Steve Wozniak Says Apple Should Pay 50% Tax Rate

[Renzatic]

It's economics 101.
Increase demand without letting increase of supply and you get an increase in price.

You say that college tuition in US has not increased?
That is certainly not the data I'm looking at.

Yeah, demand does drive an increase in price, but it's usually contained within a reasonable scale. The problem is that the recent increase in college tuition prices is anything but reasonable.

Going by this, we are seeing a historically high demand in college education. It's expected that school will now cost a little more, both because of demand, and because of inflation.

...but how does that 20% increase in demand over the years, from half of all high school grads to 70%, justify the vast increases we've seen in tuition costs from the late 70's to now. We're talking about a level of inflation that's outpaced everything else in the country, including the cost of medical care.

Also, by subsidizing higher education with taxpayer money, this has several bad consequences.

1. You increase the number of college graduates. This results in degree inflation. Have you ever seen the number of Phd's awarded in the US? It's completely out of control. And what do you think those people will say when they can't find jobs? They ask for government to help. It's a vicious cycle.

2. You disproportionately hurt people who are intellectually less able. By subsidizing higher education, this results in tax payer money being spent disproportionately on people who are academically more inclined.
This seems like a good thing, except not everyone has same intellectual capacity. Income and IQ/SAT scores are highly correlated and by helping those with higher IQ, it penalizes those with lower IQ.

I'd say you're wrong about something things, right about others. Since I'm getting kinda lazy, I'll sum it up by going to the end of my argument.

Since we've undercut our own manufacturing base, which used to provide the primary breadwinning jobs for the vast majority of high school educated middle class families in the country, and college degrees are an expected necessity for anything beyond an low paying entry level job...

...now that we've let this cat out of the bag, how do we get it back in?

 

[SHNXX]

I think getting government out of the education, although not entirely, would be a great first step.
If you examine California for instance, we see that taxpayers are paying for a lot of excess that is probably not beneficial for anyone.
In addition, we should stop artificially increasing demand for higher education by subsidizing student loans.
This will have several effects: 1) decrease demand, 2) reduce price of education, 3) students and parents will more critically examine the value proposition of college education since they're paying for it, 4) reduce degree inflation

Private market will adjust to demand as needed. We may see more trade schools, and schools that focus more on where the jobs are, instead of vague notion of philosophical pedagogy, which is good if you're at Harvard, but not so good if you're at Cal State.

By reducing government involvement, taxpayers will have less burden and especially the less educated poorer families will not be paying taxes to send more intelligent, more wealthy families' children to pay their government subsidized cost-inefficient tuition.

note: excuse my errors in punctuation, grammar and diction. i'm posting quickly while working.

regarding manufacturing, that's never going to come back except in the form of automation.
complaining about manufacturing is like complaining that we don't have typists anymore or that horses are unemployed nowadays. such is progress.

 

[Renzatic]

I think getting government out of the education, although not entirely, would be a great first step.
If you examine California for instance, we see that taxpayers are paying for a lot of excess that is probably not beneficial for anyone.
In addition, we should stop artificially increasing demand for higher education by subsidizing student loans.
This will have several effects: 1) decrease demand, 2) reduce price of education, 3) students and parents will more critically examine the value proposition of college education since they're paying for it, 4) reduce degree inflation

This is more of a educated hope than a definite guarantee. The problem with this is that if you pull government money out of the system outright, you'll not only be putting the schools in a difficult position that some might not be able to work their way out of, but you'll be disenfranchising a bunch of kids for the next 8 years or so while everything slowly readjusts.

If education is currently experiencing an economic bubble, the most likely outcome of implementing a full government retreat will be to burst it completely, rather than deflate it.

regarding manufacturing, that's never going to come back except in the form of automation.
complaining about manufacturing is like complaining that we don't have typists anymore or that horses are unemployed nowadays. such is progress.

This is the major reason why I'm such a huge proponent for education. Yeah, progress is a thing. It's not right to stop it. But this progress has to always be considered, and you always want a means for all tehse suddenly jobless people to readjust themselves to a new economy.

 

[SHNXX]

This is more of a educated hope than a definite guarantee. The problem with this is that if you pull government money out of the system outright, you'll not only be putting the schools in a difficult position that some might not be able to work their way out of, but you'll be disenfranchising a bunch of kids for the next 8 years or so while everything slowly readjusts.

