Would you pay additional taxes voluntarily?
Yes
32.3% (21)
32.3% (21)
No
52.3% (34)
52.3% (34)
FLAMEWAR TIME!!!
15.4% (10)
15.4% (10)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Voluntary Taxes

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Ok, for those of you who have actually paid tax here, the phrase Voluntary Taxes might have you screaming at the screen. But I was thinking the other day about a war protester who witheld his share in taxes used to fund the British Armed Forces, and wondered whether the reverse principle could be applied, sort of like a KickStarter for government. So here is how it could work:

- You decide you really like what one department (or just the whole government) is doing, and feel they deserve more cash than they're currently getting.
- You pay however much you want to this department, with the option of saying it must be spent on certain things only.
- The department says thank you & gives you rewards (such as a space shuttle launch or tour of the facilities). You might also get some form of flexibility/relief on your normal tax returns in recognition that you're pulling more than your weight, and have taken an active interest in society.

Before anyone points out that philanthropic donations & hospital charities etc cover this purpose, they don't exist for all government departments, and these organisations don't necessarily reach as many people as the tax system would. We'll also assume that there are sensible limits on donations from corporations to prevent corruption in the system.

So would you pay? And if so, what would you choose to spend your money on? Do you have any suggestions on how any such scheme could be improved?

To clarify, this means you still have to pay your normal taxes. You just get the added satisfaction that things you like are being supported.

Ah, okay. I was going to counter that people would - with a lack of foresight - stop paying taxes for things like sanitation. But if it's additional... hm.
Interesting idea, allowing you to prioritize. But, no, I wouldn't want to pay extra, I just made a big investment and couldn't really afford to.
You should include an option to write these voluntary taxes off your normal taxes. Or at least partially, so it's less expensive for people to pay more and it still has the "incentive"-effect for the favoured department. Then I'd do it. Of course you'd have to put a %-limit (of your standard taxes) on it.

Not as voluntary taxes, no. Donating to a government run thing...why not? That's hardly unusual, is it?

I don't like the idea of paying less other taxes, though. In any case, it'd be taken into consideration next budget, so the unpopular stuff would get more regular taxes, the popular stuff gets more and people hope that people throw enough cash at the shortchanged things people wanted last year.

I don't see why somebody would have a problem with it as long as the less marketable aspects of government remain funded. However, for now I would not pay extra. I have other priorities, like college. That's assuming I actually get one of the jobs I'm applying for right now.

No. You're treating the government like a business, one that should respond to your particular wants. That is what the private sector is for. The public sector is for your needs. You have no need to go on a space shuttle ride. Alternatively, we shouldn't get to direct where our taxes go because there's going to be conflicts of interests everywhere. Everywhere...

If you wish to donate to the government, or rather to help them out, go forth and buy bonds. If you want free stuff AND to donate more taxes then you could just buy random items and let the government get the VAT. If you want free stuff, to donate more taxes and to direct where those taxes go, write to your MP after buying a truckload of chocolate.

Voila! But seriously, if we all got the red carpet treatment for paying taxes, even voluntary taxes, the government would not be able to afford to actually do work. That would be bad. You also already get something tax-reductiony for donating to charity, I think.

As a govt. employee, it would be redundant for me to do this, as the major deficiencies/budget concerns that I can see are already occurring through a department paying me through its budget.

Skeleon:
Ah, okay. I was going to counter that people would - with a lack of foresight - stop paying taxes for things like sanitation. But if it's additional... hm.
Interesting idea, allowing you to prioritize. But, no, I wouldn't want to pay extra, I just made a big investment and couldn't really afford to.
You should include an option to write these voluntary taxes off your normal taxes. Or at least partially, so it's less expensive for people to pay more and it still has the "incentive"-effect for the favoured department. Then I'd do it. Of course you'd have to put a %-limit (of your standard taxes) on it.

