Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Basically what I'm getting at is I don't think a massive tax increase is at all the current way to go about this.

State governments spend about $600B a year on healthcare right now. The federal government already spends $1.1T on healthcare. Employers spend $880B on premiums. Let's say the average employee spends 1/4 of what employer does on premiums...equals another $220B.

This already accounts for $2.8T a year on healthcare.

They say $3.5T is spent on healthcare each year. They also say 1 in 4 dollars is wasted ($875B). That means costs could in theory be $2.625B per year, which would already be covered by what States, Employers, and the Federal Government currently spends on healthcare.

So where the hell is all of this data coming that we will need tax increases, or a huge payroll tax, etc?



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network

I'm just baffled where these cost estimates are coming up and it seems like current costs being allocated are ignored.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:
I want people's honest thoughts on a potential 25% income tax to pay for "Medicare For All". I'm not talking about the likelihood of this occurring. I'm talking, do you think this is reasonable, and more appropriately, do you think the average American can actually afford this.

This has nothing to do with being for or against healthcare etc.

My personal scenario is I would likely have to sell my house to not go bankrupt if my taxes increased by 25%. My and my wives current expenditures related to healthcare including employee and employer contributions are approximately $10,000 per year. Assuming our income goes up by the employer contributions and adding a 25% tax and reducing the standard deduction would result in additional taxes of over 25k per year.

Reduce the $10k less in current insurance expenses and we are out $15000 every single year.

This is quite substantially more than we would currently be out if we maxed out our insurance every single year...and somehow I would now need to determine how to save an additional $1,250 per month.

They are trying to say they absolutely will not tax the middle class, but I see today one of the proposals is an across the board income tax rate increase of 25%. Our income is absolutely within middle class, and this will decimate us.

Do you have a link for this income tax rate increase of 25%? Sounds like a misinterpretation to me to think this means an extra 25% of your total income going to taxes rather than a 25% increase in the taxes you pay. 



...

Baalzamon said:
I want people's honest thoughts on a potential 25% income tax to pay for "Medicare For All". I'm not talking about the likelihood of this occurring. I'm talking, do you think this is reasonable, and more appropriately, do you think the average American can actually afford this.

This has nothing to do with being for or against healthcare etc.

My personal scenario is I would likely have to sell my house to not go bankrupt if my taxes increased by 25%. My and my wives current expenditures related to healthcare including employee and employer contributions are approximately $10,000 per year. Assuming our income goes up by the employer contributions and adding a 25% tax and reducing the standard deduction would result in additional taxes of over 25k per year.

Reduce the $10k less in current insurance expenses and we are out $15000 every single year.

This is quite substantially more than we would currently be out if we maxed out our insurance every single year...and somehow I would now need to determine how to save an additional $1,250 per month.

They are trying to say they absolutely will not tax the middle class, but I see today one of the proposals is an across the board income tax rate increase of 25%. Our income is absolutely within middle class, and this will decimate us.

Any tax that is imposed would be a highly progressive tax, meaning that many individuals would likely pay nothing into it, and many others would pay much less than they are currently paying for healthcare.

That being said, I'm not really sure where you got the implication of a 25% across the board tax. As far as I know, Warren is the only one who has released a detailed explanation of how she would pay for Medicare for All and it did not include this provision (in fact, it explicitly states no tax increase for the middle class).

As for your later question regarding the cost, Medicare for All is not increasing the cost of healthcare. It is reducing it. However, it moves the cost from employers and individuals to the government. This means that the government needs revenue to cover this. Individuals and employers would not simply shift who they would be paying to, they would simply stop paying without additional taxes. That is why Warren proposes, for example, increasing business taxes to make up for what they are currently paying into healthcare (which would generate just shy of $1t per year).



But every single article I've seen discusses many items coming short, or a significant bump being needed to taxes for somebody. Why? Why is a wealth tax even needed, when $1.1T is already spent by the federal government (more if you include current exclusions for taxes (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-federal-government-spend-health-care)

$600B is already spent by state governments (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/08/20/what-your-state-spends-health-care-per-capita/37121541/)

$1.2T is already spent by employers for premiums (https://blog.collectivehealth.com/employer-driven-healthcare-270bfb7ee8c7)

This is $2.9T of health care expenses. Of the total $3.5T...and they say how there is already so much waste, and that the nationalized program would save money.

So where exactly is this need for a progressive tax system vs just charging people largely what they are already charged today?



