Reply With Quote
Arguing with anti-authoritarianism that smacks of what you typically hear out of juvenile delinquents is a waste of time. "You cannot tell me what to do!"
I'm aware of his website. I don't see where it says every person in the U.S. will get a tax hike of 8.8%.
And let's say that *number* was accurate. How much will the average person save by not paying health insurance premiums or huge deductibles? It's disingenuous to say he would raise taxes when other models of a single payer system REDUCE costs.
Arguing with anti-authoritarianism that smacks of what you typically hear out of juvenile delinquents is a waste of time. "You cannot tell me what to do!"
It doesn't. There is a ~2% hike on everyone and a 6% on payroll listed there. He is trying to pretend that it is all fungible and will be passed down. Of course that expense would be in lieu of firms having to provide health care coverage probably resulting in a net gain for most companies once you consider how much of their payroll goes towards health care.
Right exactly. I figured the numbers were completely made up but was curious if he had some breitbart or foxnews link that bull ed its way through to come up with 8.8%.
there are from anarcho-capitalist blogs in this very thread.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I do NOT agree that higher taxes are necessary. I also do NOT agree that we need to catch up on the rest of the Western world. We have most of the finest universities and doctors in the world. People flock here to attend these universities and to see these doctors. Many others want to come here to enjoy the freedom that we enjoy.
I mention the children of God to point out that it is not just a patriotic (fellow citizen) pov that I subscribe to but a spiritual (which is very important to me). I give generously of my time and money ( hing) to others. And as far as your previous statement, "hold on to your money as greedily as possible," it is not greed to want to hold on to MY money and spend it the way I see fit - not have that decided by you, the government or anyone else.
The majority of our spending is on en lements, SS, Medicare and servicing the debt. I already pay my fair share of taxes (we have not even touched on all the other taxes like property tax, state sales tax, gasoline tax, thankfully I don't live in a state where there is state income tax, etc). How much is enough? If the government takes so much, what incentive is there for anyone to work? How do you think we got into this mess in the first place? By the government MISUSING our taxes and being irresponsible. Where we differ is that you think government and more taxes are the solution. I think the opposite - that government and its waste and irresponsibility are the problem and we need less of it.
You also have to consider the sophistry that is going with our typical GOP types around here. On the one hand they want a flat tax or complain about free riders and then on the other they complain in an equitable tax plan.
They are arguing for the Grover Cleveland conclusion and don't care how they get there.
Forget the western world. It would be nice to even sniff the jock strap of many eastern countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772
"Singapore heads the table, followed by Hong Kong, with Ghana at the bottom.
The UK is in 20th place, among higher achieving European countries, with the US in 28th." Ted Cruz should embrace his heritage because Canada is currently putting us to shame.
The majority of our spending is on en lements, SS, Medicare and servicing the debt. I already pay my fair share of taxes (we have not even touched on all the other taxes like property tax, state sales tax, gasoline tax, thankfully I don't live in a state where there is state income tax, etc).Holy and you're complaining about taxes?
You need to take a course on history because you have a warped view of how we got into this mess.How much is enough? If the government takes so much, what incentive is there for anyone to work? How do you think we got into this mess in the first place? By the government MISUSING our taxes and being irresponsible. Where we differ is that you think government and more taxes are the solution. I think the opposite - that government and its waste and irresponsibility are the problem and we need less of it.
The numbers were taken from the chart discussed earlier in this thread. Everyone making under $250,000 pays an additional 8.8% in tax including those making UNDER $18,550 who already qualify for Medicaid and financial aid.
And I'm female - not male.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/1081479...ders-tax-rates
Rmt cementing himself as one of the least knowledgable posters in the forum.
That very article specifically says most people would not see an 8.8 percent increase in taxes. Either yo7 cant read and therefore are stupid, or youre an ignorant partisan hack who hates America.
Sorry I usually give women more credit. My bad.