Let's say for the sake of all future discussion that for every 1 you voluntarily give, you get 50p off your normal taxes. Personally I think this could lead to some complications for the less sexy departments if everyone took this up, as their funding would probably get reduced a lot.

Odgical:
No. You're treating the government like a business, one that should respond to your particular wants. That is what the private sector is for. The public sector is for your needs. You have no need to go on a space shuttle ride. Alternatively, we shouldn't get to direct where our taxes go because there's going to be conflicts of interests everywhere. Everywhere...

If you wish to donate to the government, or rather to help them out, go forth and buy bonds. If you want free stuff AND to donate more taxes then you could just buy random items and let the government get the VAT. If you want free stuff, to donate more taxes and to direct where those taxes go, write to your MP after buying a truckload of chocolate.

Voila! But seriously, if we all got the red carpet treatment for paying taxes, even voluntary taxes, the government would not be able to afford to actually do work. That would be bad. You also already get something tax-reductiony for donating to charity, I think.

What if the government got the money, and then created a contract for tender which the private sector could pick up? The OP is quite clear that it's not directing where your taxes go, just paying a small amount of additional ones. On your own, it's not likely to make a large difference, but if lots of people contributed to departments and earmarked it for certain projects, the effects could be quite considerable.

I'd also disagree completely that the government shouldn't respond to our particular wants. The government is in place to serve the people, and if we're willing to throw extra money at projects we think are worth pursuing, it should accept that and attempt to implement them.

Direct Democracy by voting with your money. Utterly disastrous. Too much freedom and democracy and lolipops&rainbows will make the state unstable and weak. Its leadership could not go through with their plans and will be at the mercy of the populace's whims constantly.

I would pay more to NASA if they'd let me pay less towards the military. Hell I'm pretty sure I'd rather pay extra taxes for anything if they'd reduce the amount that goes towards the military. Give me that perk and I'm all in favor of the idea (even if it's some deal like for every $5 I give to something good $2.50 are deducted from how much goes towards the military)

Esotera:
Ok, for those of you who have actually paid tax here, the phrase Voluntary Taxes might have you screaming at the screen. But I was thinking the other day about a war protester who witheld his share in taxes used to fund the British Armed Forces, and wondered whether the reverse principle could be applied, sort of like a KickStarter for government. So here is how it could work:

- You decide you really like what one department (or just the whole government) is doing, and feel they deserve more cash than they're currently getting.

The problem isn't that any part of the government is statistically unpopular. Almost everything the government does spend money on is popular. That's why during any sorts of debates about the budget, you can get giant sweeping sayings like "We should operate within a 100% totally balanced budget!" which while stupid as hell[1] are also insanely popular, even if it has no meat, but every time anybody on either side goes "Will you cut X?" then suddenly the most diehard defender of a balanced budget will be like "Whoa whoa whoa, of course I'm not against X!"

It's a very nice catch phrase that is hard to be against on the offset ("What, do you NOT want to live within your means?!") unless you really think about it or have any real economic education, but it's not an actual policy.

But despite this fervor to 'cut spending', from all sides, suddenly nobody wants to cut anything when it's made specific. For example, Oh yes, everybody hates Obamacare. It's unpopular (though growing in popularity every day), but when you point out any one specific thing it does and say "Should we cut this" suddenly nobody wants to cut anything, except the ways the bill pays for itself or saves money.

During last year's Vice Presidential Debate, Paul Ryan was asked about his plans to cut Medicare spending, and suddenly he turned into the biggest Liberal ever basically saying "Oh no, we could never turn this into a voucher system! There's no way we'd let the free market decide on this!" because Medicare and Medicaid are insanely fucking popular despite being the closest thing to a public option in health care we have, but the minute he could take the conversation back to the vague, "Should we cut spending in the area of Health Care" he's like "Oh yeah, sure! Let's give that up to private interests!", even though he's answered the same goddamn question in two completely different ways.

