Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Yeah you right. We couldn't get rid of none of those Dems that said they was gonna leave. They actually realized the U.S. is pretty good to them.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
Yeah you right. We couldn't get rid of none of those Dems that said they was gonna leave. They actually realized the U.S. is pretty good to them.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
We don't agree much but Trump said he was closing them loopholes and he better well damn keep that agreement.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
We've also got 1/1000th of the tax base (it's not just pinging the rich for this stuff, and if anyone proposes that as a simple solution I'll disagree with them), and like I say those stats (that again I'll have to double-check but I suspect it's a similar source to what The Raven's going off since we're citing the same phenomenon) are about proportions of the government's budget - so if the US government allocated its budget in the same way as Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada, every EU country and others, it would be spending less as a dollar figure on healthcare and covering more people (and people wouldn't have to live in fear of going bankrupt if they cop a freak injury), if all that makes sense.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
I agree with that too. September will be an interesting month to follow. Sadly I think that the tax system, like healthcare, is such a complicated clusterfuck of a system that simplifying things might be tougher in practice, even if everyone agrees it should happen (the California representatives will want to increase the federal deductions on state tax, for example, but the Florida reps won't wear that).
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
I hear you but we are way bigger than all them countries you mentioned. This country has been built on privatization and competition which is what should keep costs competitive and we need complete repeal. Not replacement. Thing is Obama put all these people on healthcare off of taxpayers backs that can foot the bill but we still have the same amount of doctors and medical equipment. There really is a reason people from around the world come here for surgeries and special procedures.
Couple questions for you. Whats the % of take home pay you get? Do you get to choose your doctor? How much of that healthcare plan that you get do you actually need?
I have to get back to you on Fri since I got a 2 day run coming up but I will cuz I'm really curious.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
You're probably right cuz they make the most money. Can you imagine what Bill Gates pays by himself. But he still ain't hurting or feeling the pinch.
I doubt he will. He benefited from them himself for several years.
Given how much of a philanthropist he is, I doubt he pays that much in taxes. That's part of the loopholes, not that it's bad in this case because Gates does quite a bit for many fields of research.
This wouldn't surprise me when you consider the top one percent alone controls anywhere from 23%-40% of all the wealth (estimates vary).
K-Dog
MVP
As we all have.
The Raven
Veteran
The economy was at its highest rate of growth when the tax on the rich was sky high under FDR, JFK, and LBJ. In fact, GDP growth under those three and Clinton was higher than every Republican president in the modern era. Annual GDP growth under the "socialist" LBJ was over 5 percent, kicking the shit out of Reagan's 3.5 and Bush I's 2.25. Beat that with a stick.
Until the Lord our Savior Ronald Reagan came in with his trickle down bullshit, the tax rate on the top bracket was close to 90 percent, and the economy -- and the rich -- still did just fine.
Last edited:
The Raven
Veteran
POTUS himself doesn't have a plan. He couldn't give you the policy details on any of his proposals. He's all rhetoric and no policy.
The Raven
Veteran
You're telling me than rich people carry the largest tax burden? What a novel fucking idea, K-Dog. I had no idea!
It only makes mathematical sense since the top ten percent has 75 percent of the wealth. Hmm... 75 percent of the wealth... 70 percent of the tax burden... Wow. Would you look at that! Before you call it fake news since I know someone will, it cites a report from the CBO, which can be found here: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51846-familywealth.pdf.
By the way, how the hell is an economy supposed to grow when wealth is so concentrated? If the middle and lower classes don't have money, there's no spending and therefore no growth. Gee, maybe income inequality really is a problem. Oh God. I'm starting to sound like a commie.
Last edited:
The Raven
Veteran
You can rest assured that millionaire Trump with his cabinet of advisors from Goldman Sachs will close the loopholes (even though he can't because I'm pretty sure that would require an act of Congress).
Inqui
Pro Bowler
I honestly couldn't tell you off the top of my head, since we use a PAYE system so what shows up in my bank account has already had tax and other government deductions (super contribution, student loan repayment, healthcare levy, etc) removed - ED: I take home about 73.3%, which I believe is a shade above what someone in my situation (single, no kids, similar wages etc) would expect to take home in the US. You can choose your doctor (there are still fees, but they're heavily subsidised [I'd expect to pay about $US25 for a GP visit though I can't remember if I paid at all last time I saw one - iirc the government offers even more perks if you visit a doctor you're enrolled with] and free for a lot of people - families on low incomes, people with young kids, etc), and despite the government effectively taking a big chunk of the market there's still a solid private market for insurance and hospitals if you want better options. I knew a guy who did his ACL a couple of years ago and he decided to wait for a while and get it fixed on the government's dollar - but there were several options to go private had he wanted to go that way. The healthcare levies depend on your job (I think mine are a few hundred per year) and they're also factored in when your register a vehicle - though those vehicle ownership levies got slashed in a big way a couple of years ago.