A key excerpt from that article:Like I said, it's disingenuous to say we would all be getting a tax hike of 8.8%.Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits.
from his articleA 6.2 percent income-based premium paid by employers on wage income. This is basically a payroll tax, and most economists agree that the cost of "employer-paid" payroll taxes are passed on entirely to workers in the form of lower wages in the long run. For that reason, I'm treating all payroll taxes as paid by employees, regardless of their ostensible target.
Again I reiterate that payroll tax will be in lieu of firms/people having to pay health insurance premiums. the above take is obtuse to the following dynamic:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dat...alth-insuranceThe report, published Tuesday by the Commonwealth Fund, found that the rate of growth for premium costs for employer-sponsored health insurance was higher before the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law. Premiums increased 4.1 percent each year between 2010 and 2013, compared to 5.1 percent each year from 2003 to 2010.
“These recent slowdowns in health care cost growth are encouraging because they are happening even as the Affordable Care Act has given workers better health insurance coverage,” Sara Collins, Commonwealth Fund Vice President for Health Care Coverage and Access and the study’s lead author, said in a statement.
But during the last decade workers’ monthly contributions to employer-provided health insurance increased by 93 percent. Their high share of spending occurs because premiums are exceeding income growth. While income rose 11 percent, premiums rose 60 percent from 2003 to 2013.
The same was true for families over the same period. Premiums for family coverage increased 73 percent while the median family income rose 16 percent. Because of the recession, real median income for families is still said to be 8 percent lower than it was in 2007, the year before the financial downturn began.
“As employers struggle to keep health insurance premium costs manageable, they are asking their workers to pay a larger share of their insurance costs,” Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said in a statement. “The recent slowdowns in overall health care costs are promising, but clearly they have not translated into relief for workers, who are spending more of their incomes on health coverage.”
Because our government doesn't have our nation's (us) best interest as a priority.
then, who or what does?
There's always the twists and turns, but at the end of the day, the Tocqueville "american exceptionalism" meme always ends up rearing it's ugly head, tbh...
Bill Clinton, After Months of Restraint, Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders
Bill Clinton in Milford, N.H., on Sunday. “When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” he said of the Sanders campaign.
— Bill Clinton uncorked an extended attack on SenatorBernie Sanders on Sunday, harshly criticizing Mr. Sanders and his supporters for what he described as inaccurate and “sexist” attacks onHillary Clinton.
“When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” Mr. Clinton said, deriding Mr. Sanders’s oft-mentioned call for a political revolution.
The former president, addressing a few hundred supporters at a junior high school here, portrayed his wife’s opponent for the Democratic nomination as hypocritical, “hermetically sealed” and dishonest.
He even likened an incident last year, in which Sanders staffers obtained access to Clinton campaign voter data, to stealing a car with the keys in the ignition.
“ ‘Anybody that doesn’t agree with me is a tool of the establishment,’ ” Mr. Clinton said, mocking what he described as the central critique of Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Sanders.At least you got one thing right, Slick Willie
Mr. Clinton’s comments represented an escalation in the language that he and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign have used to attack Mr. Sanders, who has maintained a sizable advantage in the polls here. Mr. Clinton made headlines in 2008 for fiercely defending his wife, and leveling tough attacks on Senator Barack Obama, but he has been largely restrained so far in this campaign.
His heated remarks here reflected the frustration the Clintons felt two days before the primary in a state that has rewarded them in the past, but that appears ready to hand Mr. Sanders a decisive victory. Mr. Clinton seemed especially irritated that New Hampshire, after lifting his 1992 bid for the Democratic nomination and handing her a comeback win in 2008, would now abandon his wife.
Criticizing Mr. Sanders’s hastily presented health-care plan, which Mr. Clinton claimed the Vermont senator had already disavowed, the former president asked: “Is it good for America? I don’t think so. Is it good for New Hampshire? I don’t think so.”
He continued: “The New Hampshire I knew would not have voted for me if I had done that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us...er=rss&emc=rss
Feel the Bern....
0.01%er Hillary doesn't GIVE A about these people, Bernie does
Who the Election Should Be For: The 7 Most Beaten-Down Americans
Wealthy Americans are afraid of too much change, the kind that might occur with a Democratic Socialist as president. But it's too late for gradual change. Only a popular uprising against big business greed can restore a semblance of normalcy to our perversely unequal society.