If education is currently experiencing an economic bubble, the most likely outcome of implementing a full government retreat will be to burst it completely, rather than deflate it.



This is the major reason why I'm such a huge proponent for education. Yeah, progress is a thing. It's not right to stop it. But this progress has to always be considered, and you always want a means for all tehse suddenly jobless people to readjust themselves to a new economy.

You're right about that.
I don't think it would make sense for government to decide to cut all funding to higher education suddenly.
But a gradual decline would make sense, wouldn't it?

Even putting the supply-demand aside, it'd be good for balancing the budget, and lots of programs such as NIH, NASA, etc are getting their funding cut anyway.

 

[deeddawg]

They'd fund schools properly. They'd support and fix a hospital system in crisis. There would be great outcomes for everyone if companies paid proper tax.

You can't be so naive as to really believe that? LOL.

There's already PLENTY of money to do those things if the politicians made it their priority.

 

[5684697]

That's not a problem with taxes, or the program itself. Social Security was a massive success up until the government started using it as a rainy day fund back in the 80's.

It's also where a big chunk of our debt resides. Every dollar taken from SS is another dollar added to the ever growing pool.

That's not true at all. The issue with SS is demographics.

Tuition keeps increasing because it is subsidized. Universities are gold plating things like dorms, admin staff and bloated salaries for very little return to actual education. Much of it inefficient and uncessary in the new on,ins world.

 

[Renzatic]

That's not true at all. The issue with SS is demographics.

Tuition keeps increasing because it is subsidized. Universities are gold plating things like dorms, admin staff and bloated salaries for very little return to actual education. Much of it inefficient and uncessary in the new on,ins world.

It's been subsidizes since the late 40's, but only started it's upwards swing over the last 20-30 odd years.

I won't doubt the fact that these schools are pretty crassly taking advantage of the sudden influx of money they've been seeing recently. I just find it strange that, rather than place the blame on a group of unscrupulous people being bad managers, some would rather blame the system itself, and decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[kdarling]

Are you trying to say Apple has done something illegal? If Apple has done something illegal, then Apple should be prosecuted and punished in such a way that no corporation would ever dream of doing something like that ever again.

What the NY Times is pointing out, is that, yes all this clever tax evasion which corporations are now doing, would've likely been treated as illegal in times past.

I would love to see that Supreme Court opinion where the words "elaborate and devious" means were used. When a matter of tax law goes before the Supreme Court, it's that court's job to interpret the laws and the Constitution as they are. I'd love to know what the Court defined as "elaborate and devious" means?

Clicking on the link would've let you see it. In that case, a woman created a bogus corporation just for the purpose of transferring money without getting taxed. Kind of like how these days, we see shell companies being used all over the world.

I mean, geez, Apple funnels 2/3 of its revenue through Ireland so it can pay as little as 2% in taxes instead of whatever it would normally owe the actual target sales countries. Now, we all know the Irish have the gift of gab, but no way do they purchase 2/3 of the iDevices in the worlds

Perhaps Apple needs a new label: "iPhone - Designed in California - Made in China - Sold in Ireland"

I'm not saying I'm opposed to corporations paying something into the system because the system is a part of getting them to where they are. I am simply questioning the lack outrage directed at Congress because they're the ones who created the problem and they're doing nothing to fix it.

I don't disagree. As Rolling Stone points out, Congress and multiple administrations have let these loopholes continue, even while publicly decrying them:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-biggest-tax-scam-ever-20140827

 

[Rocketman]

That's not a problem with taxes, or the program itself. Social Security was a massive success up until the government started using it as a rainy day fund back in the 80's.

It's also where a big chunk of our debt resides. Every dollar taken from SS is another dollar added to the ever growing pool.

The funds taken from Social Security are evidenced with "notes" held at Treasury. Bush 43 went to the locked file cabinet to do a photo op there with a couple of them. He declined to state the interest, inferring it might be 0-1%. No note image has ever been made public.

If the funds were even in a basic savings account it would have paid interest to cover some of the costs rather than 100% being from current taxation. If it were in a S&P index fund, and been tax free being an internal government account, the vastly increased investment returns would have forced increased benefit amounts for all current and future recipients.