What I'm getting at is that, it's not our inability to decide on what to spend on. If you take any of these pro-austerity budgets line by line honestly and even conservatives suddenly become liberals. Oh, yes, everybody will have their pet thing they want gone, but statistically everything becomes popular.

It's our inability to want to pay for things, and our preconceived notion that making people who are protected and pampered because they 'invest' back into our economy actually in any way do that will make them flee which stops us from demanding the rich pay their fair share, and our disconnect between receiving goods and believing we should owe money for them, that are the problems.

People don't want to not eat from the table we've provided by taxes. That's not the problem. Our problem is that when we're stuffed full of some of the greatest things this world has to offer and fat, we look back on the check and go "Whoa, there's no way that I owe all that much, that food wasn't even good. I didn't even eat here, and I washed the dishes so I should get all this food for free anyways. I just had the salad! Get your hands off of my debit card, this is theft!"

Esotera:
- You pay however much you want to this department, with the option of saying it must be spent on certain things only.

And how that would work out would depend entirely on how much transparency there is and how educated people are, and I don't have a lot of faith in those efforts being properly funded in any way shape or form.

To wit: I've had customers come in and complain to me, that they believe they're against Food Stamps because it makes people dependent on the government. Because that's what they learned on TV, that people on Food Stamps are greedy or whatever. The kicker is that often these are people buying things with their EBT card and are on the SNAP program. For those of you who don't see the relevance, that's the program that is the successor to Food Stamps after Food Stamps was mostly or entirely phased out.

Or people holding protests signs that say "Keep your government hands out of my Medicare!". They don't even know what the fuck their own programs they use are, because they'll get this assistance, and watch this bullshit day time 24 hour news and get completely confused by the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.

Esotera:
- The department says thank you & gives you rewards (such as a space shuttle launch or tour of the facilities). You might also get some form of flexibility/relief on your normal tax returns in recognition that you're pulling more than your weight, and have taken an active interest in society.

That doesn't even make a lot of sense to me. If you pay more than your 'share' in taxes, you get a tax break? How does that even work. If my taxes are say, 15 dollars, and I pay 16 dollars, does my tax rate go down to 14 dollars? But then what, do I get a dollar back paying exactly what my share? If my tax 'break' from paying too much taxes saves me more money than I'm paying extra, then it's not really a reward for a good service, you've just lowered my taxes in the most complicated way possible.

Esotera:
Before anyone points out that philanthropic donations & hospital charities etc cover this purpose, they don't exist for all government departments, and these organizations don't necessarily reach as many people as the tax system would. We'll also assume that there are sensible limits on donations from corporations to prevent corruption in the system.

So would you pay? And if so, what would you choose to spend your money on? Do you have any suggestions on how any such scheme could be improved?

To clarify, this means you still have to pay your normal taxes. You just get the added satisfaction that things you like are being supported.

I have 2 major problems with this that I just thought of while writing the previous out. One, what somebody's 'share' is already pretty broke in this country. If you make minimal wage in a poor state you could be paying 8-12% of your income in payroll taxes, not to mention that you'd be paying much higher state income taxes and higher excise taxes and property taxes and you'd have nowhere near enough money to hide your taxable income in any sort of shelter. You'd also have people say that you pay 0% income taxes because they're douche bags or just critically ignorant of how taxes work.

Then you get middle class incomes that can pay up to 20-30% of their income in income taxes. But on the far other end of the spectrum of absurd, you can get millionaires paying a flat 15% income tax, and even that amount might be lower. Hell, Mitt Romney paid 12% income taxes on his millions of dollars, and that was during the year that he knew he had to be extra good because he was running for president.

People aren't really paying their fair share as it is. If somebody on minimal wage can pay almost the same amount of taxes as somebody like Mitt Romney and they can and will play this 'all taxes are charity donations' game for all it's worth, and basically take home free trips to Space Camp or whatever it is you think people will earn.

