Taxes?

[merolpn]

This has been a great debate but I feel we're at a bit of an impasse, perhaps we'll just keep going back and forth on this topic, so I won't address every issue you mentioned.

Yes it has.

I'm just curious...
Do you agree/disagree that america has the worst public health among western developed nations? (You didn't address that directly)

I have to say no. How is that determined? (I really don't know where to get the best data. If you have something send me the link.) If we look at the HDI (which I know a little about) of countries which takes healthcare into account, the U.S. is tied in 3rd place with the Netherlands behind Norway and Austrailia. There are 8 countries such as Canada and New Zealand that are below the U.S. but still have an HDI above .900. The U.K. is #28 and this is all based on some wiki (but the data looks familiar to me) so I would really have to research it more. Based on what I can find my answer is no, the U.S. does not have the worst public health among developed nations.

Do you feel the wealth disparity has gone too far? That, despite all wages going up, with inflation considered the lower and most of the middle class have lower relative buying power?

However much I don't like the increasing disparity between income levels. The only way to change it is to take something from somebody else to "even" it out. Sure, we can pick a dollar amount and say anyone who makes over $250,000 needs to pay more in taxes. But what does that solve? We will just create a society of people that make $249,000 or move. Basically, I think if the government just got out of the way, lowered taxes and fees on employers and reduced regulation our economy would improve. If the economy improves, everyone will make more, competition is increased, prices decline and you buying power improves.

When did we agree to go on this tirade to pay for pharmaceutical companies' R&D? I don't think the people voted for that.

We don't specifically pay for the R&D as a line item. If other governments did not get involved and control prices, chances are that those of us in the U.S. would not shoulder as much of that burden. Again, remove barriers for companies to gain entry into the market and prices go down.

Who decides the salaries in companies, if not the top executives?

The board of directors. The top person in the company can't just say "I'm paying myself 1Million more this year," unless he owns it. His or her pay is a reduction in earnings and the stockholders lose out. When I get my proxy cards for votes, I always vote "NO" to salary increases for executives. Simply because I want more money to be passed to me. See, most of the time you hear about executive compensation it has to do with the value of their stock in the company. This is a good thing most of the time because the executive has a vested interest in how efficiently he runs the company. This also prevents one guy from hiring his best friend and running it into the ground by giving each other exorbitant salaries. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when compensation is tied to stock earnings the chances are that the possibility is reduced.