Remember, Social Security is Insurance not a pension, so it is paid out based on need which reduces with income, but premiums per dollar income are level up to an income of $138,000. It was designed to work. It was politicians looking for another spending fountain that wrecked it. Obama doubled down.

Hillary for example thought Obama was tame. She wants to eliminate or vastly increase the $138,000 cap so the payers are never receivers guaranteed. But she doesn't want it in a savings account, no. She wants to spend it and file notes in the filing cabinet too! That's tax and spend on steroids!

Ask any democrat/progressive or socialist/communist or oligarch/gang. Do you ever pay down your debt?

Do you know what you would do with your money if you had no debt payments?

Resulting in:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...pay-50-tax-rate.1968991/page-12#post-22834483

Further reading:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...pay-50-tax-rate.1968991/page-12#post-22833369

 

[oftheheavens]

I happen to agree that there should be mandatory service, either in the military or the Peace Corps. America would be a much better country if its citizens were more worldly and had more skin in the game when their government contemplates going to war.

As far as making more money. I have had my share of needing to change my life to make more money-moving states, going back to school to completely change careers after a layoff, etc. BUT, my circumstances were made easier because I'm white (don't deny that that helps A LOT), have a high IQ, a college education, no kids to support and a family who supported me when I needed it. Millions of people in poverty don't have that stuff. The schools they grew up with were poorly funded and barely educated them, they don't have people in their life to guide them to be more successful, industry left their area and they don't have the funds to pick up and move somewhere else. Single mothers who can't afford childcare but still manage to work multiple minimum wage jobs. People who got caught with a little cannabis and ended up with a job-killing felony on their record. Don't be so flippant about people "just need to make more money" when you haven't walked in other people's shoes or apparently haven't looked around at how other people have to live.
[doublepost=1461616470][/doublepost]

I was really following your post until the end when you flipped on me. I have walked in "those people's" shoes. I have been homeless, thats why I joined the military (a roof over my head was an important priority) and it didn't matter that I was white the military doesn't look at color (anymore). I have also served and protected, as a Marine, many walks of life that are much more poor and seen much more horrible things. Yet even in those countries, in those situations, the ones that want out do whatever it takes to get out. Look how many rich foreigners we have that weren't rich before coming to America (or even well off enough to buy a home made of actual lumber and materials). I have seen so many things that make your rebuttal about how not everyone can be someone better due to their social standings.

With that said I am a realist, there are some people that just simply won't get a job that will bring them out of poverty. Be it due to intelligence, or as you mentioned, having felonies for silly things like pot. Which, while not felonies, I was caught with pot 2 times in Texas and while it gave me a rough time getting into the military it wasn't a big enough problem to prevent me from joining. Finally, it is super hard in most states to get a felony any more for personal amounts of pot.

 

[laurim]

I was really following your post until the end when you flipped on me. I have walked in "those people's" shoes. I have been homeless, thats why I joined the military (a roof over my head was an important priority) and it didn't matter that I was white the military doesn't look at color (anymore). I have also served and protected, as a Marine, many walks of life that are much more poor and seen much more horrible things. Yet even in those countries, in those situations, the ones that want out do whatever it takes to get out. Look how many rich foreigners we have that weren't rich before coming to America (or even well off enough to buy a home made of actual lumber and materials). I have seen so many things that make your rebuttal about how not everyone can be someone better due to their social standings.

With that said I am a realist, there are some people that just simply won't get a job that will bring them out of poverty. Be it due to intelligence, or as you mentioned, having felonies for silly things like pot. Which, while not felonies, I was caught with pot 2 times in Texas and while it gave me a rough time getting into the military it wasn't a big enough problem to prevent me from joining. Finally, it is super hard in most states to get a felony any more for personal amounts of pot.

Do you think you got off easy for the pot because you are white? Probably and that's my point. And not everyone is military material. I know I would have a tough time drinking the koolaid of obeying authority without questioning. One of the reasons I'm a freelancer is because I constantly got into trouble working in corporations and not following the "chain of command" to get my work done. I'm not someone who would be good in a military setting.

 

[Renzatic]

I'm not someone who would be good in a military setting.

I don't think I'd be either, actually. But that's mostly because the military expects you to wake up at 3AM. It's obscene!

It's true that a lot of people aren't cut out for the military, but at the same time, I think a year spent learning a bit of discipline and patience probably wouldn't be too bad of a thing to teach our post high school graduates.