This leads me to my first major concern: The poor and middle class already pay their fair share or more aren't going to be able to afford to grant themselves space shuttle launches no matter what they do, and the rich are going to game the system for rewards.

My second concern is maybe more cynical but probably more likely: I see something like this going down as such:

Some politician or another will have programs for the poor or middle class axed, without lowering the poor or middle class's taxes. Obviously grants to GE, Exxon or Monsanto or whatever aren't touched. The rich and politicians they can afford basically go back to the poor and tell them "Hey, well, if you want something extra[2], crowd source it!", despite the fact that the poor and middle class are already paying into their own well being.

This really reminds me of a thing Moviebob said recently on Kickstarters that were being used by the affluent in Hollywood to fund their pictures:

MovieBob:
It does give me pause, though, all the same.

Firstly, it's an open invitation for studios or other corporate entities to really abuse the system. It took mainstream Hollywood a good long while to understand fandom and devotion of geek culture, but they've figured out how to monetize that devotion with astounding quickness. The idea that they can now potentially ransom fans of this TV show or that movie for their continuation will be the big take away from these events for a lot of the industry, and the implications are pretty grim.

Hollywood budgets are illusory horrors designed specifically to ensure that as few people outside those who'll reap the final profits actually understand or even know what anything actually costs. If an unscrupulous studio executive was to say, "Y'know, we're already more or less decided on renewing this show, but before we make it 'official' we might as well toss up a Kickstarter implying it's in danger of not coming back and see if we can't get those gullible fans to lower our production costs a little more!", there'd be no real way of preventing it or even proving that anything "untoward" went down - after all, who's to say they didn't need just that little extra million or so? Do you know what catering costs in this town?

He's basically talking about Publisher's who's job is to fund movies (which is why they often get to reap the benefits of the most exploitative side of copywrite law and Developers and Writers don't), and then declining to do so, keeping all the benefits but passing the cost twicefold onto the customer (they get to now spend their money on being the Publisher with no rights to the creation they funded AND the customer purchasing these products with no rights to their usage). It's almost exactly the opposite of the Marxist ideal, where the customer and worker own (or at least pay for) the means of production AND the labor AND STILL don't reap a fucking cent from any of it.

All of that said though, is true tenfold when dealing with the government or the government budget.

I don't see anybody being anything BUT unscrupulous with this, and holding the country ransom to the crowd funding, where everybody gets to pay 'normal' taxes and reap nothing of it, and then being expected to pay a second time to get the 'reward' of the government doing anything for them with the money it just collected.

[1] That's basically saying that you shouldn't get a mortgage, you should just live in a shoebox until you're 65 years old then buy a house outright with a wad of cash, then die.
[2] Which is everything that anybody rich doesn't need, now.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to donate money to NASA and all the other research grants are usually fundled through schools or charities that also accept donations of that type. However in the amount of an extra 10-100 bucks... not sure about that one.

dmase:
I'm pretty sure it's possible to donate money to NASA and all the other research grants are usually fundled through schools or charities that also accept donations of that type. However in the amount of an extra 10-100 bucks... not sure about that one.

You can already voluntarily pay more taxes. Hell, if you have your wages garnished like most people do, and overpay giving the government an interest free loan that they return to you in April and May, and just fail to fill out your tax paperwork and don't get a refund on what you overpaid, you can volunteer more money completely automatically.

If given the option, no I wouldn't pay my taxes voluntarily. Hell I spend a lot of my time trying to pay as little in taxes as possible, so of course I'm not going to give the money to the government on my own. To charity yes, but to the government? No.

That being said some taxes are necessary and I'm not against them in themselves. It's a necessary evil, we need some social services/programs, this is what taxes are for. However I am against the income tax as I find it to be nothing but stealing.

Sales tax is fine, Property tax I can live with, but Income tax? Hell no.

