> Why it is hard to view working "just for healthcare" as positive? Is it hard to view working "just for money" as positive? I.e. suppose that one works only because one needs money and otherwise he would spend his time playing Tetris, walking on the beach and reading medieval poetry. Why is it negative that he still works and not lives off other's money and other's work, involuntary taken?

That doesn't sound quite correct. Working just for the money is a neutral, the _negative_ here is involuntary taxation. I agree that it's in a negative (and have pointed out later in my comment a particularly bad form of it), but some kind of taxation is unavoidable (anarcho-capitalism is a fascinating theory, but none of its variants strike me as realistic).

Further, I'm not advocating a system that covers every single type of heath benefits for free. I'm simply talking about insurance against catastrophes and in some cases arguing against government interference -- e.g., the kind that essentially made healthcare go through employers and insurance agencies, as opposed to Milton Friedman's idea of MSAs (a stronger form of HSAs/high-deductible insurance -- something that ACA has actually made more expensive).

Essentially it's about marginal utility: having no healthcare available is much worse than not having certainly elective healthcare but having other healthcare. Likewise earning $0 vs. earning $15k a year (not enough to live on in Silicon Valley, but ok for getting by elsewhere in the country) is much bigger difference than the difference between earning $15k and $30k, which is a much bigger difference than going betwen earning $30k and $45k. No one should be entitled to a comfortable life, but I don't think a system where individuals who are not employable (whether involuntarily or voluntarily) are left to rely on charity alone is one that will ever be created (irrespective of whether or not it could be theoretically justified). I'm an advocate of scraping the current welfare state and replacing it with a simple basic income payment (if that's not politically feasible, I'm fine with Friedman's idea of a negative income tax). This will actually lead to less government interference: less welfare programs, possibly lower (or at least no higher) taxes, and so forth. Here's an argument for this from a well known socialist organization Cato Institute (backed by such left-wing pinko commies as the Koch Brothers): http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...

Furthermore, in terms of reducing tax rates, I strongly favour slashing military and police spending (no SWAT teams for tiny suburbs), ending the drug war, and cutting middle class entitlement programs (or at least privatizing them or making them voluntary).

> If you raise salaries for a wide class of employees - what do you think will happen to the housing prices? Also, where would the money come from? California has about 300K teachers. Each 10K of salary increase would cost 3 billion dollars (not counting pension costs, employer's part in taxes, etc. so actually more). Where those additional billions would come from?

Raising the salary is not the only way to do so: increasing the supply of housing. I live in Saratoga and lived in Mountain View: the avg price of a resident (averaged between condos, townhomes, and single family homes) is well north of $1mm in those areas. In Mountain View this can attributed to location (and Sunnyvale which is directly adjacent is cheaper, especially the north parts of Sunnyvale closer to Mountain View), but in Los/Gatos-Saratoga this is entirely due to minimum lot sizes (my place is currently worth significantly below that -- but due to being in a small area that was annexed to Saratoga and which retained much smaller lot sizes).

My point also wasn't about the need of higher pay, it was about job satisfaction having more to do with being over certain thresholds as opposed to the bizarre idea that it had something to do with how much I am making in relation to some CEO.

Re: salary itself. This also does not include the pay that is docked to go to unions (union membership is mandatory for teachers in California -- I am all in favour of removing that requirement for unions of government employees). These are closer to starting salaries of SWEs not average salaries of all engineers (my first job out of college was $85k in 2006 at Yahoo -- not exactly a company known for highest wages). Finally RSUs are a huge part of engineer's salaries: $100k in RSUs vested over four years (with refreshers) is common for even new college grads. I am not advocating raising everyone's salary of course. I am in favour of treating teachers more as software engineers: merit pay increases, performance reviews, and no traps like tenure -- much as with software engineers, it should be easy for teachers to switch schools or move to a different area if their pay is not satisfactory (and as with software engineers, it might mean some would leave the profession if they are doing it just for the money and money doesn't suffice, this again is a positive).

I think you mistook me as someone advocating greater taxation -- done in the same manner as today -- I am not; I actually believe we far less meddling in our lives, certain kinds of taxes could be lower (but perhaps other kinds -- e.g., tax on rent per Henry George), and so forth. However, I find that arguing about immediately abolishing all taxation (logical outcome of what you're advocating) are going to work -- I much prefer to acknowledge that the problems much of the left perceives are real, but offer solutions that are less coercive than status quo or other alternatives.