 

[laurim]

I don't think I'd be either, actually. But that's mostly because the military expects you to wake up at 3AM. It's obscene!

It's true that a lot of people aren't cut out for the military, but at the same time, I think a year spent learning a bit of discipline and patience probably wouldn't be too bad of a thing to teach our post high school graduates.

True. But I got that training from my parents like every kid is supposed to get. I think the military is great but for the rest of us, mandatory public service in ANY way would be just as beneficial.

 

[Renzatic]

True. But I got that training from my parents like every kid is supposed to get. I think the military is great but for the rest of us, mandatory public service in ANY way would be just as beneficial.

Well, the type of discipline you learn from your parents is a bit different than what you'd get in the military. Barring a few households, most people don't teach their children how not to flinch when having live rounds shot at them.

...that's a life skill I sadly lack. Mom and dad have deprived me of so much.

 

[mazz0]

Here is your graph with a graph of corporate profits laid on top. Notice how as profits skyrocket, money velocity decreases. If you want more money velocity, it appears that you should push for better wages, rather than more profits. But, I'm sure you have an explanation to counter.
[doublepost=1461513287][/doublepost]

It's been said on here many times before:

Quit your whining - it's embarrassing - seriously.
Apple Philosophy of no choice
Why "Stick-it" is proof that iTunes Movies will work
Subtopic (Drugs) split from - [Pope rejects condom use in Africa] (not sure this one is serious)
Wouldn't it be funny...if all these iPhone leaks weren't for real after all?

That's but a few...

What's that in the background of that graph, is it a bunch of riot police in gas masks?

 

[oftheheavens]

Do you think you got off easy for the pot because you are white? Probably and that's my point. And not everyone is military material. I know I would have a tough time drinking the koolaid of obeying authority without questioning. One of the reasons I'm a freelancer is because I constantly got into trouble working in corporations and not following the "chain of command" to get my work done. I'm not someone who would be good in a military setting.

Your absolutely correct, not everyone is "military material" but I think those people fall under the handicap group of people that are unable to perform the required physical and/or mental tasks (in which there are government programs in place for them). Your problem though, if you are broke (not sure or care if you are) it is due to your attitude. Your mentality of "no one can tell me what to do" would be the reason why you can't afford nice things. This doesn't make you not "military material" it just makes you a stubborn individual. Some countries do require military service upon reaching the age of an adult. Do you think that those countries allow their citizens not to join simply because they don't want to follow orders of a senior member? Do you think even though resistant come out with a better understanding of how to move their lives forwards? Well enough about the military point, there are many options out there to better yourself and make more income.

Since you want to keep talking about the white card, I lived in Tx so no I was shown no leniency. I was thrown in jail for a single joint both times and not released until I made bail or saw a judge. There was a black man in the same cell as me for nearly the exact same charge. Further, in the military I was (rarely but still) passed up for a promotion or a position I wanted because I was a white male and they needed to have someone black/hispanic/female in the position. White women frequently get passed over for promotion when it is given to a black man do to his ability to out perform her physically (which is used in the promotion scoring). I am not naive I know there is racism in the world but it isn't what it used to be and I think it is becoming more of a crutch than anything else. Almost none of the african americans that complain about their problems daily, ever had to go through not being able to use the same water fountains, restrooms and everything else. So why so angry all the time? Anyway, my final point is this, everyone aside from those physically/mentally handicap can make their own chance to get ahead. Everyone has something about them that can be picked at (color, nationality, big nose) but everyone can still make their own chances. Many Universities back in my early college years would even give a certain amount of scholarships to minorities just to change their diversity numbers. FAMU did it for whites and I am sure just about every other college in the US has some program to offer some type of scholarship to african americans.

 

[samiwas]

What's that in the background of that graph, is it a bunch of riot police in gas masks?

Dunno. I didn't make the original graph.

 

[laurim]

Your absolutely correct, not everyone is "military material" but I think those people fall under the handicap group of people that are unable to perform the required physical and/or mental tasks (in which there are government programs in place for them). Your problem though, if you are broke (not sure or care if you are) it is due to your attitude. Your mentality of "no one can tell me what to do" would be the reason why you can't afford nice things. This doesn't make you not "military material" it just makes you a stubborn individual. Some countries do require military service upon reaching the age of an adult. Do you think that those countries allow their citizens not to join simply because they don't want to follow orders of a senior member? Do you think even though resistant come out with a better understanding of how to move their lives forwards? Well enough about the military point, there are many options out there to better yourself and make more income.

