Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bernie Sanders is a Centerist
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 8 of 76 (822166)
10-20-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
10-19-2017 11:59 PM


DC85 writes:
How is it that that such a huge disconnect exists ?
Republicans have been able to portray Democrats as being anti-Christian, anti-gun, and anti-American and con a lot of people into believing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 10-19-2017 11:59 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 28 of 76 (822372)
10-23-2017 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
10-23-2017 4:34 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
New Cat's Eye writes:
It doesn't really matter to me how much the rate has changed since 1960. That the top 10% are paying 70% of the federal income taxes doesn't look like a problem of the poor and middle class having those taxes shifted to them. Especially when the bottom 50% are only paying 3% of the federal income taxes.
I think there is something to be said for looking at the larger picture and not just at tax rates. The amount of inequality is getting pretty bad where the top 10% has 76% of the wealth, and that number is expected to get even worse as time moves on.
At the same time, things that used to be covered by taxes are not covered in the same way. In 1960, a middle class family could easily could afford a degree from a state university. Now? It is much more common for a kid from a middle class family to leave school with $25,000 or more of debt, if they are lucky. Health care? That has skyrocketed, and benefits continue to decline. What tax cuts have done is push more of an economic burden onto the middle class, at least in my poorly informed economic opinion.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-23-2017 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:41 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 38 of 76 (822425)
10-24-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2017 2:41 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
New Cat's Eye writes:
Okay. So, you're talking about holdings now - we were talking about income. Just sayin'.
The super rich use those holdings to make income, and that income is often taxed at a lower rate than the salary of that same rich guy's secretary. Warren Buffet lamented that very fact. The super rich have worked in conjunction with congress to massively reduce things like taxes on carried interest and capital gains. Paid income (i.e. salary) usually makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of their overall wealth.
As far as the "problem" of the rich getting richer, I'm not convinced that is an issue with tax rates. Like, that people stopped supporting their local businesses and instead just go to WalMart is not a tax problem. If we want the rich to stop getting richer, then how about we stop giving them our money?
Economics is not my strong suit, but from what I have read . . .
If we increase taxes on the rich and that pays for health insurance subsidies for the middle class, this allows middle class families to have more money in their pockets so they can buy more. Right now, that money is just sitting in a bank account when it could be put back into the economy.
Isn't that more of an issue with universities and health care than it is an issue with tax rates?
A higher progressive tax rate would make those two things more affordable to the middle class and leave them with more of their own money in their pockets.
New Cat's Eye writes:
I don't have much of an opinion on it, but a 70% tax rate is ridiculous.
There are countries with nearly those tax rates (e.g. Finland, Sweden). They seem to get along just fine. The real question is what do you get for that high tax rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 39 of 76 (822426)
10-24-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
10-24-2017 2:51 PM


Coyote writes:
Actions have consequences. Maybe the socialists can begin forbidding people to leave their countries due to their policies? A new iron curtain, perhaps?
All they would need to do is tax money that is moved out of French banks.
If there is money to be made by investing in companies within France there will always be people willing to invest, so I don't see a problem with capital investments. If some doctors or architects want to move to a country with lower tax rates, then au revoir. This will result in a labor shortage and raise incomes for the people who stay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 2:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 5:14 PM Taq has replied
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 6:45 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 41 of 76 (822428)
10-24-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
10-24-2017 5:14 PM


Re: We don't need corporate CEO's, we don't need the rich.
RAZD writes:
Actually if the rich left, it would leave the economy to be run by the workers instead of the CEO leaches.
That has already happened in the 1st world with manufacturing jobs moving to 3rd world nations. The colonies have simply moved from one place on the globe to another.
Pure capitalism fails just as badly as pure socialism fails -- what is needed is a balance,
That is the secret to a healthy and just economy. You need to balance general welfare and incentive. You also need transparency and competition between different interests.
If workers don't have a vote in deciding corporate wages, then they do have a vote in deciding what the tax rates are -- but it is a clunky system depending on government representatives to actually represent the people instead of the corporations. When those representatives are bought by the corporations you have a corrupt system that fails to balance the needs of the people against the greed of the rich.
It also requires a populace that resists being conned by politicians who seek to distract them with social ideologies in exchange for their economic futures. While the rubes are askeered of losing thur guns the politicians are working the back rooms to make sure corporate barons are raking in the dough at their expense. Tell them elections are all about stopping brown people from coming into the country when it really turns out to be about changing the rules in favor of the mega-rich. Tell them elections are all about stopping lil' babies from being murdered in evil liberal clinics when it is really about funneling money from the poorest class to the richest class.
It still floors me that conservative voters will continually vote against their own best interests, but it happens every single election.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 5:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 51 of 76 (822459)
10-25-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
10-24-2017 6:45 PM


