Gov Insurance for All

[wontonsoup]

Or look at Canada, where physicians make a comparable amount (they have far lower taxes due to the way their businesses are structured).

It can be done well, not that I trust our government to pull it off at all. We have a government that can’t even remain open. A Medicare system that still legally cannot negotiate drug prices. In the face of this people think Medicare for all is the solution. Amazing.

The state currently provides healthcare to 40% of Americans right now. Why are people acting like this isn’t already the case?

And if healthcare is a “right”, why not housing? Why not water? Why not food? Should the government provide free food water and housing as well?

And what level of service constitutes healthcare? Is cosmetic breast surgery after mastectomy guaranteed? How many weeks of waiting is acceptable? Should older patients not be eligible for otherwise standard procedures like it is in the UK? Are Americans going to accept rationing of drugs like the UK does?

People tend to gloss over the many European countries with health systems that are not provided to everyone for free. Like Switzerland.

I frankly don’t see America embracing such a collectivist system (with the required rationing - yes, rationing - of care).

As much hype as there has been about taxing income > 10 million at 70% it wouldn’t generate much money. Few people make that much income. You would generate about 15B a year. For reference our defense budget is about 600B to 800B a year, and Medicare currently has a budget around 600B. 15B is a drop in the bucket. I’m not opposed to it, but I also think the fact the (far) left thinks this would somehow allow for any of their expansions of government benefits is truly scary. They simply don’t know what’s going on.

We agree Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices -- why do you think that isn't the case now? Because of insurance lobbying. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for this, why would they do this if they didn't expect a return on their money?

And yeah, I think a basic amount of housing, food, and water should also be a right. There are more unoccupied houses and apartments than there are homeless people in the US. There is no reason whatsoever that anybody in the wealthiest country on the planet should go hungry or without shelter. But these are separate issues that deserve their own discussions.

And I think 70% is far far too low. Personally, I'm in favor of something like a logarithmic tax rate. Get rid of all the complicated brackets and tax code and make it simple. Is your argument that since a 70% tax rate wouldn't generate enough money for whatever we are proposing we should just scrap it altogether? 70% is too generous already, in my opinion. Jeff Bezos has a 160 billion. Leave him with 1 billion and his quality of life would not be appreciably different and we just got 159 billion more to fund healthcare for the uninsured. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have openly called for higher taxes.

I agree that the US is unlikely to embrace these ideas and the reason is because the ultra wealthy have spent a mind-boggling amount of money convincing the lower classes that it would be ineffective. Medicare For All, or whatever your favorite flavor of single-payer is, is not a radical idea. Medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US -- we can prevent this, why not try?

The point of capitalism is voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges based upon the subjective priorities of both parties, don’t strawman basic economics

There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to stockpile their money like smaug, light cigars with it or buy gold foil toilet paper.....it is their money

If income is to exist it should be a flat rate from the first dollar to the last for the general govt with no welfare (corporate or individual)

I am not strawmanning basic economics, that is literally how capitalism works as explained by Adam Smith. Wealth is not generated in a vacuum. How well would Amazon (or any other major enterprise) work if the US hadn't used taxes to create a massively useful infrastructure to allow its growth? Do you believe a police force or firefighters should be private and only available if you can personally pay for it? You de facto cannot have voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges between a billionaire and a worker making 15$ an hour, the bargaining power is entirely in the hands of the wealthy. That is the entire point of having a robust labor politics -- can you guess why unions were neutered and dismantled throughout the 20th century? The funny thing is I think you would agree that hospitals should be run by doctors and not administrators and yet the ideals you are espousing directly contradict that notion.

If you seriously think a flat rate tax is a good idea you are being hopelessly idealistic. How is taxing a single mother making 20k a year at the same rate as a billionaire a remotely rational or compassionate perspective? Let me repeat it for emphasis, the money that billionaires in the US have was not created by them and instead was stolen (to use your language) from the workers who actually spent their time and labor generating it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ndafife]

Or look at Canada, where physicians make a comparable amount (they have far lower taxes due to the way their businesses are structured).

It can be done well, not that I trust our government to pull it off at all. We have a government that can’t even remain open. A Medicare system that still legally cannot negotiate drug prices. In the face of this people think Medicare for all is the solution. Amazing.

