How much would 'Medicare for All' cost?

[midnightpulp]

And America prides itself on being some kind of bootstrap meritocracy. Let's live it up to that ideal then. Some dip CEO who runs a company into the ground will get a 7 figure severance package, while the guy on the line could get laid off whenever for whatever. Doesn't sound like much of a meritocracy to me. Sounds like a system that favors a select few.

[Spurtacular]

ducks is a sorry human being

Cuck triggered by a question.

[phxspurfan]

in summary:


Dems: tax the 1%, that will solve all our problems! f*&k the 1% I can't relate to them!

Repugs: immigrants stole our jeorghbs! f&^k the non whiteys I can't relate to them!


Love our 2 party system!

[Pavlov]

Deflection - what is the le of this thread?

I just want to know what Trump's medical plan for the US is so I can compare the two.

Dude's had two years in office. What's his plan?

[Blake]

Cuck triggered by a question.

Derp triggered by me

[AaronY]

Pretty soon the question will be: how much will it cost for Netflix for all? "Big Federal government gonna solve all my problems by taxing the rich man!"

Goddamn, you are so ing stupid.

[Will Hunting]

The low marginal rates we've had since Reagan was elected are actually the outlier. We think it's standard, because most of us weren't alive when the marginal rates were much higher. I'm not interested in petty partisan bull and follow the numbers. Since Reagan's tax cuts, middle class growth has stalled/declined while the top earners proverbially laugh all the way to the bank.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2017/08/1...iddle-class-2/

You can correlate the declining middle class growth with Reagan's cuts:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...108bad100aa2-c

I used to be a Libertarian since it made logical sense to keep the government (which are historically untrustworthy en ies) out of our personal lives as much as possible, especially the economy. I'm still a Libertarian on social matters, but I think it's been proven that cuts for the rich do not "trickle down." The rich use those cuts for stock buybacks and/or hoard it to feed off the interest.

https://www.marke ch.com/story/no...cks-2018-02-22

Fun fact: Buy backs used to be illegal until 1982. Who was the president then?

The shareholder primacy concept has made economic Libertarianism untenable. All CEOs care about is making shareholders happy over the short-term (quarterlies). Stock buybacks are a way of artificially boosting share prices. It's also why the Libertarian concept that companies will be environmentally, publicly, and socially responsible because they have incentive since it increases their bottom line (i.e. a company wouldn't willingly pollute land it owns because it would translate into making that land eventually worthless) is fanciful. They'll do whatever is necessary to keep share prices robust over the short-term.

I don’t disagree at all with what your post is arguing for, but I’d actually say that if you’re looking at all of American history, the high marginal rates we had post New Deal and pre-Reagan were the outlier, and the strong middle class America had during that time period was also an anomaly. Outside of that time period the rich havent carried the tax burden in this country and when they haven’t wealth inequality has only grown.

I’d actually say that since the beginning of civilization, a strong middle class has always required substantial government intervention outside of a few freak occurrences (ie when the Black Plague created a labor shortage and gave the working class bargaining power it never had).

Its also a simple matter of arithmetic at this point. There’s two ways income is generated - either through labor or through capital. As it stands in America labor generated income carries the tax burden even though it becomes a smaller percentage of total income generated every year when compared to capital generated income. With automation and globalization it’s not a matter of if but when capital generated income surpasses labor generated income in this country, yet no one gives a about how the cap gains tax is effectively half of what the top marginal rate is.

[midnightpulp]

I don’t disagree at all with what your post is arguing for, but I’d actually say that if you’re looking at all of American history, the high marginal rates we had post New Deal and pre-Reagan were the outlier, and the strong middle class America had during that time period was also an anomaly. Outside of that time period the rich havent carried the tax burden in this country and when they haven’t wealth inequality has only grown.

I’d actually say that since the beginning of civilization, a strong middle class has always required substantial government intervention outside of a few freak occurrences (ie when the Black Plague created a labor shortage and gave the working class bargaining power it never had).