The election should be about the economy—but the economy of average Americans, not of establishment wealth. The election should be about these beaten-down groups of Americans:
The Black American
"I cringed when people would ask me where I lived... Just to say 'public housing' was basically saying that you’re dirty, you’re bad, you’re dumb, you’re lazy, you’re a problem." —Shana griffin, New Orleans activist
Emergency home repairs? Not for black families. The average African American family had readily available liquid wealth of only $200 in 2011, less than $1 for every $100 owned by whites.
We tend to believe that education is the great equalizer. But a middle-aged black person with a graduate degree has about the same odds of being a millionaire as a white person with only a high school diploma.
The Child
"My little sister. She's hungry." —An Ohio boy, sifting through his school's garbage bin
For every THREE homeless children in 2006 there are now FIVE. For every THREE children on food stamps in 2007, there are now FIVE.
And yet spending on children's programs recently declined for the first time in nearly 20 years.
The Senior Citizen
"I am over 60, and I was pushed out of my job because of my age. My rent, car note, and electricity are all two months behind. I can barely get food. Utilities will be cut off soon." —A Laurel, Maryland senior citizen
With the average cost of a year's worth of life-preserving drugs over $50,000, 43 percent of sick Americans skipped doctor's visits and/or medication purchases in 2011-12 because of excessive costs. It keeps getting worse. About half of households age 55 and older have no 401(k) or IRA or other retirement savings.
The Young Adult
"I was denied the license to practice in my profession because of my student loans...I make $8.50 an hour as a cashier at ACE Hardware." —Hilary, a student
Over one generation, from 1984 to 2009, the net worth of an American under 35 dropped from $11,521 to $3,662, a 68 percent decline, in good part because of debt. In approximately the same time, the percentage of stay-at-home young adults rose from 11 percent to almost 24 percent.
Just get a job at Apple? The company makes a $400,000 profit per employee while paying its retail specialists less than $30,000 per year.
The Veteran
"This figure runs around the corner...it looked like a little kid to me." A silent white flash filled the computer screen. Bryant paused, then turned to his partner. "Did that look like a child to you?" —Brandon Bryant, former drone operator
Over a third of American troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. Yet from 1970 to 2002, the per capita number of public mental health hospital beds plummeted from 207 per 100,000 to 21 per 100,000 -- nearly a90 percent cut! After the recession state funding was cut some more.
The American Woman
"My husband lost his job... I graduated from a four-year nursing school... but I have been unable to find a nursing job and was working part time... my student loans are all in deferral... I am expecting to give birth in one month, so I can't get a second job." —Woman in Bergenfield, NJ
Women earn just 80% of men's pay, and they have barely half the retirement assets of men.
But women are earningmore undergraduate degrees than men, more master's degrees than men, and more PhDs than men.
The Renter
"I have enough money to last about a month before I go homeless...a year-long waiting list for any housing assistance. I have nowhere to turn." —Renter in Missoula, Montana
According to the Census Bureau, median income has dropped by 6.5 percent since 2007. But rents keep going up. As a result, the number of families spending more than half their incomes on rent—the 'severely' cost-burdened renters—has surged from 7.5 million to 11.4 million in the last decade, a stunning 50 percent increase.
Billionaire Steve Schwarzman finds the growing anger among voters "astonishing."
But his company, Blackstone, is a corporate model for making money at the expense of desperate former homeowners. Since the recession, it has become the nation's leading landlord, buying up tens of thousands of homes at rock-bottom prices, and then renting them back, often to the very people who lost them.
What is truly "astonishing" is that people like Schwarzman fail to see—or refuse to see—what their lust for money is doing to beaten-down Americans.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/08/who-election-should-be-7-most-beaten-down-americans
Single-payer health plan wouldn't cost U.S. more
In our "read my lips/over my dead body" political culture, the threat of tax increases usually shuts down proposals for single-payer national health insurance. Lately, conservative pundits - and even liberals like Hillary Clinton - have been repeating the mantra that single-payer insurance would break the bank.
Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their health-care taxes are higher.
Or are they? According to our study in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, American taxpayers picked up 65 percent of the total health-care tab last year - a figure that will soon rise to 67 percent.
We paid $2.1 trillion in taxes to fund health care - $6,560 per person. That's more per capita than Canadians or people in any other nation pay. Indeed, our tax-financed health-care bill is higher than total health spending (private as well as public) in any other nation except Switzerland.
Official accounts from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services peg taxpayers' share of U.S. health spending at about 45 percent, a figure that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Veterans Affairs. However, this kind of tally omits two important items.
First, it leaves out government spending to buy private health coverage for public employees like teachers, firefighters, and members of Congress. Indeed, government employers account for 28 percent of all employer health spending.
Second, it excludes tax subsidies for private employer-paid plans and other privately paid care - $326 billion last year - that mainly benefit affluent families.
Omitting these government expenditures from the official health-spending tabulations obscures the fact that our health-care system is already about two-thirds publicly funded. In contrast, the Office of Management and Budget, not to mention most health-policy experts, considers tax subsidies for private insurance to be tax expenditures.
Even many uninsured families pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the health care of others.
More than one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on the way to the bedside. These private insurers siphon off 12 percent for their overhead and profits (vs. 2 percent in the Medicare program) and also inflict huge paperwork costs on doctors and hospitals. A shift to single-payer national health insurance would save at least $400 billion annually on paperwork alone, enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate co-payments and deductibles for the rest of us.
That means a national single-payer plan wouldn't cost Americans any more than we're currently spending. Moreover, the taxes to pay for it would be fully offset by the savings from eliminating private insurance premiums.
Moving from our current level of tax financing, 65 percent, to Canada's 70.7 percent would mean a tax increase of about $185 billion per year. But Americans would save at least that much on premiums. The vast majority of American households would come out ahead financially, and everyone would be covered.
Drug and insurance firms that would lose billions under single-payer health coverage generously fund its detractors (including Clinton, who has gotten more health-industry dollars than any other presidential candidate). These naysayers suggest that a single-payer plan (or "Medicare for all," as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) would downgrade Americans' coverage, and they also raise the specter of big tax increases.
But a national single-payer plan would give all Americans the first-dollar coverage enjoyed by Canadians and Brits, and guarantee them a free choice of doctors and hospitals - a choice that private insurers currently deny to many of us.
Surprisingly, American taxpayers already pay enough to fund national health insurance. We just don't get it.
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=%2Fphilly%2Fopinion&id=367751861
Sanders can't raise the money to win a general election and he won't get the black vote that Clinton will.
add in that a lot of boomer chicks are voting HRC just because she's a woman (sexism!), not because of her policies.
Should feminists feel ashamed for supporting Bernie Sanders?
Famed feminists Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright drew attention this weekend when they separately shamed young women for supporting Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters took campaign smack talk to a whole new level over the weekend, when two icons separately chided young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Ms. Clinton is nearly 20 points behind her opponent in support among women ages 18 to 34, according to a USA Today/Rock the Vote poll.
At a rally in New Hampshire Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female US Secretary of State, repeated what is becoming her most famous feminist one-liner: “There’s a special place in for women who don’t help other women.” This time, she was addressing all female voters in the 2016 election.
“Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said in her introduction of the Democratic candidate. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the Supreme Court make all the difference.”
In a similar vein, Ms. Albright’s Second Wave feminist peer, Gloria Steinem, made a controversial comment Friday about the young, female voters backing Mr. Sanders. In an interview with the talk show host Bill Maher, the writer and activist suggested that the young women are campaigning for Sanders just to meet men.
“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said. Even Mr. Maher was taken aback. “Now if I said that,” he replied, “You’d swat me.”
The younger generations are dismayed. Many have taken to the internet to express anger and disappointment over the feminist pioneers that they had once looked up to.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0207/Should-feminists-feel-ashamed-for-supporting-Bernie-Sanders
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
