Yet another reason to tax the rich more

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

I was simply advocating that different classes should have similar laws and not be exclusive.

That's not what you are saying at all. You want people with more money to have to pay more. That is not "similar", that is "different".

Quote

If you want to get us to think everyone has an equal chance then you aren't being honest.

They have a much better chance here than in most places. Obama as one example.

That's because the US has developed an infrastructure (transportation, schools, universities, etc) that is supportive. Contrast this to 3rd world countries without such an infrastructure.

Taxes are what pay for said infrastructure. No point in taxing the destitute, they have no money anyway.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>You know the difference, Bill. Insurance doesn't allow those who don't pay into it.

I'm not talking about insurance. I am talking about the tens of billions you pay to take care of the uninsured.

Right and it's not good on the expenditure end or the receiver end. A controled basic HC model would relieve that mess and is best in the interest of all. More people would get covered for less.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You never have addressed how everything goes better when taxes are raised. You have never shown me teh brilliance when tax cuits are imposed. I've shown the opposite, guess you don't want to back up your point.

what are you talking about? what point did i make that i'm not backing up? quote please.

I've posted several times, even started a thread over it. Let's start anew:

Tell me when a major federal tax cut has led to a great situation. IOW's, lowered unemp, raised the market, raised the GDP, turned a deficit into a surplus, curbed the debt increase, etc.

Or

Show me the opposite. A tax major fed tax incr that has led to disaster.

The (R)s always point to increases in tax collections following the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts. What they ALWAYS fail to mention is that when corrected to constant dollars (by taking account of inflation) and for population growth, all of these "increases" disappear. The Reagan cuts led overall to a real revenue shortfall of about $87B in constant (1987) dollars. The Bush cuts are even worse, with about $50B/year revenue shortfall in inflation adjusted dollars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Nope, I want baseline rules, meaning the lowest a person can go, to be similar. I want the rich to pay for the government that affords them major success.

Like it or not, that is cherry picking the things you want and the things you don't. We currently have a baseline for HC... Medicaid covers anyone that truly can't pay and no hospital is allowed to turn away a person based on their ability to pay.

Quote

I want the rich to pay for the government that affords them major success.

They already do:


http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

The top 10% already pay 68%. The bottom 50% only pay 3%.

Quote

I stated that they don't have, as in never? Where?

Right here:

The US was the bastion for class mobility, many foreigners would come her for that, now they realize it's piss.

Quote

Yea, you and Bill like to list Africa, parts of Asia, etc...

And you like to claim that the US does not provide opportunity... Of course we have already proven that you are incorrect.

Quote

OK, how's this: I currently have teeth with cavities, if we had humane HC I could have those filled and be done. Since we don't I would have to wait until it became abscessed . . .

Or you could have:

1. Gotten a job that has dental benefits. My dental plan costs me about 30 bucks a year.

2. Paid for preventive care out of pocket such as two cleanings a year. If you look you can find cash deals for less than 100 bucks.

http://www.affordabledentalcenter.com/new-patient-specials.html?gclid=CIS-1N2il50CFZla2godN0912A

http://www.8coupons.com/discounts/progressive-dentistry-new-york-10016-212-725-1111#11143

So basically, you didn't want to pay for a cleaning and a checkup and now want others to pay for your more expensive procedures that are the result of your neglect.

I am willing to bet that you have made more than 200 dollars worth of jumps this year, or drank more than 200 dollars worth of beverages, or ate out and spent more than 200 bucks this year.

It is all about priorities... you want someone else to pay for your HC so you can spend your money on more fun things.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

That's because the US has developed an infrastructure (transportation, schools, universities, etc) that is supportive. Contrast this to 3rd world countries without such an infrastructure.

Taxes are what pay for said infrastructure. No point in taxing the destitute, they have no money anyway.

Have you ever heard me say we should not pay taxes? Have you ever heard me say to tax the poor?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

That's because the US has developed an infrastructure (transportation, schools, universities, etc) that is supportive. Contrast this to 3rd world countries without such an infrastructure.

Taxes are what pay for said infrastructure. No point in taxing the destitute, they have no money anyway.

Have you ever heard me say we should not pay taxes? Have you ever heard me say to tax the poor?

And in the end it all comes down to a matter of opinion about where the line should be drawn. However, there is no doubt at all that at current rates we are nowhere close to paying our way. If you want money, you have to go where it is to be found, and that IS "the rich".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,434]

>brush and floss and you will NEVER get cavities.

It certainly greatly reduces them.

>And far from free.

Agreed! You can get care if you have no money; that doesn't mean it's 100% free.

>you cannot get HC unless you are very ill . . .

That is simply a lie, and thus the conclusions you base on it are false. I myself have gotten healthcare when I had no insurance (and not much money) and it was fast, I wasn't very ill, and I paid it back later.