There are currently bills being introduced to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, allow Americans to import lower priced drugs from abroad, and to ding companies who charge more than the median of the price in Canada, UK, France, Germany and Japan. So the people who want Medicare for all are already going after that issue.

And if healthcare is a “right”, why not housing? Why not water? Why not food? Should the government provide free food water and housing as well?

Other than the very different demand/economics between healthcare and food... Did you just choose to forget that food stamps and public housing exists? The government literally provides food and housing to people who otherwise can't afford it

 

[Black Coffee 24/7]

I've been told that doctor gigs in Europe are much more 40 hour jobs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

Try 40-60 pts 60 hrs a wk for 130K a year in Japan

I know bc I know Japanese docs who are trying to secure FM residency in the US. Those guys are taking Step 1 and 2 right now.

 

[NicMouse64]

The point of capitalism is voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges based upon the subjective priorities of both parties, don’t strawman basic economics

There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to stockpile their money like smaug, light cigars with it or buy gold foil toilet paper.....it is their money

If income is to exist it should be a flat rate from the first dollar to the last for the general govt with no welfare (corporate or individual)

If we really wanna get down to basics it's all about power. Money and resources don't belong to anyone. Whoever has the most power and the best enforcement techniques can take whatever they want: see history for examples: cuba, native americans, africa, etc. The US government takes money through taxes because they are the most powerful enforcer in the country. The key to conservative strategy is to make it seem like the government is coming for the little guys' money when really the government isn't. The liberal strategy is to make it seem like the government isn't doing enough to take the big guys' money. The government can do what it wants because that's how power has always worked in human society. We just have a set of rules that make it so they can't go too far with that enforcement before people revolt. Our collective want to not have revolts and basic rules gives the government it's right to "steal" in SBs words from the people.

 

[deleted480308]

If we really wanna get down to basics it's all about power. Money and resources don't belong to anyone. Whoever has the most power and the best enforcement techniques can take whatever they want: see history for examples: cuba, native americans, africa, etc. The US government takes money through taxes because they are the most powerful enforcer in the country. The key to conservative strategy is to make it seem like the government is coming for the little guys' money when really the government isn't. The liberal strategy is to make it seem like the government isn't doing enough to take the big guys' money. The government can do what it wants because that's how power has always worked in human society. We just have a set of rules that make it so they can't go too far with that enforcement before people revolt. Our collective want to not have revolts and basic rules gives the government it's right to "steal" in SBs words from the people.

They’re already too far. And being a big elected thief doesn’t make it more moral

 

[deleted480308]

We agree Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices -- why do you think that isn't the case now? Because of insurance lobbying. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for this, why would they do this if they didn't expect a return on their money?

And yeah, I think a basic amount of housing, food, and water should also be a right. There are more unoccupied houses and apartments than there are homeless people in the US. There is no reason whatsoever that anybody in the wealthiest country on the planet should go hungry or without shelter. But these are separate issues that deserve their own discussions.

And I think 70% is far far too low. Personally, I'm in favor of something like a logarithmic tax rate. Get rid of all the complicated brackets and tax code and make it simple. Is your argument that since a 70% tax rate wouldn't generate enough money for whatever we are proposing we should just scrap it altogether? 70% is too generous already, in my opinion. Jeff Bezos has a 160 billion. Leave him with 1 billion and his quality of life would not be appreciably different and we just got 159 billion more to fund healthcare for the uninsured. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have openly called for higher taxes.

I agree that the US is unlikely to embrace these ideas and the reason is because the ultra wealthy have spent a mind-boggling amount of money convincing the lower classes that it would be ineffective. Medicare For All, or whatever your favorite flavor of single-payer is, is not a radical idea. Medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US -- we can prevent this, why not try?



I am not strawmanning basic economics, that is literally how capitalism works as explained by Adam Smith. Wealth is not generated in a vacuum. How well would Amazon (or any other major enterprise) work if the US hadn't used taxes to create a massively useful infrastructure to allow its growth? Do you believe a police force or firefighters should be private and only available if you can personally pay for it? You de facto cannot have voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges between a billionaire and a worker making 15$ an hour, the bargaining power is entirely in the hands of the wealthy. That is the entire point of having a robust labor politics -- can you guess why unions were neutered and dismantled throughout the 20th century? The funny thing is I think you would agree that hospitals should be run by doctors and not administrators and yet the ideals you are espousing directly contradict that notion.

