FWIW, non-citizens are also protected by the constitution while under US jurisdiction (i.e. on US soil).

Considering he wants to run the country like a business (hmm, where have we heard that before?), the fact that his projects have gone bankrupt is worth taking in to account. To me it signals that while he might be slightly conservative when it comes to his own money, he doesn't give a fuck when it comes to other peoples money, and there are enough reports of investors (large and small) being left in the shit.

This is only really a half-truth at best.

Sure, if you consider loaning the campaign money which he can reclaim or write off as a tax dodge when it fails as "self-funding", then yes.

Otherwise he has been using funds contributed to the campaign, just like every other candidate. And funds he's spending? Half of it goes back in to his own companies for stuff like rides in his own jet.

What he is *not* using is "traditional" fundraising and super PACs unlike Clinton and so on.

[source: http://www.politifact.com/trut... ]

And prices advertised include taxes & fees.

Working on it.

So, based on our combined experiences it might even be fair to say that quality is about the same (roughly, broadly speaking) whether public or private/toll.

I have a feeling you're mistaking socialism for something else.

Remember: Socialist Something of Whatever is to Socialism as Democratic Republic of Blah is to Democracy... and Peoples Whatever of Somewhere is definitely *not* for the people ;)

Even if "no plan" means copying from Scandinavia (which broadly speaking seems to be his gist), I can go for that.

Sure, those countries have their own problems (I lived in one of them for 3 years), but, they're nowhere near what the US is facing (where I am now).

I wouldn't be surprised if it's 15-20% for a family, but even then, you're paying 5% for one thing... and you probably still have to pay a fee and/or deductable to actually go to the doctor/hospital.

But the 9% increase also takes care of spending in other areas (like education and infrastructure)... part of which may not apply to you right now (but could one day).

End of the day? 9% is a bargain.

Profound is relative... Do you earn over $250k a year? No? Then no significant increases for you... but you will see benefits.

Besides which, I'm not from the US but my company and I both pay some taxes in the US. I resent my tax dollars funding a war I have zero involvement in, in countries I've visited which seemed to be alright at the time.

On the other hand, if subsidized education helps me find more/better talent in the US, and subsidized healthcare makes it easier even for my employees (despite the fact that even our lowest ranking employees get well over minimum wage) then that's awesome for me as an employer (FWIW my US company is staffed 100% by Americans, my Indian company are staffed 100% by Indians; and while they share a name, they are entirely separate and only related in that they have me as a common director -- but I'm not from either country).

All things considered, even with the proposed increases you (we) still have pretty low tax-rates in the US... which is probably why so many states/towns are in debt and can't maintain or fund anything. And expecting a refund at the end of the year is practically unheard of anywhere else - which probably exacerbates the situation.

I personally feel a 10% tax increase is worthwhile if it "releases" me from having to pay for certain things through private insurance, and given the difference in how much will be left in my bank account at the end of the year (negligible at most), at least a public system benefits everybody, no matter which end of the salary scale they're on.

What does bother me about US taxes, though... is the complexity. If I only had to fill out a single page tax form like I do in most other countries, I'd be a happy camper.

If you earn less than $250,000 a year, you probably don't have to worry about higher taxes.

And even if you do earn that or more, the amount by which your taxes will go up will be offset by no longer having to pay some other expenses you'd otherwise incur.

Where I come from, hardly anyone has private health insurance, and even those who do would never pay $1000+ a month for it. Growing up, a doctors visit was subsidized such that the out of pocket cost was $10-15 (I'm guessing the equivalent of a co-pay - still is about this cost as of the last time I went back to visit).

Whereas in the US I see co-pays of $60-100 easy... and considering the minimum wage here, that just seems burdensome, which results in a lot of sick people not being able to get well - they can't afford to take time off work but also can't afford the doctor, and so they stay sick. It makes no sense to me.

And remember, even the highest proposed rate is still going to be WAY less than it was during the US boom-era, where lots of people seems to be doing perfectly bloody well for themselves. So quit your bitching.

People pay for way more than they're likely to use all the time - it's practically the business model for 3 of the 4 major US cellular providers.

And also why people rent/lease $700 devices for little more than accessing texts Facebook/Instagram/etc (despite a $100 device does that adequately), in addition to the $60/mo smartphone plan (and let's be honest, that's being pretty conservative). All this, whether they can afford it or not.

And yet ISPs change terms of service and their contracted rates all the time.

I (or you, if you were so inclined) could get the necessary numbers from the FCC and the necessary insurance then go to any town and get a franchise agreement and start building infrastructure next to any incumbent (because exclusive franchises haven't been legal for a while now).

If I/you had/have/were able to raise the funding, of course.

Problem with doing that is the incumbents tend to be a bit litigious. But that's a private anti-competition issue, not a protected monopoly/exclusive contract thing.

Unfortunately, they are right in that they don't have 100% of the US ISP market, therefore are not a monopoly at a federal level, despite the situation in any given ZIP code (which is where the problem lies).

If things were changed to prevent incumbents from suing potential competition out of business, though... that would probably help.

I dunno, I-90 between Erie and Buffalo NY isn't so great...
And there are some toll-roads in KS (I can't remember the numbers, but going from KC to Wichita, for example) which aren't so hot either...
And that one between Chicago and Detroit (actually, I think that's just a different section of I-90)...
And some of the toll-roads in Italy are a bit bumpier than I'd like.

Meanwhile, many of the autobahns I've driven on (mostly in south Germany, between for example Heidelberg and Munich) are toll-free, partially speed-limit free and seem pretty well maintained, all things considered.

And this is just in the last few months.

But that could just be the Germans for you.