Since you want to keep talking about the white card, I lived in Tx so no I was shown no leniency. I was thrown in jail for a single joint both times and not released until I made bail or saw a judge. There was a black man in the same cell as me for nearly the exact same charge. Further, in the military I was (rarely but still) passed up for a promotion or a position I wanted because I was a white male and they needed to have someone black/hispanic/female in the position. White women frequently get passed over for promotion when it is given to a black man do to his ability to out perform her physically (which is used in the promotion scoring). I am not naive I know there is racism in the world but it isn't what it used to be and I think it is becoming more of a crutch than anything else. Almost none of the african americans that complain about their problems daily, ever had to go through not being able to use the same water fountains, restrooms and everything else. So why so angry all the time? Anyway, my final point is this, everyone aside from those physically/mentally handicap can make their own chance to get ahead. Everyone has something about them that can be picked at (color, nationality, big nose) but everyone can still make their own chances. Many Universities back in my early college years would even give a certain amount of scholarships to minorities just to change their diversity numbers. FAMU did it for whites and I am sure just about every other college in the US has some program to offer some type of scholarship to african americans.

1) I make high 5 figures with basically a part-time job so, no, I'm not poor.

2) your limited data (n=2) does not adequately dispute the overall data that shows white people get away with more crimes and get less time for the same actions than non-white people do.

3) you are in a lily white bubble looking out so you really have no idea about this subject. If you have to wonder why they are "angry all the time" then you seriously have no clue and need to stop embarrassing yourself. You sound like a Trump voter.

 

[oftheheavens]

1) I make high 5 figures with basically a part-time job so, no, I'm not poor.

2) your limited data (n=2) does not adequately dispute the overall data that shows white people get away with more crimes and get less time for the same actions than non-white people do.

3) you are in a lily white bubble looking out so you really have no idea about this subject. If you have to wonder why they are "angry all the time" then you seriously have no clue and need to stop embarrassing yourself. You sound like a Trump voter.

And you sound like an arrogant uneducated person taking my original post to new levels. I am so proud of you for making a lot of money at a part time job, thank god you're a white male that was born with well off loving parents right?

My "limited data" is real world experience, my experience, that I shared. I did not state a hypothesis or proof. In my scenario I am a white male that got the same treatment as a black guy in the same town at the same time by the same police station.

While I love my lily white bubble I step out once again to response to your asinine replies. Yes black, hispanic and whatever else you want to add have some hardship when put side by side with a white person with the same qualifications. That said, so you feel better, this is no longer the mid to late 1900's and white people are becoming the minority in many areas. People act no where near as hateful towards people of color these days yet people of color act as though they are treated the same as their great grandparents.

Since you had to throw in voting, you must be one of those voting for Hilary that will believe whatever your told no matter the evidence. And I'm not voting for trump incase you feel it really is your business.

 

[Rossatron]

Paying 50% of your income is plain wrong. Doesn't matte if you're an individual or a company.
In any case, he forgets that companies create jobs, create demand for products... He just sits on his ass ordering pizza.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Paying 50% of your income is plain wrong. Doesn't matte if you're an individual or a company.

Why? In the U.S. democracy-in-a-republic, we have a system for making rules regarding the economy. We get to decide on those rules. If we want 50% tax rate, why not? Further, corporations are legal entities and we can make rules for them however we want.

I'm not saying 50% is good or bad. I'm saying we are legally and morally empowered to figure out the best way to tax in our unprecedentedly interconnected economy.

In any case, he forgets that companies create jobs, create demand for products... He just sits on his ass ordering pizza.

In any case, you forget that consumers create demand for products. With the 50% of my paycheck remaining after taxes, I decide if I want to buy an iPhone 6S or a Nexus 6P.

 

[Rossatron]

yes, but corporations create demand for the materials they need which in tern creates jobs in a much larger scale.

50% income tax means that half of everything you do goes to the government. thats insane. 4.5 hours of everyday, you work just to pay them

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

yes, but corporations create demand for the materials they need which in tern creates jobs in a much larger scale.

