Socialists' goal finally being attained: Cyprus govt confiscates 10% of savings accounts

[Gipper]

EVERYONE pays taxes. If they didn't, the IRS would have them jailed pronto. I don't care if a poor fucker has only $5 to his name, he WILL be taxed. If he/she buys a simple cup of coffee for $1, his/her ass is taxed. Please do not complete such stupid posts.

Apparently you are not up to speed on income taxes in America. We are talking about income taxes...no? Yes we are and the poor do not pay them. In fact, in many cases, they are given money from the IRS.

 

[Gipper]

I see tax loopholes for the rich escapes your attention, most conveniently too. The poor have no such loopholes, because they have not the ability to bribe government officials into creating such loopholes, nor the lawyers to help enforce them.

You really need to try harder. We are not discussing tax loopholes. But since you brought them up, could you please explain how tax loopholes for the wealthy results in the wealthy stealing the poor's wealth? And who is it that gave those loopholes to the wealthy?

 

[dogtowner]

You are forgetting that the rich make the laws

To look after the rich

They have been moderated by the left in modern times but before that they treated the poor as animals to be abused for their pleasure

The rich are generally criminals

And you are swallow their propaganda

kind of why when the left raise taxes on those nasty rich people it never increases revenue.

 

[dogtowner]

EVERYONE pays taxes. If they didn't, the IRS would have them jailed pronto. I don't care if a poor fucker has only $5 to his name, he WILL be taxed. If he/she buys a simple cup of coffee for $1, his/her ass is taxed. Please do not complete such stupid posts.

The IRS only manages income taxes so any other taxes are not enforced by them.

You might be surprised to learn that the IRS cannot jail anyone for not paying taxes, only not filing your tax forms accurately. Al Capone found this out the hard way.

the poor pay the same voluntary taxes as anyone else (you don't have to buy that coffee). similarly, they are entitled to the very same loopholes as anyone else if they qualify for them as anyone else must.

 

[dogtowner]

No, they aren't subsidized, you moron. I am CANADIAN, and I would know. Not a single government penny is used. Prices are SET by government policy. If the powerful drug corporations do not agree to the price, they are told to take their business elsewhere. You Americans are stupid enough to believe your government propaganda that claims our drugs are subsidized. It was illegal to sell our drugs to Americans because the drug cartels, er corporations demanded our government stop allowing pharmacies to sell our drugs to Americans at OUR SET PRICE because it breaks the agreement between the government and the drug corporations. The set prices were made for CANADIANS, not Americans. The drug corporations were complaining that their cash cow, dumb Americans willing to pay for overpriced drugs, were taking advantage of our lower-cost drugs, affecting their profits, which was absolutely correct. You see, you AMericans are stupid enough to pay such ridiculous costs for the drugs. We are not.



OWNED! Now, shut the fuck up and take your American propaganda and shove it up your star-spangled asshole! I am sick of Americans spouting lies about my country.

Its customary to cite copied material.

But I find it interesting that you are glad that theh Canadian formulary includes 35% of available drugs. It is apparent that this is decisioning is based on cost as opposed to efficacy. It puts into question your belief that your system is better. What is suggests is that so long as there is nothing seriously wrong with you leaving it cheap to do something they will. Otherwise you're a goner. Kind of explains why canadians that are really sick (or administer your program) come to the US.

 

[steveox]

Which jew was it who killed Christ ? You seem to have read the Bible, should be easy to find.\

Or perhaps you too mistake betray for kill.

Matthew 26:47-56
Jesus and his followers had entered the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives. His disciples were sleeping for the night when a crowd of Roman soldiers and Jewish officials showed up to arrest Jesus.​

After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.​

At the time of Jesus' crucifixion, the Romans had conquered all the area in which Jesus lived and taught. The Romans allowed the Jews to continue with their Sanhedrin (their government), but the Romans took away capital punishment from the Jews. In order to have Jesus crucified, the Jewish leaders had to manipulate Rome into doing it. First, the Jewish leaders had to lie - make up charges (Luke 23: 2, 3). The Jewish leaders persisted in their demands for crucifixion (vss. 5-19).​

 

[dogtowner]

Righto steve. The romans killed Jesus as the jews could not.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are forgetting that the rich make the laws

To look after the rich

They have been moderated by the left in modern times but before that they treated the poor as animals to be abused for their pleasure

The rich are generally criminals

And you are swallow their propaganda

The rich are generally normal people about as good as anyone else. Statistically they tend to be older, married, and work hard.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which jew was it who killed Christ ? You seem to have read the Bible, should be easy to find.\

Or perhaps you too mistake betray for kill.

If you betray, arrest, hand over to the romans, demand death, and He gets executed, then I would be fine with saying that the jews were complicit in killing Jesus and it is perfectly fine to say that they (some of them anyway) killed Him.