Coyote writes:
If the "rich" leave the taxes they pay will have to be paid by middle and lower income folks. Don't forget that the rich pay a huge percentage of the income taxes.
There are still plenty of rich people who will stay because they can keep making tons of money in the French economy. The rich people who leave will be replaced by people who are willing to make the same salary and pay those taxes. When a doctor leaves there is a spot left open for another doctor.
I'd think that folks would treat them as a resource to be protected and nurtured rather than as enemies.
They are treated as resources and are protected by massive spending on infrastructure, copyright protections, and public education that supplies good workers.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 6:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 60 of 76 (822787)
11-01-2017 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by LamarkNewAge
11-01-2017 1:18 PM


Re: Combo reply (to RAZD and Coyote)
LamarkNewAge writes:
The government of California (and with the Federal government which pays a lot of this 65%) already spends about 65% of its 13.5%-14% GDP percentage for healthcare.
NOW.
About 9% of the California GDP is already paid for by the government for healthcare.
The single payer plan (if it involves certain cost control measures) will run from 12.3% to 12.7% of the California GDP to operate.
The other 3.5% or so will need to be covered by taxes.
The amount California is paying in healthcare will go up if very sick people move to California to access free healthcare. The very sick are usually not employed or retired, and they make up a large percentage of overall healthcare costs in any system. Something like 85% of your lifetime healthcare costs occur in your last 5 years of life.
This was the problem with the ACA markets. They were burdened with a disproportionate number of sick people. The same could happen to California if they don't use rules for acquiring residency, or something of the sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2017 1:18 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2017 5:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 62 of 76 (822821)
11-01-2017 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by LamarkNewAge
11-01-2017 5:16 PM


Re: Combo reply (to RAZD and Coyote)
LamarckNewAge writes:
The ACA wanted younger people to pay insurance companies premiums, and many choose not to.
I don't think it was an issue of very sick people buying insurance. (there was a preexisting condition coverage issue, but that does not seem like the same thing you are saying)
Before the ACA, the uninsured were made up of a lot of people who were denied insurance and couldn't get it through their job. Once those markets were opened they were catering to a demographic that was disproportionately old and sick. It was very much about very sick people entering the insurance market, as well as people in rural markets where there was no competition between hospitals and therefore higher prices.
Regardless, if you have a single payer system then you are going to attract people who are too sick to work and kids with chronic conditions. People are going to be faced with tens of thousands in medical bills in Iowa or moving to California and paying a tiny, tiny percentage of what they are currently paying. It's a no brainer. You could even have situations where the mother moves with a sick child to California while the father stays in Iowa and keeps working.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2017 5:16 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 11-01-2017 6:45 PM Taq has replied
 Message 64 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2017 8:23 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 65 of 76 (822837)
11-02-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Modulous
11-01-2017 6:45 PM


Re: Combo reply (to RAZD and Coyote)
Modulus writes:
I've seen amusing figures for Health Tourism in the UK that suggest the NHS spends more money on Stationery than it does on Health Tourists. Perhaps California might take a look at how other places deal with this phenomena?
The situation in the UK is a bit different since they are surrounded by countries who have single payer systems like they do. It is also much more difficult for non-citizens to gain residency in the UK than it would be for someone to move from one US state to another. However, I would be quite pleased if someone proved me wrong because I would love to see a state based single payer system work and thrive in the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 11-01-2017 6:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2017 6:32 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 66 of 76 (822839)
11-02-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by LamarkNewAge
11-01-2017 8:23 PM


Re: Combo reply (to RAZD and Coyote)
LamarkNewAge writes:
A lot of people already had insurance before the ACA. The majority of the (net) 10-12 million or so of people covered nationwide by the ACA changes are Medicaid enrollees. Not too much has changed in the insurance marketplace (net) enrollee numbers.
"Indeed, only 28% of exchange members in 2014 were in the coveted 18-34 age range, and that percentage stayed level for 2016. It's below the 40% level many actuaries say is needed to create a more stable rate environment. The insurance industry has a name for that condition, which Obamacare was designed to fight. It's called adverse selection. And so far, the ACA's medicine isn't working."
What, me buy insurance? | Modern Healthcare
So it appears that young healthy people are not entering the markets while the older and sick are. That is a problem, one not faced by employer based insurance where all employees are enrolled.
Speaking of the net situation, I doubt that the overall "cost" to California will be very negative when you consider all the forces that draw outsiders into the state. Heck Medicaid keeps adding enrollees, but the federal cost isn't projected to reach 3.0% of GDP by even so distant a date as 2050 (it will go from 1.8% today to 2.7% by 2047). 75 million today. Over 85 million around 2025.
That expansion in Medicaid was based on income and not health, so you are going to get a lot of young and healthy people enrolled when you expand Medicaid. That helps. The ACA marketplaces are catering to people who don't qualify for Medicaid, and without much of an incentive for young healthy people to enroll you get a lot of people with chronic conditions enrolling in those marketplaces.
However, I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. These are just some of the concerns I have with such a program, but I really hope it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2017 8:23 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-02-2017 3:53 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024