HEMI-Powered wrote:

.....
Not sure, but the OP's comments smack of those of a Socialist who
believes that the government owes them cradle-to-grade benefits
including income, "free" healthcare, and plesant events such as
guaranteed high interest on their money. A prime example of this
warped thinking is the nonsense that flows from Aardvark's fingers.

Didn't see him talking about free (as in beer) healthcare or other regulated
benefits. Sure enough, we have to pay taxes or social insurance.
The only difference may be, the taxes /insurance rates do depend upon income
here. One might argue that it's a raw deal for these who pay more taxes,
because they usually don't benefit that more. But then, that's the principle
of any (private or public) insurance.

He really does think that a) healthcare is entirely free and b) his
gubmint actually OWES him a living. Neither is true. Those who
produce in an economy and pay taxes are the ones that always have
to pay for the lazy and the stupid, who simply draw on benefits
without contributing.

You appear to be the old fart almost creeping up the stairs each early
morning distributing newspapers at age 80 just because you lost everything
when your private insurance company invested in foul stocks and went bust?
Your fault. Only yours. You ought have saved the nickels under your pillow
instead.
At least you say that.
The private insurance may give you a cheap deal, but it isn't backed up.
Therein lies the difference.

In about any country you want to investigate, the top 5% of wage
earners usually pay 95% or more of the ENTIRE government's budget.
In pathological cases, as in New York City, of a population of over
8 million, only 48,000 pay something like 97% of the taxes! Talk
about unfair!

That may be true for *wages* not revenues, and also it is not true for
social security contributions.