Its also a simple matter of arithmetic at this point. There’s two ways income is generated - either through labor or through capital. As it stands in America labor generated income carries the tax burden even though it becomes a smaller percentage of total income generated every year when compared to capital generated income. With automation and globalization it’s not a matter of if but when capital generated income surpasses labor generated income in this country, yet no one gives a about how the cap gains tax is effectively half of what the top marginal rate is.

Yeah, I was thinking about 20th century America primarily, especially the period when "America was Great." Capital gains rate definitely needs to be raised. Still at 15% on the net? That's unacceptable for what is basically passive income that leeches off the "wealth creation" of others. Oh, but those lower tax rates frees up yet more money for the rich to "create jobs"

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, I was thinking about 20th century America primarily, especially the period when "America was Great." Capital gains rate definitely needs to be raised. Still at 15% on the net? That's unacceptable for what is basically passive income that leaches off the "wealth creation" of others. Oh, but those lower tax rates frees up yet more money for the rich to "create jobs"

I think the top long term cap gains tax rate is 20% for higher incomes but it had been at 15% for awhile.

The other thing that politicians in both parties have destroyed is the estate tax, a tax that dirt poor Republicans rail against as a death tax even though it doesn’t affect them and never will

I can’t think of anything better to tax than the estate some rich asshole who didn’t do anything to work for it inherits.

[midnightpulp]

I think the top long term cap gains tax rate is 20% for higher incomes but it had been at 15% for awhile.

The other thing that politicians in both parties have destroyed is the estate tax, a tax that dirt poor Republicans rail against as a death tax even though it doesn’t affect them and never will

I can’t think of anything better to tax than the estate some rich asshole who didn’t do anything to work for it inherits.

I read a quote that said dirt poor Republicans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires That said, I get the logic of their stance, i.e. if we're willing to tax those more successful than us at 70% or whatever, we should also be willing to be taxed at the same rate. It's only fair, right? Why "punish" those more successful? I find it to be a false equivalence, though.

If we analogize income to calorie intake, a uber-rich person is much further away from "starvation" than an ordinary person. If a hundred thousand dollar per year income is a 4000 calorie per day diet, taxing that at 70% would reduce that person's intake to 1200 calories per day. A pretty meager diet for an averaged size male. A ten million dollar per year income is a 400,000 calorie per day diet . Even if you tax the income at 90%, he's still "eating better" than the ordinary person.

It's not about class warfare or punishment. The rich can simply take the tax hit much easier. Oh, but again, how will they "create jobs" if taxed so high! As you implied, they're actually creating ways to supplant human labor more than anything

[Will Hunting]

I read a quote that said dirt poor Republicans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires That said, I get the logic of their stance, i.e. if we're willing to tax those more successful than us at 70% or whatever, we should also be willing to be taxed at the same rate. It's only fair, right? Why "punish" those more successful? I find it to be a false equivalence, though.

If we analogize income to calorie intake, a uber-rich person is much further away from "starvation" than an ordinary person. If a hundred thousand dollar per year income is a 4000 calorie per day diet, taxing that at 70% would reduce that person's intake to 1200 calories per day. A pretty meager diet for an averaged size male. A ten million dollar per year income is a 400,000 calorie per day diet . Even if you tax the income at 90%, he's still "eating better" than the ordinary person.

It's not about class warfare or punishment. The rich can simply take the tax hit much easier. Oh, but again, how will they "create jobs" if taxed so high! As you implied, they're actually creating ways to supplant human labor more than anything

The whole lower tax = more jobs scare tactic only works because the average American has no ing idea how taxes work. Labor is a fully tax deductible expense, so any income that's taxed is getting taxed after all the employees have been paid. Hiring decisions are always made with the pre-tax bottom line in mind for that reason.