Damien Granz:

dmase:
I'm pretty sure it's possible to donate money to NASA and all the other research grants are usually fundled through schools or charities that also accept donations of that type. However in the amount of an extra 10-100 bucks... not sure about that one.

You can already voluntarily pay more taxes. Hell, if you have your wages garnished like most people do, and overpay giving the government an interest free loan that they return to you in April and May, and just fail to fill out your tax paperwork and don't get a refund on what you overpaid, you can volunteer more money completely automatically.

That's only part of what the OP seems to suggest. He wants the funds to go towards specific parts of the governments and specific projects. Most research groups that receive government funds do take donations as well however you can't give the government an extra 100 bucks on the tax form and expect it to go to NASA, it's going to go where congress says it's gonna go.

dmase:

Damien Granz:

dmase:
I'm pretty sure it's possible to donate money to NASA and all the other research grants are usually fundled through schools or charities that also accept donations of that type. However in the amount of an extra 10-100 bucks... not sure about that one.

You can already voluntarily pay more taxes. Hell, if you have your wages garnished like most people do, and overpay giving the government an interest free loan that they return to you in April and May, and just fail to fill out your tax paperwork and don't get a refund on what you overpaid, you can volunteer more money completely automatically.

That's only part of what the OP seems to suggest. He wants the funds to go towards specific parts of the governments and specific projects. Most research groups that receive government funds do take donations as well however you can't give the government an extra 100 bucks on the tax form and expect it to go to NASA, it's going to go where congress says it's gonna go.

Yeah, basically this. I'm aware it's already possible to donate money to various departments, but there's no standard & easy way to do this across the board. And I assume for smaller donations they just wouldn't bother with the effort.

The OP implied that the donation would be relatively small (20-200) but also very easy to do like Kickstarter, and maybe included as an option on tax return forms. That way it would reach a large number of taxpayers.

I'd put my money into education and healthcare, two very underfunded fields here in the UK. If I had the money, that is.

Personally do not believe taxation is at all evil, as some others do. I've seen people compare them to slavery, but in my view, it's just the necessary payment to the government for providing a safe and secure place to live. The more of these qualities provided, be it through welfare or knowledge, the more it seems reasonable to pay. Enriching myself for materialistic gain is of far less interest to me than doing my bit to make my country a better place.

The only institution I distrust more than politicians is the public. I would rather have an individual who is somewhat accountable for government budget allocation than the public who has no accountability at all.

Esotera:
What if the government got the money, and then created a contract for tender which the private sector could pick up? The OP is quite clear that it's not directing where your taxes go, just paying a small amount of additional ones. On your own, it's not likely to make a large difference, but if lots of people contributed to departments and earmarked it for certain projects, the effects could be quite considerable.

I'd also disagree completely that the government shouldn't respond to our particular wants. The government is in place to serve the people, and if we're willing to throw extra money at projects we think are worth pursuing, it should accept that and attempt to implement them.

I disagree with your disagreement. The government should only respond to our needs. Anything more than that is superfluous as that, to me, is what the private sector is for. As for the government getting extra revenue from voluntary tax and then earmarking it for specific projects... sounds too idealistic. Something will go wrong. Example: government cutting funds to certain areas that get large amounts of donations.

If that didn't make sense, and I think it did, my bad. Someone decided to paint my room while I was away and I think I'm high on paint fumes.

Considering where I live, we actually have to pay for fire department, security, and the private road in front of my home and everything else we desire here since we are out of reach of city services, and we pay for them voluntarily by item and by choice, I think volunatary taxes are a great idea, and feel they work very well. I think it would solve many of the issues we have today without the unneccessary fight they currently have to go through in order to accomplish them. As it is, we have many physicians supporting medical charities and they do so, not by force, by their own free will. If we allowed for voluntary taxes for specific programs and services, we might actually get more funding into those programs and not have to worry about them being on the chopping block every time we turn around. I know our private road here is a far more well maintained than our public roads it runs in to. I think the idea of choosing what you pay for is one that would probably do very well to keep programs most important to people from being chopped.

