You’ve got a lot of people who busted their ass to get to that $100k-$250k bracket that are not at all going to be happy bringing home 25k-50k. I mean, what’s the point of trying any harder to achieve?
2020 Democrat hopefuls
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
i nominate @Knight_Classes_begin_7pm . one of the few beacons of truth in this cesspool of regurgitated FAUX news bs shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#2020
just looking at the schedule:
we have new hampshire today.
then a bunch of states in february.
2/19 is the 9th debate in nevada
a couple more states
2/25 is the 10th debate in south carolina
couple more states vote
3/3 is super tuesday
i think we should have a clear picture by then.
just looking at the schedule:
we have new hampshire today.
then a bunch of states in february.
2/19 is the 9th debate in nevada
a couple more states
2/25 is the 10th debate in south carolina
couple more states vote
3/3 is super tuesday
i think we should have a clear picture by then.
I think Bloomberg changes the equation on super Tuesday. Biden and Warren will be out by then so we will start to see a lot of consolidation on that day between bernie and bloomberg.
It's weird to think that democrats will most likely be voting for someone who would be in their late 80s if their candidate wins 2 terms.
This could be worse case scenario for democrats. Bernie vs Bloomberg is going to create the ultimate identity crisis for the party. Bloomberg is a caricature of everything Bernie says is wrong with America - billionaires having too much influence. If the party establishment coalesces behind Bloomberg to stop Bernie, his supporters are going to go nuts. If we end up in a brokered convention where Bernie has a plurality, and the party flips the nomination to Bloomberg, you have total chaos.
Itll be interesting to see what kind of ads the RNC starts running in March and April. They've got a pretty big war chest right now so I'm sure that they'll get into the game earlier than usual this year.
i wonder if we will get a brokered convention? it does seem like there is a split in the party right now.
The party better start coming up with some alternative candidates if they end up in a brokered convention. The Bernie supporters are going to riot no matter what if he doesn't get the nomination but the party will have to find a viable alternative for them if they want those voters to show up in november.
Even somewhere like Finland - that taxes at these kinds of levels vs GDP - has a top effective marginal rate of ~54% and there's all kinds of deductions and crap like here. I looked it up real quick - $300k in Finland (with no deductions) ends up with an effective rate of like 45%. At $100k it's more like ~30% effective rate (again I assumed zero deductions). That's high for sure, but a far cry from Crazy's numbers.
There are other taxes - a VAT in particular - so it's going to get higher but I don't know how to net all that out with deductions. But I think it's far more reasonable to just look at other countries with similar tax-to-GDP ratios for some understanding here. Unless Crazy has some analysis how he came up that...
I think it all comes down to who has the most delegates at the convention. If Bernie has a plurality even sniffing 50% - say 40% or higher - I don't think the party will have a choice - particularly if second place is 10% behind him. It'll do long lasting damage internally plus the massive credibility damage it will do to a party that argues for electoral fairness. The real chaos scenario is 2 or 3 candidates close to each other, all hovering around 30%.
Finland is a pretty good comparison for government spending vs GDP, but it also has one of the lowest income inequalities in the world so their tax code can be much less progressive there. Their lowest tax bracket is 35% which means even their lowest income earners pay in. The US has about 150 million people who pay no tax at all. My point was that I find it doubtful that half of Americans would be cool with all of a sudden having to pay in when they havent been and no politician is going to propose taxing lower income people.
Where are you getting this information? Bernie has laid out his tax plan, and it looks nothing like this. Basically, most people's income tax would increase about 4% until you get to the 250K range and it would go up about 9%, and then the next big jump isn't until you reach $2 million. There are other increases as well but also not that much of an increase until you get to the $250k income..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthon...x-plans-first-up-bernie-sanders/#7ca208d955aa
Crazy is arguing that Bernie's tax plan could never pay for all the things he wants to do. He's right, but he's also doing the same thing he's accusing Bernie of - pulling unrealistic numbers out of thin air.
Yeah I was wondering where he got those #s, I guess he just completely made them up. It is one thing to disagree with Sander's plan, but if it so terrible there shouldn't be a reason to completely make things up when discussing it.
That's a really interesting observation - that our system would require more progressive taxation because our income is concentrated near the top. I agree with that. To that end, if you had intentional domestic policy to reverse the inequality trend of the last 30 years by focusing on raising wages, you'd have to adjust tax policy to account for that overtime.
I still think your numbers are in la-la land but if you did the math let me know.