It probably dropped during the Great Recession, but, prior to that, consumer spending was 70% of U.S. GDP.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...-be-the-engine-of-economic-growth-it-once-was

50% income tax means that half of everything you do goes to the government. thats insane. 4.5 hours of everyday, you work just to pay them

"Insane"? Not necessarily. First of all, marginal, and, upper-middle-class-to-top-out-of-sight-average tax rates (who have all the wealth and most of the income), are not the same as lower-middle-class-and-under rates. And, not necessarily, if, some of that tax is a (Social Security pension) transfer from working people to retired people. And, not necessarily if that tax actually puts more money in my pocket to buy iPhones because it saves money on healthcare. In the plan I'm on right now (HDHP/HSA), healthcare costs are consumer spending, and, I'm paying a lot of my consumer spending money for healthcare. YMMV.

The U.S. spends almost as much of its GDP on public healthcare as Australia spends public+private. And, then spends it again on private spending for healthcare. Yet, Australians live longer (tied for #2 worldwide) than people in the U.S. (tied for #34). (Source: Wikipedia.) Go figure.

 

[Tech198]

Really, Wozniak said that ? I bet he's thinking "Last time i help Apple"

If individuals do that they get fined, jailed, or both ASAP.... If companies do that like Apple, its only "a slap on the wrist" or as "it's a long process" deciding... That's not fair.

But as usual the ones making the rules, do so for others,, themselves are exempted from any rulings...

That sux..

 

[Sill]

Yeah, I get it. Taxes are theft. In your opinion. But, surprise, not mine. Go live on a desert island. Experience no taxes. Enjoy talking to yourself.

And why should I leave? Why don't you go live on an island with others who enjoy taxes?

For that matter, why does anyone have to leave? If your system is so great, let it run in parallel with mine. At no point does anyone who truly follows non-aggression principals say that you can't have your tax system or live under whatever amount of oppression you choose, yet in my experience, people with your mindset routinely suggest that anyone who criticizes the system that they have (convinced themselves) they've chosen for themselves must be driven out. That is borderline religious zealotry applied to economics and sociology.

Sorry, but in my economy, free speech and exchange of ideas means that we discuss our views and present our arguments for review, it doesn't mean that we drive out the people we don't agree with. YMMV.

The problem with market-based healthcare is that a truly free market is basically impossible. Imagine that because of a medical emergency you are in excruciating pain. Now, negotiate with the ER staff on whether you really need that MRI or CAT scan, and, what the price should be.

That is an interesting way to look at it, but it also reveals some fallacies I think you've absorbed, and you're making assumptions based on that.

Here you're touching down at minute 1 on day 1 of "Libertarians Get Their Wish and Now All Health Care is Market-based", and its like a switch flipped. In your mind, the only way for the market-based health care to happen is if regulated health-care shuts down, and along with it all the structure that we've taken for granted. You can't go to an ER and go pick a service anymore, or even pick a doctor to recommend one, because its now all up for grabs, isn't it. Everyone who comes through the door must now bargain the price out in real time prior to getting the service. Somehow, you get to judge any free-market proposal by using it without a foundation against the system you're comfortable with, one that has a foundation of decades? You're creating a serious straw man here. Wouldn't you be better served by looking at markets that have much less government regulation and cronyism, and see how a free market system would work, and how a basis for negotiated services would be established over time?

Go take a look at an auto service center. This is one of the last bastions of a semi-free market system. There are zero federal regulations governing the training or administration of auto service. Precious few amongst the states or local governments as well, the few exceptions being waste disposal and common business licensing. People who go to such centers are free to comparison shop for price, for the level of education of the service people, for past business history and customer satisfaction, for the cleanliness of the facility and waiting areas, for how up to date the equipment it, and a host of other qualifications.

When you go for auto service, you don't have to negotiate your price in real time. The negotiation has actually occurred over years, decades, as the auto business as a whole has discovered based on market signals what people will pay. You choose off a menu for common procedures, or you review an estimate for larger ones. You're not negotiating in real time, for the first time each time, just because your standing in the middle of the free market.