If you seriously think a flat rate tax is a good idea you are being hopelessly idealistic. How is taxing a single mother making 20k a year at the same rate as a billionaire a remotely rational or compassionate perspective? Let me repeat it for emphasis, the money that billionaires in the US have was not created by them and instead was stolen (to use your language) from the workers who actually spent their time and labor generating it.

You really don’t understand economics.

No voluntary transaction happens unless both parties want what the other is offering more than what they have.

If I an adamant that an hour of my time is worth more than $15, I can either stay home, be a private business owner myself or go find a different employer who agrees with my valuation. When I decide to show up for $15 I have chosen to say $15 is worth more to me than an hour of my time

Income tax should be flat precisely because it makes every person share the burden of each dollar spent by govt. There is a problem with half the country voting for expenses they don’t pay

 

[resiroth]

We agree Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices -- why do you think that isn't the case now? Because of insurance lobbying. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for this, why would they do this if they didn't expect a return on their money?

And yeah, I think a basic amount of housing, food, and water should also be a right. There are more unoccupied houses and apartments than there are homeless people in the US. There is no reason whatsoever that anybody in the wealthiest country on the planet should go hungry or without shelter. But these are separate issues that deserve their own discussions.

And I think 70% is far far too low. Personally, I'm in favor of something like a logarithmic tax rate. Get rid of all the complicated brackets and tax code and make it simple. Is your argument that since a 70% tax rate wouldn't generate enough money for whatever we are proposing we should just scrap it altogether? 70% is too generous already, in my opinion. Jeff Bezos has a 160 billion. Leave him with 1 billion and his quality of life would not be appreciably different and we just got 159 billion more to fund healthcare for the uninsured. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have openly called for higher taxes.

I agree that the US is unlikely to embrace these ideas and the reason is because the ultra wealthy have spent a mind-boggling amount of money convincing the lower classes that it would be ineffective. Medicare For All, or whatever your favorite flavor of single-payer is, is not a radical idea. Medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US -- we can prevent this, why not try?



I am not strawmanning basic economics, that is literally how capitalism works as explained by Adam Smith. Wealth is not generated in a vacuum. How well would Amazon (or any other major enterprise) work if the US hadn't used taxes to create a massively useful infrastructure to allow its growth? Do you believe a police force or firefighters should be private and only available if you can personally pay for it? You de facto cannot have voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges between a billionaire and a worker making 15$ an hour, the bargaining power is entirely in the hands of the wealthy. That is the entire point of having a robust labor politics -- can you guess why unions were neutered and dismantled throughout the 20th century? The funny thing is I think you would agree that hospitals should be run by doctors and not administrators and yet the ideals you are espousing directly contradict that notion.

If you seriously think a flat rate tax is a good idea you are being hopelessly idealistic. How is taxing a single mother making 20k a year at the same rate as a billionaire a remotely rational or compassionate perspective? Let me repeat it for emphasis, the money that billionaires in the US have was not created by them and instead was stolen (to use your language) from the workers who actually spent their time and labor generating it.

My point was that Medicare can not negotiate drug prices because of lobbying. If you had Medicare for all, without fixing what’s there, all you end up with is an even juicier target for lobbyists.

Well 70% is 70% federal. In many states where people actually are making 10M+ the top bracket on income tax (state) is already >10%. For example, in New York City it’s 12.6%. So you’re at 82.6% and you want to raise taxes more. Alright, we will make it 87.5% instead of 70%, resulting in slightly over 100% taxation. Great. Couple issues with that.

1: do you think anyone will even take a salary >10M if literally 100.1% is taxed?

2: the amount raised (assuming people continued to negotiate for salaries higher than 10M which provide literally 0 benefit to them at the cost of their employer) is still trivial. All you did is raise taxes slightly more than they would be with 70% marginal tax rates. So instead of 15B you raise 18B (again, you would actually raise 0 dollars as no one is going to demand the company takes a substantial hit financially to pay more taxes - they literally hire an army of people to minimize taxes and a CEO demanding 20M compensation with no actual benefit to him would be fired immediately as he’s costing the company 10M just for fun).

So you still have yet to actually raise virtually any money in the context of Medicare for all.

As for your other proposal of hunting down the rich and seizing 90-99% of their existing wealth...well that’s not going to go well, especially since much of that wealth is overseas. Are we declaring war on Switzerland next? Just curious how far this experiment is going lol.