I'm not claiming that those are Bernies numbers. I'm just doing the mental math on how a government can take 50% of GDP to fund the government when 45% of the population pay nothing. Bernies 4% and 9% increases dont add up so I'm trying to be realistic about what it would look like. If we aren't going to follow the finland model where every person regardless of income has to pay 35% minimum, how can we fund it?
Agree, but the thesis of this point is valid. To show how hard it is to actually finance this stuff, look at Bernie's white paper on paying for MFA. Just to give a reference, total income tax revenue is ~$1.7 trillion and the top 20% pay ~87% of those taxes.
Now, of the $3.2 Trillion per year costs of MFA, roughly $2 trillion is already publicly financed (Medicare, Medicaid, etc). SO that leaves $1.2 trillion in additional revenue. So you'd have to roughly double the income taxes of the top 20% to make up that difference if you didn't raise taxes on anyone else. I think that's a fairer way to describe Crazy's point.
So we need at least $12 Trillion over 10 years. This is NOT easy to come up with.
Bernie calls for a 4% employee and 7% employer FICA style tax. According to him, that raises a total of about $8 trillion over 10 years. So we still need $4 trillion. His wealth tax on the top 0.1% only brings in $1.3 trillion over 10 years as an example. He's got a variety of things he proposes as options to make up the difference, but you get the idea. It's really hard to figure how a fair and equitable way to fund something this significant.
The better way to win this argument isn't to justify how you pay for the MFA costs, it's to argue that MFA will be net cheaper over 10 years than continuing with private health insurance, while insuring more people, and we have to figure out how to pay for it anyway
I posted some of the math above and a link to Bernie's writeup. I haven't audited his numbers, but a significant point I hadn't considered is that of that $3.2 trillion MFA cost, the government funds healthcare nationwide to the tune of about $2.0 trillion already - medicare / medicaid / etc. So if MFA replaces that entire ecosystem and gets that $2.0 trillion, then the $1.2 trillion shortfall is more manageable. Hard still but seemingly doable - whereas trying to come up with the full $3.2 trillion is not doable.
Quick google search and I think those numbers pan out. First hits I saw were $1.1 trillion federal and ~$700b state but those numbers were a few years old. Anyway, it's at least in the ballpark.
I suppose the easiest counter argument to this is that the government is paying twice as much as the private sector to cover less than a 3rd of the population. It also goes against the narrative that insurance companies are responsible for driving healthcare costs with their billions (lol) in profit.
You act like the last part is a given but its' not. Several studies including the most recent from Emory School of Economics predict that the tax increases would outweigh the "benefits" of not having a premium or deductible any longer. If MFA were to actually deliver on that promise, they'd have to squeeze costs out of the system to such dramatic effect that the government could lower the tax burden, which would either severely deteriorate the delivery of care or severely limit access to quality care.
There's also the small issue regarding how to pay for and implement the nationalization of an entire industry sector, move 190M people off private insurance to government insurance and health care delivery, and not totally wreck the economy and install chaos in the meantime.
Coming back to this because things got conflated a bit.
Bernies tax proposal on those rates is just on healthcare. What I was talking about is the totality of his budget proposals. The average effective tax rate in the US currently is something in the 18% range which is still at a deficit level. To fund his proposals we would need to have an average effective rate of 50%. To do that with a progressive tax code that exempts 45% of the population would mean extremely high effective tax rates on the highest earners and a baseline that would have to start at above 50% of income.
I actually think that's one of the most effective arguments for MFA. The government is already insuring the most expensive group of Americans - the elderly - while leaving the biggest profit centers to private insurers - young and healthy people.
I agree you can't prove it. But at the same time, you can't explain how we can spend 2x per capita the second most expensive OECD country on healthcare, while rating near the bottom (of 30 countries) across a wide range of outcomes. The value in our system is the worst in the world.
I don't know what this mean. How is an income tax bracket just on healthcare?
It's a complex issue but to a degree I can - we are insanely fat and unhealthy here. I've been through most of Europe, the Middle East, and some time in S America and sadly Americans don't take care of themselves. It's not a mystery why we spend more than other countries when your populace has millions of obese people living sedentary lives, with horrid personal habits and 6 chronic illnesses/ailments to go along with it.
Those two things are counter intuitive. If the most expensive group takes 2/3rds of the funding but that group only represents 1/3rd of the population, that isn't proof that they are doing a better job of it. I'm not saying that it isn't justifiable, just that it isnt evidence that govt does it better.