[Ron 7]

Quote

However, there is no doubt at all that at current rates we are nowhere close to paying our way. If you want money, you have to go where it is to be found, and that IS "the rich".

Or:

1. You cut wasteful spending.
2. You stimulate growth.
3. You eliminate loopholes.

The answer is not always "hit the rich harder". And even if it is the final answer, it should not be the knee jerk initial default position.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You never have addressed how everything goes better when taxes are raised. You have never shown me teh brilliance when tax cuits are imposed. I've shown the opposite, guess you don't want to back up your point.

what are you talking about? what point did i make that i'm not backing up? quote please.

I've posted several times, even started a thread over it. Let's start anew:

Tell me when a major federal tax cut has led to a great situation. IOW's, lowered unemp, raised the market, raised the GDP, turned a deficit into a surplus, curbed the debt increase, etc.

Or

Show me the opposite. A tax major fed tax incr that has led to disaster.

The (R)s always point to increases in tax collections following the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts. What they ALWAYS fail to mention is that when corrected to constant dollars (by taking account of inflation) and for population growth, all of these "increases" disappear. The Reagan cuts led overall to a real revenue shortfall of about $87B in constant (1987) dollars. The Bush cuts are even worse, with about $50B/year revenue shortfall in inflation adjusted dollars.

W/o a doubt. They brag of record tax receipts, yet they also post record deficits and debt increases. That's as brilliant as bragging about getting a pay raise and then maxing out your credit cards on BS, mortgaging your house and pissing it away and then calling yourself successful.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

I don't think you earn >250k as Obama states, you will not be affected other than your dislike of the thought that people might be getting HC who didn't previously have it.

Obama may have said over $250k, but that number will invariably drop by quite a large margin as rich people contribute more to politicians putting the large share of the burden where it always falls: the middle class.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

However, there is no doubt at all that at current rates we are nowhere close to paying our way. If you want money, you have to go where it is to be found, and that IS "the rich".

Or:

1. You cut wasteful spending.

Yep. Trouble is, every political candidate in my lifetime has promised to do that. Surprising that there's any waste left, isn't it.

Quote

2. You stimulate growth.

But the evidence of history shows that cutting tax rates REDUCES real (inflation adjusted) revenues.

Quote

3. You eliminate loopholes.

No argument there. The issue is, how to get THAT past the tax lawyers' lobby, well funded as it is by "the rich".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It certainly greatly reduces them.

And I do, I have pretty good teeth for my age. Not smoking/drinking /drugging helps a lot too.

Quote

Agreed! You can get care if you have no money; that doesn't mean it's 100% free.

It's not at all free or comprehensive.

Quote

That is simply a lie, and thus the conclusions you base on it are false. I myself have gotten healthcare when I had no insurance (and not much money) and it was fast, I wasn't very ill, and I paid it back later.

ER's can triage non-emergencies to wait for everyone else or even turn you away if what you call an emergency is not one. If I need hand surgery, they can throw a cast on it and tell me to have a nce day, then bill me for $2k. The hand surgery never gets done. If you call that HC then I guess you can call me a world class swooper.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Like it or not, that is cherry picking the things you want and the things you don't. We currently have a baseline for HC... Medicaid covers anyone that truly can't pay and no hospital is allowed to turn away a person based on their ability to pay.

This argument is going no where, I've stated that I want baseline care for everyone and you interpret it differently, let's defer the major issue.

Quote

They already do:


http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

The top 10% already pay 68%. The bottom 50% only pay 3%.

I've posted that data several times, I then post:

THE CLASSES ARE SPEADING EVEN MORE, SO APPARENTLY THE TAX RATES ARE TOO LENIENT.

Quote

Right here:

The US was the bastion for class mobility, many foreigners would come her for that, now they realize it's piss.

I didn't state there is NO lcass mobility, but I understand that conservative interpretation works like binary code; 1 or 0. Yes or no. All or nothing.

Quote

And you like to claim that the US does not provide opportunity... Of course we have already proven that you are incorrect.

Again, binary. I didn;t say the US doesn't provide opportunity, I just claim that class mobility is largely a thing of the past.

Quote

Or you could have:

1. Gotten a job that has dental benefits. My dental plan costs me about 30 bucks a year.

2. Paid for preventive care out of pocket such as two cleanings a year. If you look you can find cash deals for less than 100 bucks.

http://www.affordabledentalcenter.com/new-patient-specials.html?gclid=CIS-1N2il50CFZla2godN0912A

http://www.8coupons.com/discounts/progressive-dentistry-new-york-10016-212-725-1111#11143

So basically, you didn't want to pay for a cleaning and a checkup and now want others to pay for your more expensive procedures that are the result of your neglect.