 

[dogtowner]

Complicit ? Sure killers, nope
Why did pilate feel the need to wash his hands ? It was his DECISION alone. But it had to be to complete the picture of Rome being the seat of Chrisindom. Things tend to tie up neatly.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, they aren't subsidized, you moron. I am CANADIAN, and I would know. Not a single government penny is used.

Here are three sources claiming that Canada not only spends pennies to lower the cost of drugs but all of them call the government drug cost reducing program a subsidy.
"Prescription Drug Coverage in Canada

Canada's 10 provincial governments subsidize prescription drugs for certain populations - primarily the poor, elderly and those in long-term residential care. The remainder of the population in six provinces must pay for their drugs out of pocket, but four provinces have some coverage of pharmaceuticals. For example, in British Columbia an individual must pay for the first $800 in drug purchases each year, and the government pays 70 percent of costs between $800 and $2,000 and 100 percent of costs above $2,000. Government subsidies cover only the provincial "formulary," the list of drugs approved for the provincial health plan."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba323

"Between 1970 and 1986 all Canadian provinces introduced some version of a prescription drug subsidy for those age 65 or over and since 1986, all the provinces have increased copayments or deductibles to some degree. Employing a first-order approximation to the welfare gains from a subsidy, we find evidence that these subsidies have been less redistributive than an absolute per household cash transfer but slightly more redistributive than a transfer that would increase each household's income by the same percentage. Such evidence may have relevance for predicting the redistributive effects of a potential national prescription drug plan for seniors in the United States."


http://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/qseprr/350.html

"
ABSTRACT:
Canada’s provincial governments have, until relatively recently, provided virtu
-
ally all seniors with generous prescription drug coverage. Managers of these programs have
implemented a variety of policies to contain spending while ensuring access to necessary
medicines. Some of these policies have been successful in temporarily slowing cost
growth. However, the lack of comprehensive utilization management tools has resulted in
ongoing spending increases that now constitute a threat to the sustainability of a public
drug subsidy for Canadian seniors. Sustainable and equitable pharmacare programs re-
quire the political willingness to confront opposition to policies that will, if successful, con-
tain program costs without obstructing access."
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/49.full.pdf

Did they all use the word "subsidy" wrongly?
Here is a definition:


"Definition of 'Subsidy'

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.

Investopedia explains 'Subsidy'

There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.

If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

We should all notice that welfare payments are included as a subsidy.

 

[dogtowner]

Looks like sax needs to study up on Cannuckistan and its policies. Or maybe he lives in Tulsa and dreams of the great white north ?

 

[Saxon]

Here are three sources claiming that Canada not only spends pennies to lower the cost of drugs but all of them call the government drug cost reducing program a subsidy.
"Prescription Drug Coverage in Canada

Canada's 10 provincial governments subsidize prescription drugs for certain populations - primarily the poor, elderly and those in long-term residential care. The remainder of the population in six provinces must pay for their drugs out of pocket, but four provinces have some coverage of pharmaceuticals. For example, in British Columbia an individual must pay for the first $800 in drug purchases each year, and the government pays 70 percent of costs between $800 and $2,000 and 100 percent of costs above $2,000. Government subsidies cover only the provincial "formulary," the list of drugs approved for the provincial health plan."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba323

"Between 1970 and 1986 all Canadian provinces introduced some version of a prescription drug subsidy for those age 65 or over and since 1986, all the provinces have increased copayments or deductibles to some degree. Employing a first-order approximation to the welfare gains from a subsidy, we find evidence that these subsidies have been less redistributive than an absolute per household cash transfer but slightly more redistributive than a transfer that would increase each household's income by the same percentage. Such evidence may have relevance for predicting the redistributive effects of a potential national prescription drug plan for seniors in the United States."


http://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/qseprr/350.html

"
ABSTRACT:
Canada’s provincial governments have, until relatively recently, provided virtu
-
ally all seniors with generous prescription drug coverage. Managers of these programs have
implemented a variety of policies to contain spending while ensuring access to necessary
medicines. Some of these policies have been successful in temporarily slowing cost
growth. However, the lack of comprehensive utilization management tools has resulted in
ongoing spending increases that now constitute a threat to the sustainability of a public
drug subsidy for Canadian seniors. Sustainable and equitable pharmacare programs re-
quire the political willingness to confront opposition to policies that will, if successful, con-
tain program costs without obstructing access."
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/49.full.pdf

Did they all use the word "subsidy" wrongly?
Here is a definition:


"Definition of 'Subsidy'

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.

Investopedia explains 'Subsidy'

There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.

If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

We should all notice that welfare payments are included as a subsidy.