Even the most basic understanding of how income taxes work is enough to know that unless the income tax rate is 100% then it has no impact on hiring decisions. If you can add $200,000 of revenue by hiring someone who in total costs $100,000 a year then you're going to do it unless income is taxed at 100% which no one is advocating for.

Now, if you want to talk about what is a hiring deterrent, the fact that said employee probably costs 10% more than he otherwise would because of our ty employer-based private healthcare system that employers in other industrialized countries don't have to worry about

[rogcl1]

I just want to know what Trump's medical plan for the US is so I can compare the two.

Dude's had two years in office. What's his plan?

Trump's plan is for the poor and middle class to lose everything, suck the life out of them, and then eventually die off , leaving more for him and his rich, shyster ,cronies.

[CosmicCowboy]

So do you guys sincerely believe you are going to pay for "Medicare for all" by simply increasing the tax on millionaires?

[DarrinS]

Trump's plan is for the poor and middle class to lose everything, suck the life out of them, and then eventually die off , leaving more for him and his rich, shyster ,cronies.

Seems logical

[boutons_deux]

Trump's plan is for the poor and middle class to lose everything, suck the life out of them, and then eventually die off , leaving more for him and his rich, shyster ,cronies.

Trash isn't that smart, strategic

It's the oligarchy/Repug handing him and his Exec the policies, laws, rules to enrich the rich, and oppress everybody else into precarity, fear of job loss, restricted wages, poverty.

[midnightpulp]

So do you guys sincerely believe you are going to pay for "Medicare for all" by simply increasing the tax on millionaires?

Whether it pays for healthcare or not is a bit beside the point. Primary point is that rich should be taxed more, a lot more. Now I know you're relating that idea to yourself being a small business owner where you compare your situation to a Fortune 500 company (i.e. "If I get taxed 70%, I'll have to close up shop! If they get taxed at that rate, there will be massive layoffs, price hikes, and panic in the streets!!!"), but no one is suggesting taxing the local "mom and pop" contractor or restaurant owner who might be millionaires to that extent (in this context, we're not considering people with sub-10 or 20 million dollar net worth "rich," although, yes, they should be taxed more than people making 40K per year). A person like Bezos can stuff a few billion into the bank and make millions per year off the interest, which is only taxed at 15%.

I'm sympathetic to tax breaks for small business owners since that cash will most likely go back into the business and not be stashed in "investments or stocks." Universal healthcare would also help small business owners a great deal more since providing benefits for their employees will no longer be an expense they have to worry about.

The money seems to be there already to fund a single payer system. 22% of the tax dollar goes to healthcare already. That's more than the UK. Yet they can figure it out, but we can't? A lot of the bloat here comes from downright immoral tactics by private drug, insurance and medical companies who charge exorbitant prices for medicine, services, and equipment. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew.../#13d039c371f5). In fact, hospitals take in 331.00 for every 100.00 of their costs (I don't even want to know what the margins of drug companies are). "Hey, those are pretty low margins compared to other businesses!" But I believe the concept of "Do No Harm" is fundamentally incompatible with the profit motive.

"Well, if there's no profit, how are they going to fund new R&D and attract the best and the brightest?"

How does the military do it? There's your answer.

[midnightpulp]

The whole lower tax = more jobs scare tactic only works because the average American has no ing idea how taxes work. Labor is a fully tax deductible expense, so any income that's taxed is getting taxed after all the employees have been paid. Hiring decisions are always made with the pre-tax bottom line in mind for that reason.

Even the most basic understanding of how income taxes work is enough to know that unless the income tax rate is 100% then it has no impact on hiring decisions. If you can add $200,000 of revenue by hiring someone who in total costs $100,000 a year then you're going to do it unless income is taxed at 100% which no one is advocating for.

Now, if you want to talk about what is a hiring deterrent, the fact that said employee probably costs 10% more than he otherwise would because of our ty employer-based private healthcare system that employers in other industrialized countries don't have to worry about

Hot off the presses. Tax cuts creating more jerbs!!!