I've only been through the system a handful of times, so I probably pay a decent amount more than I what I get out of it, but honestly I wouldn't have it any other way. If something happened I wouldn't have to worry about facing a massive bill or going bankrupt - or having to pay insurance premiums for that peace of mind. The other reason is more philosophical, in that I think healthcare is another one of those sectors where the free market makes incentives a little screwy - where those hit the hardest by the casino model of the public spending $11 for every $10 paid out are those who most need to get paid out, and they're also the people who don't have the leverage to give the insurers the middle finger and walk away (where in every other country the government's essentially a competitor in the market and that gives the consumer even more leverage). And people like me who hardly need the system can't opt out, so that keeps the prices in check for everyone. This post is long enough as it is, but I can go on for days about incentives, opt-in vs opt-out schemes, and the difference between micro-level decisions and macro-level impacts.
I'd say The Raven knows more about this than me, but I believe that's what Obamacare was trying to create. The kind of system where everything is covered at a rudimentary level, but with the option to get insurance on top of that if you want the good stuff. But it ended up with so many amendments tacked on that the whole thing ended up getting half-assed.
Last edited:
Inqui
Pro Bowler
From what I've seen I don't disagree - between fighting ISIS, healthcare reform, the $1 trillion infrastructure boost, tax cuts, tackling the debt and even the precise costing of the wall I don't think I've seen any substantial policy proposals from him involving specific costings and how they'd get funded. But if I've missed anything I'm honestly open to hearing what it is and forming my own opinion of that. But like I said on the previous page, the fact that none of this stuff came out in the wash during the election cycle is one of my bigger disappointments in the media.
The Raven
Veteran
Donald Trump's governing style mirrors that of a small town, part time mayor. Mayors in most small towns are basically unpaid volunteers who work part time, really just during town meetings. They give the broad ideas and the rhetoric, leaving the town administrator and staff (think chief of staff and cabinet) to do the actual governing and policy work. This is not a bad plan, in and of itself, if the mayor is a good manager and hires good people. The key here is the administrator -- you need a good one, a CEO type.
What we're seeing with Trump is a "mayor," so to speak, who can't manage (don't anyone dare tell me he can with all the staff turnover), hire good people (lol the mooch), or commit to ideas (asking for GOP healthcare plan and then calling it "mean"). The other side is this: sometimes, a mayor asks for something that can't be done. Like, in Trump's case, the wall, or a healthcare plan that insures more people and drives premiums down without public sector involvement.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
The Laffer curve is just a theoretical tool that doesn't take into account the fact that revenues start to diminish at different points for different countries based on sovereign risk, geography, IP protections and a range of other things (not to mention studies show that the "high point" is a rate of about 80-90%). But for some reason right-wingers the world over have been swearing by it as a silver bullet for economic growth for the past 30-plus years. Tax cuts under Obama and W. did little to stimulate growth, and the Kansas books are a clusterfuck as a result of years of rampant tax cuts and the promised private sector growth hasn't done an awful lot in response.
There's an interesting argument to be made that tax hikes actually increase growth by decreasing inequality - which may be a bigger factor for economic growth - and by increasing the potential for fiscal stimuli (aggregate demand-led growth) as well as increasing a sense of civic involvement. Personally I wouldn't go that far (not all taxes are created equal for starters) but it does show that the relationship between tax and economic growth (much less wage growth) is sketchy at best.
The Raven
Veteran
Tax hikes (especially at the state and county level) also increase investment in things like public water/sewer, fiber internet, better schools, new infrastructure, etc, all of which promote economic growth and development. In the states, there's the feeling that the rural areas got "left behind," and they lagged behind in growth as a result. But if you look closely, it's probably a matter of those areas not investing in their infrastructure. Most studies show rural areas lack public water/sewer, internet access, and even cellular connection in some spots. What the hell kind of a business would invest in such an area? Infrastructure yields growth, and infrastructure is expensive. If you want an economy you have to pay for it. It's how the world works now.
I will say that under JFK and LBJ, they cut the top taxes from, I believe, 80 percent to 65, which jumpstarted growth for a couple years, but it was kind of an artificial jump. This did come after a period of rapid (and expensive) infrastructure improvements under Eisenhower, the last good Republican president.
- Status