You just proved you do not understand our 'socialised' healthcare. Those so-called 'subsidies' occur AFTER the drug companies are forced to give us a specific price. Those 'subsidies' are, just as you show in this post, for the elderly and poor. In other words, the subsidy is applied to drugs that ARE ALREADY CHEAPER THAN THEIR AMERICAN COUNTERPARTS DUE TO GOVERNMENT PRICING CONTROLS. This is a form of assistance for those who cannot afford the drugs. The prices of the drugs have ALREADY BEEN SET. I cannot fathom how you cannot understand this simple fact. Once again, our drugs are NOT subsidized for the general population as you claim. I should like to remind you that our socialised healthcare pays for those drugs at the price SET BY THE GOVERNMENT. Those who are not poor, or elderly pay THE SAME PRICE FOR THE DRUGS AS OUR GOVERNMENT DOES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS SET THE PRICE. THIS is the point I am trying to make. The subsidies for the poor and elderly have ZERO EFFECT UPON GOVERNMENT DRUG PRICING POLICIES. Please, please tell me you understand this.

Canada's national health plan pays for doctor visits and hospital stays. But outside the hospital — unless a patient is 65 or older, or on welfare — the government plan does not cover prescription drugs. (see? NOT subsidized!)

Canadians, like Americans, must get insurance from an employer or independently, or else pay the full cost of medications themselves.​

Karen Ireland, 54, who lives in Oakville, Ontario, has Parkinson's disease. She's on five different medications. "I do find it very expensive," she told ABCNEWS.​

Expensive, yes, but a steal compared to what she would pay in the United States. When her prescription drug costs are converted into U.S. dollars, the price difference is significant:​

Mirapex, for Parkinson's disease: $157 in Canada vs. $263 in the United States. Celexa, for depression: $149 in Canada vs. $253 in the United States.​

Diovan, for high blood pressure: $149 in Canada vs. $253 in the United States.​

Oxazepam, for insomnia: $13 in Canada vs. $70 in the United States.​

Seroquel, for insomnia: $33 in Canada vs. $124 in the United States.​

"Oh my gosh," said Ireland after learning of the price differences. "I don't know how they [Americans] do it. That is, that is a shock!"

Canada Caps Drug Costs​

Canadians are spared higher drug prices, in large part because of price controls. The Canadian government has established a "Patented Medicine Prices Review Board" to ensure drug prices are not excessive.​

"They look at the price of the drug," said Dr. Allan Detsky, a pharmacoeconomist at the University of Toronto, "and they say, 'You know what, we have no idea what the long-run costs of development are, but they can't possibly be that high. Forget it.' "​

The review board has established a very specific formula for drug companies wishing to sell in Canada:​

Existing drugs cannot increase in price by more than the rate of inflation.​

New drugs cannot cost more than similar drugs for the same illness.​

And a breakthrough drug, the first of a new class of drugs, cannot cost more than the median price for the drug in other countries.​

For example, the new cancer drug Campath is priced as follows: United States: $2,400 France: $760 Sweden $660 Britain $570 Italy $500​

The median, or "midprice," is $660, so Canadian regulations say that's the most the drug can sell for in Canada.​

"It tells you that the true long-run cost of production must be way lower than the American price," said Detsky.

As I said... OWNED!

 

[Saxon]

Looks like sax needs to study up on Cannuckistan and its policies. Or maybe he lives in Tulsa and dreams of the great white north ?

Look again. I proved him wrong. The ONLY 'subsidization occurs when the government is assisting the poor or elderly, but the price of the drug has been forced down by the government BEFORE the government purchases it. The US government ALSO purchases drugs for the poor and elderly, but at ridiculous prices. I can say I do enjoy proving people wrong. You even made the mistake of believing I do not know my own country, when I proved I know it well. We don't take shit from your pharmaceutical companies, and this pisses Americans off, because they don't have the balls to do the same.
Look here...

U.S. Alone in No Price Controls

Every industrialized country has some form of price controls on patented medications, except the United States. American drug companies say price controls stifle innovation and discourage them from selling certain drugs in foreign markets.​

"The principal problem with price controls is you have limitations on access to medicines, and you don't have the newest most innovative treatments," said Alan Holmer, president and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.​

But when pressed, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry could only identify eight drugs not available on Canadian shelves, and three of those are contraceptives. That's not enough to bother many Canadians.​

"I don't mind," said Ireland. "I think we have a pretty good selection."​

And much of that selection consists of American-made drugs, at well below American prices.

 

[dogtowner]

Look again. I proved him wrong. The ONLY 'subsidization occurs when the government is assisting the poor or elderly, but the price of the drug has been forced down by the government BEFORE the government purchases it. The US government ALSO purchases drugs for the poor and elderly, but at ridiculous prices. I can say I do enjoy proving people wrong. You even made the mistake of believing I do not know my own country, when I proved I know it well. We don't take shit from your pharmaceutical companies, and this pisses Americans off, because they don't have the balls to do the same.
Look here...

oh boy, more annomouse citations.