>>The money for nothing trend is the thing killing any positive effect higher taxes might have IMO.
>
>So, exactly what is "money for nothing?"

Even things like social security, when recipients can stay at home and watch TV (or work without paying taxes and other dues levvied on normal jobs)
If there is no real work like cleaning parks or streets, give them shovels to create and fill holes in the ground.

>
>Here's some serious "money for nothing:"
>What value do medical insurers add to patient care to earn the billions that they skim off the system?

Part of the problem is that such insurance creates often the mind set that you have to get most out of it (patients AND others!). Why go the whole way to pay for all medical bills? Insurance against risks otherwise leading to bankruptcy is something I view as beneficial, but isolating every one from cost for any medical treatment will induce some to go to the doctor even when not necessary, as the cost will be paid by others IAC and is less of a motivator to look after your own health and personal living style. As soon as a real part of each doctor bill is left with the patient, it might start mental or other process...

>What value do hedge fund managers, who average $1 billion annually, add?

personal decision of those holding shares of the fund to switch to other investment options. Free market rules...

>What value does a Big Ten coach who makes $5 million annually add?

No idea how the football biz is working in detail... but sports is a biz whenever TV is adding a lot of money.

>Marcia thinks it unappealing when I ask it, but what value do the Walmart heirs add?

Dunno. Introduce me to some female ones and I might try to get a petter picture ;-)

>I live in a retirement community. Most of the people here have worked all their lives, but depend on Social Security and Medicare, because the private sector has basically exited from the pension and medical benefit world here in the US.
>If social security is "money for nothing" why is a private pension not "money for nothing?"

Because private pension was reached by not blowing the earnings but putting them away. Promising a retirement without problems based on longevity data of earlier times is stupid and here I am fully with John that it is a Ponzi scheme. Tax/pension benefits should be given to those raising kids - not for being married.

>During the past 30 years there has been a huge transfer of cost from the private sector to the public sector.
>The government assumed those cost by necessity or people would be dying in the streets.

Representative democracy creates its own problems by offering always more panem et circenses then affordable to the economy