If the far left was advocating reducing the military budget in favor of social services at least it would pass the smell test. There’s a lot of money to be gained there.

There are currently bills being introduced to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, allow Americans to import lower priced drugs from abroad, and to ding companies who charge more than the median of the price in Canada, UK, France, Germany and Japan. So the people who want Medicare for all are already going after that issue.



Other than the very different demand/economics between healthcare and food... Did you just choose to forget that food stamps and public housing exists? The government literally provides food and housing to people who otherwise can't afford it

Oh nice, bills introduced. Well, if they actually pass we can revisit this isssue. As it stands it means literally nothing. A lot of the people advocating for X are paid by lobbyists and don’t follow through. See: Obamacare. If you’re taking politicians at their word I’ve got some great oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Wow, and what do food stamps and section 8 housing have in common with Medicaid? Both are income restricted to those that need it most. If you’re making 50k a year you don’t get food stamps for free, and you don’t get insurance for free.

Did you just choose to forget about Medicaid?

 

[wontonsoup]

You really don’t understand economics.

No voluntary transaction happens unless both parties want what the other is offering more than what they have.

If I an adamant that an hour of my time is worth more than $15, I can either stay home, be a private business owner myself or go find a different employer who agrees with my valuation. When I decide to show up for $15 I have chosen to say $15 is worth more to me than an hour of my time

Income tax should be flat precisely because it makes every person share the burden of each dollar spent by govt. There is a problem with half the country voting for expenses they don’t pay

I have a degree in economics. Your understanding of economics is extremely idealized and does not correspond to the reality of its implementation. Let me remind you of the state of capitalism in the early 20th century: child labor, no minimum wage, 70+ hour work weeks, no OSHA. If someone's family is going to starve if they don't work in a coal mine for 1$/day, they are going to take the job every time. They would even send their young children to the mines to help earn enough money to survive. Is this all voluntary? That depends on your definition of voluntary, but I hope it is abundantly clear that it was 100% coerced. Unadulterated capitalism would be (and was) by all accounts an unmitigated disaster. Our entire economic system is based on reining in the worst tendencies of the market to protect the workers at the expense of the capitalist class. We are debating now how to mitigate the inequality which is a byproduct of such enterprise and you are arguing that we don't need to mitigate it at all. That is a rationally untenable position.

I recommend you read Thomas Piketty's groundbreaking 2013 work Capital in the 21st Century. The academic economic elite, many of whom are die-hard capitalists, all hailed it as a landmark work. He argues, in nearly 700 pages of robust mathematical analysis, that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. This is the reality of our present economic situation and all this idealization of "voluntary exchange" is propaganda.

 

[deleted480308]

I have a degree in economics. Your understanding of economics is extremely idealized and does not correspond to the reality of its implementation. Let me remind you of the state of capitalism in the early 20th century: child labor, no minimum wage, 70+ hour work weeks, no OSHA. If someone's family is going to starve if they don't work in a coal mine for 1$/day, they are going to take the job every time. They would even send their young children to the mines to help earn enough money to survive. Is this all voluntary? That depends on your definition of voluntary, but I hope it is abundantly clear that it was 100% coerced. Unadulterated capitalism would be (and was) by all accounts an unmitigated disaster. Our entire economic system is based on reining in the worst tendencies of the market to protect the workers at the expense of the capitalist class. We are debating now how to mitigate the inequality which is a byproduct of such enterprise and you are arguing that we don't need to mitigate it at all. That is a rationally untenable position.

I recommend you read Thomas Piketty's groundbreaking 2013 work Capital in the 21st Century. The academic economic elite, many of whom are die-hard capitalists, all hailed it as a landmark work. He argues, in nearly 700 pages of robust mathematical analysis, that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. This is the reality of our present economic situation and all this idealization of "voluntary exchange" is propaganda.

If you have a degree you should be better at this, I’ve read many arguments decrying unequal distribution of wealth and disagree with the premise that it’s a problem appropriate for govt to solve

Child labor isn’t about capitalism, that’s a different topic
Minimum wage/hour restrictions shouldn’t exist

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

If we really wanna get down to basics it's all about power. Money and resources don't belong to anyone. Whoever has the most power and the best enforcement techniques can take whatever they want

This is really the entire conversation summed up...
Historically it should be obvious that all government or all corporate lead to disaster. Better to have votes and money than one or the other.