This did not spring up overnight. It happened over the past 100 years, organically. Educational facilities started up in this country, largely without government interference, to train people in the upkeep of these mechanical monsters. The industry has regulated itself, without actually regulating itself. We didn't have a burgeoning national government interfering in all manners within the auto service industry. So we also don't have a switch flipping and "Libertarians Get Their Wish in the Auto Service Industry" moment, along with jnpy!$4g3cwk (what is that s/n? Welsh?) insinuating that you would have to now negotiate for auto service in real time if there was no government involvement.

Something a little closer to health care would be the scuba diving industry. People put their lives at risk daily in this sport, yet as far as I can tell, it has no government regulation. In fact, I think it has ZERO regulation. It also has an extremely low fatality and injury rate. The solution is very simple: you can buy all the dive gear you want, but you can't buy compressed air for your tank or rent a full tank unless you have a certification card. There are numerous competing certification companies. No one is required to go to any particular one. The companies also do an effective job of weeding out people not capable of handling themselves safely in the dive environment.
You can also purchase your own insurance for diving, through Divers Alert Network, at a very reasonably price, tailored to your needs. No law requiring you to have it. If a person dies through a product defect, the manufacturer settles. No law persecutes the company, but the free market makes good.

It is a logical consequence. It is also a fact that countries that have state-provided or coordinated healthcare have the longest life-expectancies.

Here is a chart. How many purely libertarian-healthcare countries in the top 30?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

A good thing to bring up, but not for the simplistic reason you're stressing here. You're pointing out that one statistic and using it to justify government health care as if that is the sole reason those people have longer life expectancies.

You're making the grand assumption that the life expectancy is a direct result of the government health care in each country. You're making the assumption that the entire population of each of those nations partake regularly and equally of the health care system. How do you know that life expectancy isn't supported by the number of participants, but rather by a vastly larger number of people who refuse to participate, or at best participate minimally?

How many of those countries with higher life expectancies also have food purity laws that greatly exceed the ones here? A recent article I read showed that the FDA has banned a grand total of 13 different chemicals from toothpaste, yet certain european nations have banned well over a thousand. The people there take their lives a lot more seriously, and care for their bodies much more than people in the US, in general. An eastern european girl I dated a number of years ago lamented the horrible quality of the produce she found in our supermarkets compared to what she knew from her home country. Our produce is awash in pesticides, with lab-tampered genes, and grown in depleted soil that is never allowed to rest. Hers was simply grown using time-tested techniques developed over centuries.

You have to get past the notion that we live in a frontier society. And the notion that we need a "pure" economy, whether pure capitalism or pure socialism. When, demonstrably, mixed economies work better. Here in the developed world, pure free market capitalism doesn't work very well for some things. It does work well for others. TCP/IP, the Internet, and BSD Unix, were all created by researchers and programmers being paid on government grants, in government-funded think tanks and universities.

So... in the absence of those grants and think tanks and universities, you're insisting that none of those things would happen?

I think you're right, in that a mixed economy could work "better". Again, not for the reasons you would think. A truly "mixed" economy would allow people to organize and collect voluntarily. If a group of people decided to socialize risk, and therefore reward, they should be allowed to, but not forced to do so. The Amish are a shining example of this. Each person in an Amish community works for their own benefit. But they also work for the benefit of their family. They can also come together for community purpose - the typical Amish "barn raising" - but no one is forced to do so. Contrast that with a typical state where people are taxed without mercy to pay for things they will never use and never derive a benefit from.

Capitalism is great at some things. Libertarianism claims that it is best for everything, when, obviously, it isn't. Which makes Libertarianism yet another dysfunctional fundamentalist religious belief.

You have a poor understanding if thats what you think libertarianism is about. Maybe the fact that you capitalize it consistently shows you are more familiar with the political party than with true libertarianism. A person who espouses libertarianism holds the Non Aggression Principle as his basic social doctrine. Out of that grows the notion that private property rights - including the right to determine what best to do with ones own body - is above all else. A true libertarian believes in debate over issues not coercion. To coerce, or aggress, is the statist mentality. That the collection of people according to a universal goal is something to be held in high esteem. Perhaps it is. But can't that goal be individual liberty?

As I said above, people who seek to push people away instead of debate over issues are exhibiting religious zealot tendencies. The next greatest free market bastion after private property rights is the exchange of ideas. You tell me to go live on an island, and then later proclaim "Libertarianism" to be a religious belief. I'd say its you who is looking at these issues in a religious context.