I don't think most people like the fed enough to pay taxes for it. People tend to only pay taxes for places near them like the local schools, and etc. That's just from my experience, our public school district gets very very little compare to most other districts because our area is willing to vote for increased property taxes almost 98 percent of the time. So our government would go bankrupt if they did this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64973.html

Why would I do something as ridiculous like that when the government wastes it anyways? all your paying for is their benefit packages that we regular peons could only dream of as well as politicians taking private jet's for a 45 minute drive and giving 120$ million in aid money to RUSSIA!? and senator's spending 30k a year on cell phone roaming charges when they could simply use a calling card like any normal person? or the GM bailout where we pay THEM to relocate and take all their work to china?

I would rather burn my money then give any more then I have to to those self entitled children.

Zeckt:
Why would I do something as ridiculous like that when the government wastes it anyways? all your paying for is their benefit packages that we regular peons could only dream of as well as politicians taking private jet's for a 45 minute drive and giving 120$ million in aid money to RUSSIA!? and senator's spending 30k a year on cell phone roaming charges when they could simply use a calling card like any normal person? or the GM bailout where we pay THEM to relocate and take all their work to china?

I would rather burn my money then give any more then I have to to those self entitled children.

Here is the thing though, if you chose where the money was spent, you wouldn't be so pissed about them spending it carelessly, because they wouldn't be deciding that, you would. In front of my house I have a private road. Me and my neighbors decide how much we pay to upkeep it. That road is very well maintained simply because we agree to do so. It is far more well maintained than the public one it runs in to, but we can't decide for them to spend our taxes on that road, no they choose what they spend them on. Now if we had an option to pay taxes that directly paid to upkeep that road, I am sure all my neighbors living here complaining about that road would gladly do so. It is that we have no say in how our public pooled money is spent, only our privately pooled money. Even more ridiculous it is criminal for us to repair the public road ourselves because they will not do so.

Some of the programs we hold most dear get chopped and spending cuts while the ones we think are BS get funded. If we had an option to pay those taxes directly to those funds, I think the overall population would be much happier, because they actually have a say in how their money is spent, and would not have to worry about those programs always being chopped because someone else might think a dog park is more important than the student grant program.

Esotera:
and wondered whether the reverse principle could be applied, sort of like a KickStarter for government.

Indeed. A project based funding system is the best way to do it, where it goes to specific things over and above general government intent. So, upgrade such-and-such hospital, buy it a new CAT scanner, etc.; research a new tank; free $50 for anyone on benefits.

Voluntary funding for general expenditure is unsafe and unlikely. Government departments may have problems with their budget planning: voluntary donations are unstable, and if the voluntary receipts dive one year with expenditure planned, it's trouble. If there's an excess, this will simply be recycled into main government coffers and so not go where it was intended. Governments may also estimate voluntary donations and simply underpay the central government outlays so that the predicted voluntary addition would get it to desired.

But on the other hand, it really is difficult to see why the Kickstarter idea is not just doing what charity already does. If you want more science funding, you could just donate direct to a university, or a big research charity (Cancer Resarch UK, Wellcome Trust, etc.) Hospitals already run fundraisers. And so on.

lol, no.

With how much my family pays in taxes under this ridiculous administration, no way. I'm not up for paying for any more of the Obama's weekly vacation fund while he preaches those who make more need to pay more while he parties away.

Liberals love taxes, so long as it's not them being taxed.

Yes. Do you know why? Because then the government has money to do stuff. Sanitation isn't free you know guys!

I wouldn't pay extra, I have no idea what they would do with it, if anything.

if I had my choice in the taxes I already pay i would certainly exercise them. Problem is I dont have the faith or confidence in the government to use them effectively.

To be fair, you can already do this.