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

Your understanding of economics is extremely idealized

Followed by an idealistic comment.

Minimum wage/hour restrictions shouldn’t exist

 

[NicMouse64]

They’re already too far. And being a big elected thief doesn’t make it more moral

A big elected thief is the best model we have so far for government. Everything else just turns into violent oppression from those with the most power and resources.

 

[deleted480308]

A big elected thief is the best model we have so far for government. Everything else just turns into violent oppression from those with the most power and resources.

So you prefer to partake in the oppression?

 

[NicMouse64]

So you prefer to partake in the oppression?

I'd rather elect a "thief" and have some decision in what is robbed from me than have someone point a gun at my head and say they are taking my things from me without having a vote. Theoeretically if the "thief" does something so bad that people no longer want the "thief" they can vote them out.... I don't think most people had the choice to get rid of stalin or hitler through voting.

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

So you prefer to partake in the oppression?

haha come on dude we all take part in it. We're American.

 

[deleted480308]

haha come on dude we all take part in it. We're American.

at least some of us have the moral fortitude to resist the notion and vote against it

 

[deleted480308]

I'd rather elect a "thief" and have some decision in what is robbed from me than have someone point a gun at my head and say they are taking my things from me without having a vote. Theoeretically if the "thief" does something so bad that people no longer want the "thief" they can vote them out.... I don't think most people had the choice to get rid of stalin or hitler through voting.

but do you vote for more taxes/welfare?

 

[NicMouse64]

but do you vote for more taxes/welfare?

I am young so I have only voted twice. I vote for whoever I think has the best ideas. It is not solely based on taxes/welfare. Some welfare needs to go and some needs to be added while our military needs to be downsized to the size of other countries. If you are on welfare you should have to work in this economy. There's no lack of jobs. People with disabilities should be given support. I vote for sensible solutions, not whatever keeps my taxes the lowest and not what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[resiroth]

I am young so I have only voted twice. I vote for whoever I think has the best ideas. It is not solely based on taxes/welfare. Some welfare needs to go and some needs to be added while our military needs to be downsized to the size of other countries. If you are on welfare you should have to work in this economy. There's no lack of jobs. People with disabilities should be given support. I vote for sensible solutions, not whatever keeps my taxes the lowest and not what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Unfortunately neither party seems willing to tackle the military industrial complex.

Wild that we have people proposing the most progressive tax system on the planet, which would raise barely anything compared to reducing the military budget even 20%. And yet no one is calling for a significant reduction in military budget. Shows you how powerful a force the military industry is.

 

[deleted480308]

I am young so I have only voted twice. I vote for whoever I think has the best ideas. It is not solely based on taxes/welfare. Some welfare needs to go and some needs to be added while our military needs to be downsized to the size of other countries. If you are on welfare you should have to work in this economy. There's no lack of jobs. People with disabilities should be given support. I vote for sensible solutions, not whatever keeps my taxes the lowest and not what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

there is nothing sensible about giving away someone else's money

The best way to make someone find a job is to stop paying them to stay home, increase the cost of staying home by not subsidizing that choice

 

[NicMouse64]

there is nothing sensible about giving away someone else's money

The best way to make someone find a job is to stop paying them to stay home, increase the cost of staying home by not subsidizing that choice

While I appreciate your idealism, when the elderly and poor are not taken care of to at least a minimum standard, revolts and violence against those with money are bound to occur. I think your idealism makes sense in the context of a perfect world, but our world is far from perfect. Welfare is there not just for the poor but also for the rich, believe it or not. With enough hardship and no options left poor people will do some pretty drastic things to stay afloat.

 

[NicMouse64]

there is nothing sensible about giving away someone else's money

The best way to make someone find a job is to stop paying them to stay home, increase the cost of staying home by not subsidizing that choice

what do you think of the fact that your and my forebearers and ancestors stole land from the native americans through biological and violent warfare?

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

at least some of us have the moral fortitude to resist the notion and vote against it

Lol "moral fortitude" I think that will take us too far off topic.
As soon as you cast a vote or buy a product you have allowed someone to be oppressed or exploited. You can't vote against or boycott coercion because it's just part of being human.

The best way to make someone find a job is to stop paying them to stay home, increase the cost of staying home by not subsidizing that choice

Can't argue with this...

Back on topic... there's nothing wrong with making full coverage government insurance available to everyone. But the people who use it should have to pay for a larger share of it.