The whole conversation is moot though, because who insures who doesnt get back to the core issue, which is why are provider costs so high?
It's not a bracket, he's saying that those are increases in rates just to pay for MCA. It also doesnt take into account the fact that in effect it's actually double that, as he wants employers to kick in that same amount with no caps.
The one thing I do like about Bernie is that he's at least honest enough to say that medicare and social security payments are not investments for retirement, they are taxes.
And as a society we treat those lifestyles with medication, not as a dictate to change those lifestyles.
High blood pressure? Take a pill. Not go workout and change your diet, just take this pill. The same is true for myriad health issues.
If you want some data on this, here's a link. The problem is in actual costs.
Simple example. The fact that we spend 5x the average on administrative cost per person (vs other wealthy OECD nations) is a huge sign of our problems. Do some quick math on that. We spend $843 dollars per person on administrative costs, compared to an average of $175 in other wealthy countries. That difference alone accounts for ~6% of all healthcare spending or 1% of the entire GDP.
We spend $3.2 trillion on healthcare, so that's $192 B in administrative costs. If we hit the wealthy OECD average, we'd spend $38.4B. That alone is a net-savings of $153 B per year. That savings alone would be almost 1.0% of GDP.
For scale, excess administrative costs in the US system is roughly 3x the total revenue of the GLOBAL music industry. It's 6x the budget of NASA. You could afford Bernie's Free College plan and still have have $100 B leftover.
I'm sympathetic to MFA because other countries demonstrate the ability to control costs FAR better than our system. I do not see insurance companies delivering any value to our system. Their profits only increase if the industry grows. They have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to decreases total healthcare costs.
"I'm sympathetic to MFA because other countries demonstrate the ability to control costs FAR better than our system"
There it is. The success of other countries use of government healthcare isnt based on who the intermediary is, it's how much money the provider can charge. The end-game is to make hospitals, doctors, and staff less profitable in their business model. The funny thing about that is the free market accomplishes the same thing but also encourages competition.
There it is. The success of other countries use of government healthcare isnt based on who the intermediary is, it's how much money the provider can charge. The end-game is to make hospitals, doctors, and staff less profitable in their business model. The funny thing about that is the free market accomplishes the same thing but also encourages competition.
Well who insures does impact cost. See my last post.
Provider costs are complex. I think prescription drug costs are easier to diagnose. We don't negotiate with drug companies at scale. Another problem is simply alignment of interests. Health insurers have no incentive for healthcare spending to actually decrease. If US spending on healthcare magically decreased by 10% tomorrow, the health insurance industry would see a 10% cut to profits. They're profit-motives are simply mis-aligned with a national goal of controlling costs.
What incentive does government have to reduce healthcare spending? Do you understand what lobbyists are there for and what the goal is?
So you're ignoring the 0.8% of GDP insurers are soaking up in excessive administrative costs? Provider costs are a bigger problem but it's not like that's chump change.
Healthcare has a unique proposition that causes it to behave far different than other markets. Trying to compare it to other markets doesn't work because you place an insanely high value on your own life. If the TV you want is too expensive, you buy a cheaper model. Or you delay purchasing for a year until the price drops. Good old market principles at work.
What happens when you have a heart attack and need emergency surgery? Do you price shop the ambulance? Do visit 3 or 4 cardiologists and see which one will give you the best deal on open heart surgery? Even if you know in real time that the emergency treatment is going to end in your personal bankruptcy, you still value your own life beyond any financial cost.
Allowing market principles to decide the cost of emergency open heart surgery can't work because the consumer is not in a position to make rational economic decisions.
speed, quality, and price are factors in pretty much everything in life. the problem is you can only have 2 of the 3 at the same time. gov taking over health care will be no different.
the dems couldnt even count a couple thousand people in iowa correctly. ive never met anyone who had nice things to say about the dmv. starting your own business is a pita with all the red tape. does anyone know of a single gov program that completed on time, under budget, and was actually good?
i dont want the gov involved in health care. in fact, i think if we got them less involved, it would result in better care and for less money overall.
the dems couldnt even count a couple thousand people in iowa correctly. ive never met anyone who had nice things to say about the dmv. starting your own business is a pita with all the red tape. does anyone know of a single gov program that completed on time, under budget, and was actually good?
i dont want the gov involved in health care. in fact, i think if we got them less involved, it would result in better care and for less money overall.
The government wouldn't be taking over healthcare they would be taking over health insurance.
No it wouldn't. We already have medicare and Medicaid and they aren't trying to take over healthcare.