I am willing to bet that you have made more than 200 dollars worth of jumps this year, or drank more than 200 dollars worth of beverages, or ate out and spent more than 200 bucks this year.

It is all about priorities... you want someone else to pay for your HC so you can spend your money on more fun things.

My teeth aren't really bad, I could use a cleaning tho. I need a 20k surgery tho, but I guess taht has to wait since I live in this glorious country.

[billvon 2,434]

>If I need hand surgery, they can throw a cast on it and tell me to have a
>nce day, then bill me for $2k.

Right. And you might have some pain in your hand, or it may heal crooked. I have a friend who broke his hand as a kid. Wasn't taken care of and now he can't straighten his left hand.

The alternative is to not get any care at all, have necrosis set in, and have your hand rot off. On the scale of "obscene" that's a little closer than your sore hand.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You never have addressed how everything goes better when taxes are raised. You have never shown me teh brilliance when tax cuits are imposed. I've shown the opposite, guess you don't want to back up your point.

what are you talking about? what point did i make that i'm not backing up? quote please.

I've posted several times, even started a thread over it. Let's start anew:

Tell me when a major federal tax cut has led to a great situation. IOW's, lowered unemp, raised the market, raised the GDP, turned a deficit into a surplus, curbed the debt increase, etc.

Or

Show me the opposite. A tax major fed tax incr that has led to disaster.

when have i tried to make a point about any of that?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think you earn >250k as Obama states, you will not be affected other than your dislike of the thought that people might be getting HC who didn't previously have it.

Once again:

Explain how you "give" anything away if HC is passed. Explain how the taxing and spending process is linear. In the past 28 years or more, the absolute trend is that spending and taxing are inverse processes.

Explain how the processes are somehow tied togetehr.

At the current level of deficit and debt, the revenue and spending cycles have become much more directly related. We're spending at capacity now. You can, fairly in my opinion, blame this on the last President, but that doesn't change the reality we're in now. An extra trillion in spending now must be accounted for on the revenue side. We really should be cutting a trillion, not adding it.

And what does that mean for the 250k level? It's meaningless. Even before the summer spending spree, it was clear that the math didn't add up. There aren't enough of these people to tax.

It's a bit comical. I'm in this 10%. I also live in San Francisco, which means if I am willing to commit to spending over 50% of my net for the next couple decades I could buy a 2/1 condo. And that 50% is at a job where I work substantially harder than most Americans at a substantially higher skill level.

Per the BS you're shoveling, I should have a mansion. So cough it up - I want it now. Or stop with the misleading comparisons of urban professionals against the rural underemployed.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

You're the one who's ecstatic about increasing taxation and incoming healthcare.

Yes, just as Clinton wanted both and got one. When Clinton's HC failed, he still raised taxes; the 2 are not correlated.

Quote

If you don't think the two are related, why do you want me to pay more taxes...just so I can't enjoy the fruits of my labor?

I don't think you earn >250k as Obama states, you will not be affected other than your dislike of the thought that people might be getting HC who didn't previously have it.

I don't know what gave you that idea. My girlfriend doesn't currently have health coverage, and I would like her to.

Quote

Once again:

Explain how you "give" anything away if HC is passed. Explain how the taxing and spending process is linear. In the past 28 years or more, the absolute trend is that spending and taxing are inverse processes.

Explain how the processes are somehow tied togetehr.

You said, "We'll see how things go, but HC is on the way, followed by the tax cut expiration, followed by more tax increases. Me happy - you pissed - too bad". My question is, healthcare notwithstanding (I'm not sure how it became a part of this thread), why do you want to see increased taxes?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We have that. Government housing, food stamps, laws preventing being turned away at hospitals, unemployment benefits, etc. The truth is you don't want a safety net. You want the baseline raised no matter what the cost.

Yea, our baseline is that of a 3rd world country. And you want it reduced.

Have you EVER been to a 3rd world country? You have no idea what the baseline is. Not a clue.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>If I need hand surgery, they can throw a cast on it and tell me to have a
>nce day, then bill me for $2k.

Right. And you might have some pain in your hand, or it may heal crooked. I have a friend who broke his hand as a kid. Wasn't taken care of and now he can't straighten his left hand.

The alternative is to not get any care at all, have necrosis set in, and have your hand rot off. On the scale of "obscene" that's a little closer than your sore hand.

Ah, I see, so justifying a system that provides for favorites based upon economic class? This semantic definition of OBSCENE is ridiculous. I think it's onscene what happened to your friend, you say it's not because it could be worse and cite Africa as a contrast.

Instead of me reposting OBSCENE, which I could, let's just say the US medical system is classist and solely benefits the rich. Or we can revisit OBSCENE if we must.

But I concede, the US is a better country than Africa.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You never have addressed how everything goes better when taxes are raised. You have never shown me teh brilliance when tax cuits are imposed. I've shown the opposite, guess you don't want to back up your point.

what are you talking about? what point did i make that i'm not backing up? quote please.