Foxconn Technology Group is reconsidering plans to make advanced liquid crystal display panels at a $10 billion Wisconsin campus, and said it intends to hire mostly engineers and researchers rather than the manufacturing workforce the project originally promised.
Announced at a White House ceremony in 2017, the 20-million square foot campus marked the largest greenfield investment by a foreign-based company in U.S. history and was praised by President Donald Trump as proof of his ability to revive American manufacturing.

Foxconn, which received controversial state and local incentives for the project, initially planned to manufacture advanced large screen displays for TVs and other consumer and professional products at the facility, which is under construction. It later said it would build smaller LCD screens instead.
Now, those plans may be scaled back or even shelved, Louis Woo, special assistant to Foxconn Chief Executive Terry Gou, told Reuters. He said the company was still evaluating options for Wisconsin, but cited the steep cost of making advanced TV screens in the United States, where labor expenses are comparatively high. "In terms of TV, we have no place in the U.S.," he said in an interview. "We can't compete."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...cid=spartanntp

"Hiring engineers and researchers." Translation: Our plant is going to be a largely automated process that we'll get a few nerds to monitor. We'll take the remaining cash saved from the tax cut and use it to dole out executive bonuses.

I'm also looking forward to the day this rush to automation blows up in "their" faces. If no one has jobs, who the is going to buy all their cheap, plastic ?

[boutons_deux]

It seems that people think MfA costs would be on top of current costs.

But MfA would be paid for from pre-tax payroll deductions, just like employer group plans, SS now.

So instead of money going to BigInsurance, it would go to Medicare, with no option of opt out, just like SS.

BigInsurance and its investors would take a monstrous hit, which is the whole idea of killing for-profit health care.

At least that's how MfA should be done.

But MfA won't be done, at all. For-profit healthcare BigCorp will kill truly effective MfA.

[CosmicCowboy]

It seems that people think MfA costs would be on top of current costs.

But MfA would be paid for from pre-tax payroll deductions, just like employer group plans, SS now.

So instead of money going to BigInsurance, it would go to Medicare, with no option of opt out, just like SS.

BigInsurance and its investors would take a monstrous hit, which is the whole idea of killing for-profit health care.

At least that's how MfA should be done.

But MfA won't be done, at all. For-profit healthcare BigCorp will kill truly effective MfA.

Ahhh....mandated payroll deduction....so the single mother working at Walmart pays for the health care of the ones too lazy to work at all. Nice plan Boo. Not so progressive, though.

[midnightpulp]

Ahhh....mandated payroll deduction....so the single mother working at Walmart pays for the health care of the ones too lazy to work at all. Nice plan Boo. Not so progressive, though.

Is Americans being too lazy a work much of a problem, though? Our unemployment rate has always been among the world's best. Disabilities do exist.

[CosmicCowboy]

Is Americans being too lazy a work much of a problem, though? Our unemployment rate has always been among the world's best. Disabilities do exist.

Disabilities qualify for medicaid.

[boutons_deux]

Ahhh....mandated payroll deduction....so the single mother working at Walmart pays for the health care of the ones too lazy to work at all. Nice plan Boo. Not so progressive, though.

a percentage isn't flat tax, so loved by the wealthy

and MfA would not be capped like SS, and would be applied to earned and unearned income.

[midnightpulp]

Disabilities qualify for medicaid.

Then maybe the freeloader problem isn't as big a problem as perceived?

[CosmicCowboy]

Then maybe the freeloader problem isn't as big a problem as perceived?

Well, there are apparently about 20 million of them.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...or-looking-wo/

[midnightpulp]

Well, there are apparently about 20 million of them.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...or-looking-wo/

From 2013, when the unemployment rate was at 7.4 percent. It's down to 4.8 now. They also admitted 20 million was just a loose approximation. The 20 million number also doesn't mesh with the 7.4 rate at the time. The civilian labor force was 156 million. Doing the math, that would leave 10 million people unemployed.