 

[deleted480308]

While I appreciate your idealism, when the elderly and poor are not taken care of to at least a minimum standard, revolts and violence against those with money are bound to occur. I think your idealism makes sense in the context of a perfect world, but our world is far from perfect. Welfare is there not just for the poor but also for the rich, believe it or not. With enough hardship and no options left poor people will do some pretty drastic things to stay afloat.

ahhhh, so you want to steal their money for their own good....to keep them from getting hurt? Kind of a "give us your money at the police gun point or we'll take it with our guns?" kind of thing?

You don't see how crappy anyone saying that is?

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

ahhhh, so you want to steal their money for their own good....to keep them from getting hurt? Kind of a "give us your money at the police gun point or we'll take it with our guns?" kind of thing?

You don't see how crappy anyone saying that is?

coercion because it's just part of being human.

That's the reality.

 

[NicMouse64]

ahhhh, so you want to steal their money for their own good....to keep them from getting hurt? Kind of a "give us your money at the police gun point or we'll take it with our guns?" kind of thing?

You don't see how crappy anyone saying that is?

It's all about power. I want to steal and contribute money myself so that we all can continue to have a relatively free and democratic society and not return to a state of chaos.

 

[deleted480308]

what do you think of the fact that your and my forebearers and ancestors stole land from the native americans through biological and violent warfare?

not good at all, but not all my people did that and the native americans were killing each other long before the white people got here.....the english settlers were just the last to do it

 

[deleted480308]

Back on topic... there's nothing wrong with making full coverage government insurance available to everyone. But the people who use it should have to pay for a larger share of it.

all of it...anyone who wants to buy something should pay for all of it (or solicit voluntary charity)

 

[NicMouse64]

not good at all, but not all my people did that and the native americans were killing each other long before the white people got here.....the english settlers were just the last to do it

Right. I just view the world in a way of competing power. I agree that americans should have the right to bear arms for example....because I think it's the best defense against chaos. I also think the government can take wealth and give a basic level of decency to the poorest in our society so I am not attacked by the angry mob.

 

[deleted480308]

It's all about power. I want to steal and contribute money myself so that we all can continue to have a relatively free and democratic society and not return to a state of chaos.

we weren't abject chaos prior to income tax, that's a false choice fallacy

 

[Goro]

1: do you think anyone will even take a salary >10M if literally 100.1% is taxed?st it would pass the smell test. There’s a lot of money to be gained there.

People had no problem with a 90% high end tax rate in the 50s and 60s.

 

[Goro]

we weren't abject chaos prior to income tax, that's a false choice fallacy

No, we were just a pre-industrial society with zero consumer or worker protections and people could literally die of starvation or overwork.

 

[deleted480308]

People had no problem with a 90% high end tax rate in the 50s and 60s.

I don't think it's accurate to claim that no one had a problem with that

 

[NicMouse64]

we weren't abject chaos prior to income tax, that's a false choice fallacy

We werent abject chaos before 1885 (I know it was in late 18oos, not sure the exact date)? Idk how you can argue that because you don't really know that. Slavery and a myriad of other factors would argue otherwise....

 

[Goro]

I don't think it's accurate to claim that no one had a problem with that

The majority of Americans who weren't multi-millionaire didn't; sorry I needed to clarify...I try to avoid insipid truths.

 

[deleted480308]

No, we were just a pre-industrial society with zero consumer or worker protections and people could literally die of starvation or overwork.

income tax isn't what brought on the industrial revolution, that's irrelevant

and people should be able to choose how long they want to work without govt interference

and food is not a right that should be provided by govt

 

[NicMouse64]

income tax isn't what brought on the industrial revolution, that's irrelevant

and people should be able to choose how long they want to work without govt interference

and food is not a right that should be provided by govt

A "right"? No maybe not. But I'd rather have a poor person who is fed than one who is unfed near me and my family. The unfed one is much more likely to take drastic measures to get fed.....

