Kristofer wrote: I seriously hope you dont think we go around killing innocent people. We just dust-off the bad guys.

Unless, of course, the innocent people happen to be standing near the bad guys.  Then they are fair game.

DBibeau855 wrote: Hades wrote: So who needs to pay for the perfect world if it can be achieved? Poor people? It cant be done. No sense in spending so much money trying.

What can't be done?

"Perfect" is relative.  What level of perfection do we deem impossible?

How about 100% literacy, 100% healthcare coverage (with minor personal contributions), 100% education coverage (with minor personal contributions), 100% retirement coverage, all provided by the state?  And a poverty rate, by normal definitions, of almost zero?  High life expectancy, low crime - you get the picture.

Do you believe that is possible?  Is it worth trying for?

DBibeau855 wrote: . And clark. Its a worthy goal, and worth striving for. But, given the current culture of the world, the "me first" attitude of people in general, as long as big corporations, people building cheap ghettos that attract poor criminal types, there will always be poverty. As long as groups of people are caught up in the criminal cycle, there will be poverty, illiteracy ect ect.

You should travel more.  Different people have different attitudes around the world.

I basically described Norway to you, BTW.  Their 100% literacy, education, health care, retirement, high life expectancy, low crime...

Their poverty level is unusually high at the moment (but still a LOT lower than most anywhere else in the world), probably due to lots of recent immigration.  I expect that will change for the better soon.

What I described to you is not only achievable, it already has been done.

EDIT - and by "small personal contribution" I meant small co-pays.  You pay $10 to go to the doctor, and $100 per semester in college.  That kind of thing.

DiBi wrote: But, given the current culture of the world, the "me first" attitude of people in general

But, be that as it may...

I didn't say that Norway is superior to the US.  I said that those things I described are attainable.

And while some of the features of Norwegian society are probably not possible in the US at this time, others are - if we really want them. 

It is a copout to declare them as Utopian just because it would be hard.

Look to Norway, and you will find the answer...

But, more directly - it isn't "more money" - it is just reallocated.  You already pay more than $10 for your doctor's visit.  There is health insurance witheld from your paycheck, and your employer pays more.  I would venture that you and your employer are actually paying more than $10,000 per year in health insurance, just for you.  Do you need all that coverage?  Probably not.  But with private health insurance, risk cannot be spread across large groups, and some people pay a lot more than others.

Would your taxes go up, with universal healthcare?  Certainly - but your health insurance deductions would go to zero.  On a national level, these costs should more or less offset.  Some people will pay more than before, net, others will pay less.

Similarly, with universal education - we already have public high schools, paid for by taxes (although at the county level).  The same approach could be applied to state universities.  It isn't "MORE" money.  Total inflows and outflows remain the same.

Now, as to where the taxes come from - that is a much more complex question.  I would oppose taxing business, as business is what keeps us all alive.  And a tax on business is simply a tax on people once removed, and usually twice over.  The options are endless - but the personal income taxes in Norway are comparable to the income taxes in the US.

Lots of places have fully state-sponsored education.  Sri Lanka is dirt poor (ok, fairly poor), and they have it.  Norway is filthy rich, and they have it.  And many others as well (Sweden, Denmark, China...)

The implementation is not difficult - there are a variety of ways.  The obvious one is not to accept everybody.  If you get into law school in Norway the government will pay for your education, but you still have to get in.

And cost, tax-wise - again, depends on application.  Maybe we limit the number of spots significantly.  Current US theory is to have a state university that everybody can get into - which, as you point out, leads to not enough ditch diggers.  There are plenty of people in college in the US who, IMO, shouldn't be.  Instead, cut the spots in half but make them fully paid.  That would, I believe, actually SAVE tax dollars versus the current system.

But first we have to decide what exactly we want.