Just at the end of your US tax sheet (I don't know the tax code of any country outside of the US, so your milage may vary) you can add any amount of taxes you want to on top of what ever your legally owed. Nobody does it, of course, and you can't select where the money goes, but you can pay voluntary taxes.

Additional taxes, no. A percentage of what I already have to pay, yes.

You have the choice of not paying taxes and you expect people to pay them? The whole tax system goes back to when lords and barons ruled the land and they forced their peasantry to pay up or face the death penalty, so given the choice people aren't going to pay them, we have enough people especially huge corporations trying to avoid tax now and that's when it's illegal. No it simply boils down to the fact that someone somewhere won't pay them, and then everyone else will go why am I paying for all this when he gets all the benefits without the costs? And from there it's just a downward spiral.

ShiningAmber:

Liberals love taxes, so long as it's not them being taxed.

And conservatives love to cut spending, as long as it's not them that are affected. See, two can play that game about how your tribe is a bloodthirsty heathen and my tribe is flawless. Not sure why you'd want to play that game though...it's boring.

On topic, in Slovenia, you can already allocate a percentage of your taxes. I think that's a good option.

ShiningAmber:

Liberals love taxes, so long as it's not them being taxed.

Hello harmonic.

ANYWAY yeah i would. To be fair ive seen what doctors earn once they get going. And from where i am now i cant imagine id never need that much money ever. Id rather the hospital paid me less and used more money for better facilities. If i could donate part of my future wage back to the hospital directly or the NHS in general id be more than happy too. Id rather have more access to healthcare and shorter waiting times than more money than i wanted.

BiscuitTrouser:

ShiningAmber:

Liberals love taxes, so long as it's not them being taxed.

Hello harmonic.

ANYWAY yeah i would. To be fair ive seen what doctors earn once they get going. And from where i am now i cant imagine id never need that much money ever. Id rather the hospital paid me less and used more money for better facilities. If i could donate part of my future wage back to the hospital directly or the NHS in general id be more than happy too. Id rather have more access to healthcare and shorter waiting times than more money than i wanted.

In the US that is exactly what happens, but via charity rather than taxes. Physicians open medical charities, many directly through the Hospitals, and they donate to support treatment for those who cannot afford to pay and the government has failed to assist. My own father is alive today due to this, not only did it cover his hospital bills amounting to over $100,000, they have covered his treatment since. His weekly cardiologist, neurologist, tests, imaging and even some of his medication have all been covered, he is finally eligible for medicare this year since they made him wait 2 years after he became disabled to apply. Anyone in his condition would not be able to survive a month without treatment, yet they make them wait 2 years!

Physicians in the US support the medical charities and free clinics and also donate their time as well. The problem being of course due to the healthcare system in the US there is simply more people in need of help than can possibly be helped by these methods alone. Part of the problem is most are not aware of the many medical charities available, and do not understand what they actually do, and the Physicians and the few organizations that support them are not enough to meet demand.

BiscuitTrouser:
ANYWAY yeah i would. To be fair ive seen what doctors earn once they get going. And from where i am now i cant imagine id never need that much money ever. Id rather the hospital paid me less and used more money for better facilities. If i could donate part of my future wage back to the hospital directly or the NHS in general id be more than happy too. Id rather have more access to healthcare and shorter waiting times than more money than i wanted.

I have no idea what figures you've seen, but when it comes down to it the pay given to NHS doctors isn't that much. More compared to some, little compared to what the doctors could have been earning elsewhere and a bargain when it comes down to the knowledge and skills that the doctors possess in comparison to other countries. My brother's a doctor and is not a poor man, but I wouldn't call him rich.

You need a better imagination because money disappears quickly.

Odgical:

You need a better imagination because money disappears quickly.

Some of us simply favor function over form, don't give a toss about "status symbols", and don't need bling and swag to feel good about ourselves. Yes, if you go for "living the big life" money is going to evaporate like it's snow day in hell, but some of us simply don't see an appeal of such a life.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here