators & other empire builders & become mired in endless red tape in a way that would put the welfare & medicare / medicaid systems to shame.

Canada seems to have pulled it off nicely, perhaps we should examine how they're doing it.

beoba

I completely agree with you that we need to look around at other countries and see what degree of success or failure each has and then compile that data into something meaningful and use it to mold our own health care system.

Problem is -- Rush and his ilk have the majority of americans convinced that canadien (and other countries) health care is not working and people are dropping dead in the streets on an hourly basis. In fact, some of the right wing media even takes it a step further and claims if it wasn't for the United States, the fine folks of canada would have no where to turn for any of their health care.

And last but not least -- a vote for national health care is a vote for Hillary.

You can't make this crap up. LOL.

Dop

Canada seems to have pulled it off nicely, perhaps we should examine how they're doing it.

Um, no they haven't. Their taxes are outrageous there.

But nobody cares because the taxes are FAIR. Tax cuts aren't given to the top 1%.

for the last damn time, tax cuts are givin to everybody!! shut the fuck up with that reguritated lie you shithead!!!! what the hell do you care if someone makes more money than you/ if you dont like it go get rich and give all your money away in taxes to innefective idiot programs.

Seems like higher taxes comes up often when Nat.health care is mentioned. I truely believe the flat tax and holding congress to a business-like spending program on other matters (no pork for example) will more than pay for the program.
As for the before mentioned "people" that want to live for free with government handouts, we already have them and always will. A certain percentage of people will always want something for nothing. Just as we have a certain number of people content in their little corner of the world and do not care about the large number of hard working people that live from day to day,doing the best they are capable of and trying to raise their children. They are real people they just do not have money left over for health care. I see good people at the grocery store that have to put certain items back because they don't have enough money and misfigured the total price.
So what the hell, we have national health care for everyone and some politician cannot pay back a political favor with pork.Or government hammers are not one hundred dollars . Let Senators stay at the budget motels. Drive chevys instead of government furnished lemos.
As for Doctors incomes, I am sure that no Doctor would be expected to work for minimum wage as, implied, under a national health program.

Canada has 26 million people, the US has 280 million - it's a bit different a scenario.

The whole "tax cuts given to the top 1%" is so wrong - it's an insane way to look at reality. Everybody gets tax cuts the same - if you pay more tax you benefit more - you still pay more taxes than the jealous ridden lowlife that only knows how to beg for handouts & get the sympathy of every well to do communist out there.

Whatever money I have I earned thru my hard work - I will pay more taxes by default, to say I should benefit less from tax cuts simply because I have more money - makes me sick!

Originally posted by DrewM

The whole "tax cuts given to the top 1%" is so wrong - it's an insane way to look at reality. Everybody gets tax cuts the same

While I'm sure that more than the top 1%
benefited from Bush's tax cut, it is even more insane to think that "everybody gets tax cuts the same"

QUOTE- " In the first round of Bush tax cuts, 40 percent of the cut went to the richest 1 percent of the population, those making over $373,000 a year. Since B makes quite a bit more than$373K, he got way more than the average cut for that group, which was $53,123. With the second Bush tax cut, which was passed by Congress in 2003,
B will get a break of $92,000, and that's on income alone. The average working family will get $256, and almost half of all taxpayers will get less than $100"

Bushwhacked, p.38

Rich people should pay more in taxes because they can AFFORD IT, without being poverty stricken. Does Bush or anyone in his income range NEED that $92,000 back? No. The tax break should have gone to those taxpayers who NEED the money. It may not seem "fair" to you, but it's basic human decency.

so you want to just give away money then? you ant to take peoples money and give it to someone else. you collect the money from the rich people, then dole it ou to not rich people who didnt pay it, ya, that makes sense. Why dont you go out and start giving your money away, then you can bitch, until then, shut up

I've already used this example once, but I'll do it again since no one seems to get it. Let's say that you have four people: A, B, C, and D. Every Friday they go out to east at their favorite diner. A is very well off, D is quite poor. B and C are in between. Because they enjoy each other's company so much and don't want C and D to miss out, they agree to split the bill, which is always a total of $10, according to their ability to pay. Thus, A pays $4, B pays $3, C pays $2, and D only pays $1. They go on like this for a long time, when one Friday, the owner of the diner, in appreciation for their long patronage, decides to give them back a $1. A argues that he should get 40 cents back, because he's been paying 40% of the bill. D (a Democrat), says that everyone should get 25 cents back, because it's only fair to split the refund equally and that A is just being greedy. Why, D argues, should A get 400 times the refund that D gets?