I've posted several times, even started a thread over it. Let's start anew:

Tell me when a major federal tax cut has led to a great situation. IOW's, lowered unemp, raised the market, raised the GDP, turned a deficit into a surplus, curbed the debt increase, etc.

Or

Show me the opposite. A tax major fed tax incr that has led to disaster.

when have i tried to make a point about any of that?

You have thru inferrence. I'm not saying you're slacking, you love tax cuts, show me how they are so good for everyone.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have that. Government housing, food stamps, laws preventing being turned away at hospitals, unemployment benefits, etc. The truth is you don't want a safety net. You want the baseline raised no matter what the cost.

Yea, our baseline is that of a 3rd world country. And you want it reduced.

Have you EVER been to a 3rd world country? You have no idea what the baseline is. Not a clue.

And you don't understand the definition of BASELINE. Baseline means a standard. For example, Spruce is a standard or baseline by which to measure other woods in acft. Spruce isn;t the best, just a high standard. I'm not saying HC s/b the high, we just need to draw a line by which measure what every American is guaranteed. 3rd world countries have bare-bottom benefits or none at all, that's not the same as baseline.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baseline

4. a basic standard or level; guideline: to establish a baseline for future studies.

5. a specific value or values that can serve as a comparison or control.

[Ion01 1]

Ever heard of the depression of 1920? Probably not..... did you know the crash then was worse than the one that resulted in the "great depression".
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html

Also, the reality is that such actions as you are advocating don't raise the "baseline" they bring everything down to a lower level. Look at the countries that do what you advocate or have in the past. They are failures!

These are not new ideas! They have been tried before and they fail!

[billvon 2,434]

>Ah, I see, so justifying a system that provides for favorites based upon
>economic class?

Yes. Another word for that is 'capitalism.'

>I think it's obscene what happened to your friend, you say it's not because it
>could be worse and cite Africa as a contrast.

You think that a kid that doesn't go to the hospital with a broken hand, and has it heal a bit crooked, is obscene? Well, then once again, we will have to agree to disagree.

The more I discuss this with you the more I get the feeling you have no idea what the rest of the world is like. If you ever get the chance, travel a bit, and see what other people really have to go through. Your view of what's obscene will change a bit, I think.

[Lucky... 0]

Ever heard of the depression of 1920? Probably not..... did you know the crash then was worse than the one that resulted in the "great depression".

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

Sure, didn't last long, but it was steep and short. No way to compare it to the GD IMO. Your own cite states: Never heard of it? That's not surprising - it didn't last long. The 20's were roaring, not greatly depressing.

I think it was lesssignificant than the GD, esp since it was onset by WWI ending, a good thing, versus the GD.

Quote

Also, the reality is that such actions as you are advocating don't raise the "baseline" they bring everything down to a lower level.

Which actions; be specific.

Quote

Look at the countries that do what you advocate or have in the past. They are failures!

More ambiguity? Are you affraid to specify which things I say, which countries, how they failed, etc? Come on, cite my ideas, specific countries that tried it when and the outcome.

As for the baseline, you set that and demand gov spending if nec meets that, you're working this backwards saying the cuts, etc won't meet the baseline; diff deal.

[Ron 7]

Quote

This argument is going no where, I've stated that I want baseline care for everyone and you interpret it differently, let's defer the major issue.

Yes, it is going nowhere, but only due to the fact you refuse to admit it already exists.

Quote

THE CLASSES ARE SPEADING EVEN MORE, SO APPARENTLY THE TAX RATES ARE TOO LENIENT.

So you think taxation should be so high as to prevent people from spending? Hate to break it to you, but consumer spending counts for 70% of GDP.

So you want to tax people so they stop spending and kill the LARGEST driver of the economy?

Quote

I didn't state there is NO lcass mobility, but I understand that conservative interpretation works like binary code; 1 or 0. Yes or no. All or nothing.

And I understand that liberals have to resort to personal attacks when they are proven wrong.... Just like that one.

Face it... You made a statement that was in no way true.... Just accept it and move along.

Quote

I need a 20k surgery tho, but I guess taht has to wait since I live in this glorious country.

You could:

1. Get a job with HC... Many people do it. In fact, about 68% of Americans are happy with the HC they currently have and rate it "good" or "excellent". And 56% do not support this current push.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

2. You could pay for it. Most people get loans for cars... I would think your health would be more important than a new car.

And I bet you still spend money on "fun" things... Again, it is all about priorities. You want me to pay the boring stuff you want so you can spend your money on the cool things.

Just like the packer at the DZ that was bitching about needing to see a Dr, but he "could not afford it". But he managed to have money to jump, he had money to buy a new canopy, he had money to take SCUBA lessons........ect.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334