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

1. The media says, look at Trumps face, he's upset, it's because (insert reason). So they aren't reaching here, by giving their opinion on what he's thinking and why that makes him react as he does, yet my opinion, is reaching, because I'm explaining his thinking? MSM good, people bad?

2a. Ok then. Trump is just a non stop activist and so everything he says is ok because activism overrules PC. Got it, I guess.

2b. Trump is also in a class known as the Presidency. He's 1 of 45 of a 'protected class' you could say.

2c. PC people don't care about sports? I wonder who's behind the trans sports movement? I wonder why sports athletes have cleaned up their act over the decades, because that certainly wouldn't cater to PC.

2d. They should have called or wrote to politicians, individually or as a group. If they want the worlds attention, what is it they want the world to do? Is the world going to impeach him or vote him out? What can they do that would be PC? What if the world thinks the whole country is irrational, so let's avoid them? That would be great for America don't you think?

2e. Why are the Dems keeping their 'whistleblowing' sources secret then when it comes to the Trump impeachment? If everyone knowing asap is so much better, why are they hiding this super important info from the people about their illegitimate President? Why aren't these people being promoted and put on pedestals?

3a. Then based on this, every individual at that stadium who is against Trump, needs to have what they said taken seriously. Unless you think Trump was special before he became Prez. I'm sure there were a bunch of Trump supporters who jumped in to bash the Prez trying to make him feel bad. That chant didn't sound like much laughter going on in that crowd, and based on the tone, well. These people who are against the Prez, chanted against him, and yet you say he should act on what they want, even though they want people like Trump to abstain from saying things like "lock her up" because it's wrong, even though they'll do it themselves? Trump needs to be accountable as an individual, but not other individuals? Lucky them eh?

3b. It does matter. Trying to falsely jail your political opponent when you're in an election is a big deal. If they are truly guilty, then that's another story. Everyone knows that if Hillary was guilty, it wasn't going to be found until Trump was in office anyway, because nobody else was going to go after her. Intimidation only works if it's legit. If it's false, there is nothing to worry about. He's gone after the DNC servers and DNC email's, in which Hillary's would be part of that yes. Aside from that, even if through the DNC info, Hillary was found to be guilty, she's no longer an opponent, so what would be the problem now if she were found to be guilty?

5. You started talking about his approval rating. That is everything you need to know about his supporters? How reliable have the polls or ratings been, starting during the election? If ratings matter, whether it be what people think of a President, or what news people watch, then Fox news should be a worthy source, yet it's certainly not viewed that way, so why should Trumps approval rating mean anything?

6. Your answer was, "no, Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act." So in other words, it doesn't matter what Trump does, he's getting treated like dirt regardless, unless he does exactly what the naysayers tell him to do. Don't the naysayers also believe in democracy? Hmm...

The contradiction counter is rising faster than the sea's.

1) I don't know what you are referring to and as such, I will not/have not made a value judgement regarding it.

2a) Again, the fuck is this take? I didn't even use the word "activism" or "activist" so what the fuck is this? Like, explain to me how you think this is a logical response to what I posted.

2b) As for "Protected class", you clearly don't know what that phrase means. Here is a list of what is considered a "protected class" within US law: Race, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, familial status, disability, and veteran status. You will notice that "President of the United States" is not on that list.

2c) I also did not say that PC people don't care about sports. I said that it is a stretch to take a large crowd of sports fans and just arbitrarily label them as the PC police.

2d) Again, if the whole world thinks that the US is crazy because people bring attention to the shit Trump is doing, don't you think thats on Trump and not the people criticizing him for it? Also, activism largely involves spreading the word and getting information to people so they can make more informed decisions. So yes, getting attention is important.

2e) This is a smokescreen, but the reason is in order to make it more difficult to coordinate testimony. However, the inquiry is moving into its public and phase and that info will come out. Don't worry your pretty little head.

3a) Have you read anything I've said? At all? If you want a response to this, simply read what I've already said to you.

3b) There's so much to respond to within each of these little paragraphs. How do you even? Lightning round:

-Even if she is guilty there are cons to the Executive Branch pushing charges.

-There was already an investigation into these issues, so it isn't like no one was investigating them.

-Intimidation can work even if it isn't legit. A lot of damage can be done through bullshit. That is the whole reason Trump asked Ukraine to publicly announce they were investigating Biden. The result wasn't the important part.

-Clinton is still a political opponent, and jailing her can have a boosting effect for Trump and a cooling effect for those who want to go against him.

5) Do you think that an approval rating is the same thing as a TV rating? You do see the ridiculousness in drawing an equivalence here, right?

6) No.