It seems perfectly logical to me that those that give more should get more back. It's not like getting a greater refund changes the fact that the rich pay a much higher percentage than everyone else. Once again, many people have no problem asking others to make sacrifices but scream bloody murder if you ask them to do the same.

Originally posted by Travh20
so you want to just give away money then? you ant to take peoples money and give it to someone else. you collect the money from the rich people, then dole it ou to not rich people who didnt pay it, ya, that makes sense. Why dont you go out and start giving your money away, then you can bitch, until then, shut up

I'm not the one who wants to give away money, Bush is. I don't think the surplus should have been squandered on an unneccessry tax cut. If you are going to "give money away" give it to the people who need it most.
As I said in my post, it may not be "fair" but it would be the decent thing to do.

Apparently decency is a concept foreign to you and anyone who disagrees with you is just "bitching" and deserves to be treated rudely. It's somewhat ironic that someone as foul-mouthed as you would quote Thomas Jefferson, one of the most eloquent writers in history.

Originally posted by LionelHutz

It seems perfectly logical to me that those that give more should get more back. It's not like getting a greater refund changes the fact that the rich pay a much higher percentage than everyone else. Once again, many people have no problem asking others to make sacrifices but scream bloody murder if you ask them to do the same.

If it were that simple I would agree with you, but it's obviously not. Were the refunds given based on what people actually paid, or were they calculated based on income?

People who have higher incomes also have the opportunity to invest their money in tax-free investments and to hide their money in tax-exempt trust funds, as well as other tax shelters not available to the poor and middle class.

The tax system is already set up to give the advantage to people with higher incomes it seems only right to give a break to the poor and middle class for a change.

Bush touted the tax refund as a way to stimulate the economy. Doesn't it make more sense to give the money to people who will spend it rather than to people who will stick it in some bank somewhere?

People that pay more taxes - get more $ back when there is a tax cut - Period.

This is fair and to say that the richer people don't need the money so it should go to the poorer people is completely unfair. What money I have I EARNED - If I want to give money to charity then that's a decision I make because it's my money. I resent being forced to give to charity.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'm not the one who wants to give away money, Bush is. I don't think the surplus should have been squandered on an unneccessry tax cut. If you are going to "give money away" give it to the people who need it most.
As I said in my post, it may not be "fair" but it would be the decent thing to do.

Apparently decency is a concept foreign to you and anyone who disagrees with you is just "bitching" and deserves to be treated rudely. It's somewhat ironic that someone as foul-mouthed as you would quote Thomas Jefferson, one of the most eloquent writers in history.

apparently earning your keep by the sweat of your brow is a foreign concept to you. Free rides seem to be the order of the day. I dont think you understand,we should have no 'surplus". it is only our money collecting in government coffers. where do you think the gov got that "surplus"? I tell you where, from me, and everyother person who PAYS taxes. You keep wanting to pile people in the wagon becasue it is the "decent" thing to do, while the number of people pulling the wagon goes down. In the real world it doesnt work like that, maybe when you get out of college and get a real job you will understand.

Wow, not all of our troops are hardened soldiers. Not all of them are Marines. Many are have families at home waiting for them to return. Yes, they have signed up for this and it was completely voluntary. But, there comes a breaking point with everything and I think were almost there. I could go on with this but it's off topic.

The military breeds a tougher individual than you may be aware of.

Originally posted by Travh20
apparently earning your keep by the sweat of your brow is a foreign concept to you. Free rides seem to be the order of the day.

No trav, I have no problem with people who earn their money by the "sweat of their brow". I do have a problem with the guy making seven-figures a year, sitting in the office of a corporation that he inherited from daddy,(the mailing address of said corporation being in the Cayman Islands of course) who then takes all his money and puts it in tax-free investments (making another six-figures tax free) and then sits back and says he deserves a higher tax cut .

I dont think you understand,we should have no 'surplus". it is only our money collecting in government coffers. where do you think the gov got that "surplus"? I tell you where, from me, and everyother person who PAYS taxes.

Gee, trav thanks for stating the glaringly obvious. Let me return the favor: Don't you think our economy would be healthier running with a surplus rather than a multi-trillion dollar deficit?

You keep wanting to pile people in the wagon becasue it is the "decent" thing to do, while the number of people pulling the wagon goes down. In the real world it doesnt work like that, maybe when you get out of college and get a real job you will understand.

I'm not the one who wants to "pile people in the wagon". I want them to have the opportunity to get out of the wagon. When you have policies that ensure the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, you ensure that there will always be people who will be "riding" rather than "pulling"

Lastly trav, I noticed in a recent post you took someone to task for being a "condescending prick". Ironic, considering how you talk to people, but hey, maybe when you get out of grade school and learn some manners you'll understand.

Lionel Hutz nailed again. Excellent analogy.

No trav, I have no problem with people who earn their money by the "sweat of their brow". I do have a problem with the guy making seven-figures a year, sitting in the office of a corporation that he inherited from daddy,(the mailing address of said corporation being in the Cayman Islands of course) who then takes all his money and puts it in tax-free investments (making another six-figures tax free) and then sits back and says he deserves a higher tax cut .


Um, but you're taxing everybody not those very, very, very, very few rich people who dodge their taxes, who, by the way, won't be paying for your healthcare system because they are dodging taxes, as you said.

In reality, you're asking the middle to pay for the poor class and dodging the issue by bringing up some fantastic scenario that has little existance outside of Hollywood.

I do have a problem with the guy making seven-figures a year, sitting in the office of a corporation that he inherited from daddy

This is few and far between & even so, "daddy" earned the wealth and he can do what he wants with it - including passing it on to his kids. Any parent would do that. You have a problem with it - because you are jealous.

Originally posted by DrewM
This is few and far between & even so, "daddy" earned the wealth and he can do what he wants with it - including passing it on to his kids. Any parent would do that. You have a problem with it - because you are jealous.

You completely miss the point or are deliberately avoiding it.

The point I was trying to make by using this admittedly absurd example is that rich people have many more tax loopholes to take advantage of to generate tax free income for themselves. They certainly don't need ridiculously large tax cuts on top of it.

I think that someone who has to make the choice between eating food and getting their medication should have priority over someone who can burn $100 bills all day, as illustrated by DrewM's avatar.

Originally posted by Shouka
Wow, not all of our troops are hardened soldiers. Not all of them are Marines. Many are have families at home waiting for them to return. Yes, they have signed up for this and it was completely voluntary. But, there comes a breaking point with everything and I think were almost there. I could go on with this but it's off topic.


the breaking point is far from reached. american soldiers are hardy, resiliant and tough, not the sensitive, feminized, PC wussies that society seems to want to make every american these days. amercian citizen soldiers have endured hardship after hardship for over 200 years, and to think that a few roadside bombs is going to change that is a slap in the face to all veterans. If you disagree with the politics of the war thats one thing, but dont bellitle brave men to make your point. go read about WW2 and all that those men endured year after year, then compare taht to this, and you will see the breaking point is far from reached.

Trav you make a perfect example of why my flat tax at purchase is a good idea. Everyone is on the same playing field. No one gets a free ride. No more income tax to dodge. No more high paid tax attorneys. No more tax cuts for the wealthy or poor to be discussed.
Also remember that the Federal government receives a lot on income that has nothing to do with income tax.
For example when Nixon started the 10 percent import tax from Mexico I was told that I was the first person to pay it early one Monday morning at the Texas-Mexico border.
I do not know what the percentage income tax is of government income. Hope someone with the time will look this up.