Lets read that back:

My point: "It doesn't matter what Trump says, he has to act"

Your response: "So it doesn't matter what he does"

Just, go through those sentences real quick. Let me break it down some more and rephrase:

Me: Actions matter

You: So what you are saying is that actions don't matter?

Like, are you trying to make bad points? You are explicitly implying that I am saying the literal opposite of what I clearly said.

6) No.

Lets read that back:

My point: "It doesn't matter what Trump says, he has to act"

Your response: "So it doesn't matter what he does"

Just, go through those sentences real quick. Let me break it down some more and rephrase:

Me: Actions matter

You: So what you are saying is that actions don't matter?

Like, are you trying to make bad points? You are explicitly implying that I am saying the literal opposite of what I clearly said.

What you said prior:

"You asked if Trump talking to these chanters would lead to a constructive outcome. I said no, because no one cares about what he says, when 99% of what he says is bullshit. Same with the apology. I don't believe an apology would change anything, unless he acted in kind, in which case, yes, I would accept that apology."

How I replied:

"Your answer was, "no, Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act." So in other words, it doesn't matter what Trump does, he's getting treated like dirt regardless, unless he does exactly what the naysayers tell him to do. Don't the naysayers also believe in democracy? Hmm..."

Doesn't seem like you remember what you've already said, so there's no point in trying to re-explain 1-5 as well.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Baalzamon said:
Basically what I'm getting at is I don't think a massive tax increase is at all the current way to go about this.

State governments spend about $600B a year on healthcare right now. The federal government already spends $1.1T on healthcare. Employers spend $880B on premiums. Let's say the average employee spends 1/4 of what employer does on premiums...equals another $220B.

This already accounts for $2.8T a year on healthcare.

They say $3.5T is spent on healthcare each year. They also say 1 in 4 dollars is wasted ($875B). That means costs could in theory be $2.625B per year, which would already be covered by what States, Employers, and the Federal Government currently spends on healthcare.

So where the hell is all of this data coming that we will need tax increases, or a huge payroll tax, etc?

And we are wondering who is claiming these massive tax increase.  



EricHiggin said:

What you said prior:

"You asked if Trump talking to these chanters would lead to a constructive outcome. I said no, because no one cares about what he says, when 99% of what he says is bullshit. Same with the apology. I don't believe an apology would change anything, unless he acted in kind, in which case, yes, I would accept that apology."

How I replied:

"Your answer was, "no, Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act." So in other words, it doesn't matter what Trump does, he's getting treated like dirt regardless, unless he does exactly what the naysayers tell him to do. Don't the naysayers also believe in democracy? Hmm..."

Doesn't seem like you remember what you've already said, so there's no point in trying to re-explain 1-5 as well.

You seem to really be struggling here, man...

Again, I stated he needed to act. I did not state that he needed to do "exactly what the naysayers tell him to do", whatever that means. That is you just making shit up.

I did say, as you highlighted, that his apology wouldn't be accepted unless he acted in kind. Basically, what that means is simply that his actions need to reinforce his words. You are the one who asked me this hypothetical about him apologizing, so I'm not sure why you are making it out to be unreasonable for me to ask him to act as if he truly meant that apology.

The way you are twisting this conversation is absolutely bizarre. To take a fairly banal point, that "actions speak louder than words" and twist it into some way of expressing that voicing discontent is somehow anti-democratic- Like, I can't even. How does your brain go from A to Zebra like this?



Baalzamon said:
But every single article I've seen discusses many items coming short, or a significant bump being needed to taxes for somebody. Why? Why is a wealth tax even needed, when $1.1T is already spent by the federal government (more if you include current exclusions for taxes (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-federal-government-spend-health-care)

A lot of these articles are quoting the CRFB:

http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

Which starts by making the strange choice of proposing these revenues that are all funded entirely by a single source. 

Because of that there doesn't seem to be anything about these costs replacing the current Medicare or state funding medical costs.  The tax raises should only be for replacing the current private healthcare costs.  The ones that aren't already being funded by government. 

But the 25% itself isn't part of any actual policy proposal, as far as I'm aware.  And I'd be surprised because it's pretty much the antithesis to what Democrats pretty much always push for.  But Democrats are more likely to push proposals that increase taxes on the wealthy, while dropping costs on the less wealthy.  

But I will say this, it's hard to know exactly what the cost will be.  There's a lot of data that shows that it will be cheaper in the long run, but it's still going to be difficult to make the adjustment.  



Maybe that's the issue, I'm seeing these articles based on that CFRB source you mentioned, rather than any actual taxes being proposed.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.