 

[deleted480308]

We werent abject chaos before 1885 (I know it was in late 18oos, not sure the exact date)? Idk how you can argue that because you don't really know that. Slavery and a myriad of other factors would argue otherwise....

it's absurd to claim that we can't ban slavery without an income tax, income tax didn't become permanently legal until 1913

 

[deleted480308]

A "right"? No maybe not. But I'd rather have a poor person who is fed than one who is unfed near me and my family. The unfed one is much more likely to take drastic measures to get fed.....

then you feed them

 

[deleted480308]

The majority of Americans who weren't multi-millionaire didn't; sorry I needed to clarify...I try to avoid insipid truths.

but that's not a justification for the 90% rates, that's just saying "lots of people like to take other people's money"

 

[NITRAS]

Funny.

@NicMouse64 even if they take every penny from military funding, there’s never enough money. At some level, we need the military. I realize the level of spending needed is debatable, but it is irrelevant.

There is an unlimited amount of wants/needs to be met. Taxation cannot cover it all.

 

[NicMouse64]

then you feed them

Funny.

@NicMouse64 even if they take every penny from military funding, there’s never enough money. At some level, we need the military. I realize the level of spending needed is debatable, but it is irrelevant.

There is an unlimited amount of wants/needs to be met. Taxation cannot cover it all.

I am not advocating for unlimited wants/needs to be met. I am advocating for sensible solutions that give the poor in our country basic survival abilities so that they do not revolt and come for me or my family....I look at history, and whenever the rich overplay their hand they either have to flee or get killed because the masses far outnumber those with large amounts of money. I'd prefer that not to happen to me.

Medicare would be very basic needs for the poor, food stamps only if working. The money is there for these things without taxing everyone 80%. I get everyone hates taxes, I just see it as what we must do in order to protect ourselves and our government from chaos.

 

[deleted480308]

I am not advocating for unlimited wants/needs to be met. I am advocating for sensible solutions that give the poor in our country basic survival abilities so that they do not revolt and come for me or my family....I look at history, and whenever the rich overplay their hand they either have to flee or get killed because the masses far outnumber those with large amounts of money. I'd prefer that not to happen to me.

Medicare would be very basic needs for the poor, food stamps only if working. The money is there for these things without taxing everyone 80%. I get everyone hates taxes, I just see it as what we must do in order to protect ourselves and our government from chaos.

medicare is not "basic needs" to me, what do you think "basic" means?

 

[resiroth]

People had no problem with a 90% high end tax rate in the 50s and 60s.

Couple things, one: 90% tax rate wasn’t throughout the 50s and 60s it dropped considerably in 1965 down to 70%.

Two: I have no problem with a 70% tax on people making >10 million, it’s just not going to raise much money at all. It’s trivial.

Three: the federal government achieved maximum effective taxation in 1945 at around 20% of GDP, during you know, world war 2. Today it’s 17%. Despite high nominal tax rates on the ultra rich, none of that translated to actually changing the amount collected.

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

While much has been spent discussing (fervently) the impact of various tax policies the actual amount collected overall hasn’t changed much. This makes sense. The proposed mega rich tax of 70% on > 10 million would generate about 15B a year. The GDP is about 20T. So maybe we go from 17.0% to 17.07% or whatever. Cool. Now when are we going to get to reducing military budget by half, freeing up about 2% of our gdp? That would actually have an impact.

 

[NicMouse64]

medicare is not "basic needs" to me, what do you think "basic" means?

The ability to not die from preventable means (starvation, medical emergencies, dirty water, etc.) in a modern society where the resources are available. I reason if only the rich have access to preventing their deaths through preventable solutions, then the poor will be willing to give up their life to fight for those things. So why not give the poor those things so it's not worth it for them to revolt?

 

[deleted480308]

The ability to not die from preventable means (starvation, medical emergencies, dirty water, etc.) in a modern society where the resources are available. I reason if only the rich have access to preventing their deaths through preventable solutions, then the poor will be willing to give up their life to fight for those things. So why not give the poor those things so it's not worth it for them to revolt?

because we don't bribe rioters for one

The other question is what does that mean to you? Do smokers get unlimited hospital admissions and meds? Are overweight folks getting unlimited admissions and meds? Dialysis? new livers for alcoholics? ED meds for sex? invitro? transition surgery? prosthetics (and how nice)? home health? cancer med costing $60k/month?

When are you willing to cut people off and say "if you can't afford it, you don't get it"?

 

[762513]

Taxes as theft is a republican dog whistle, nothing more. The EMTALA act passed by Reagan created the most ineffective and corrupt socialized medicine scheme on the planet: the insured pay for the uninsured through spiraling healthcare costs until the insured are priced out of the market and forced to become the uninsured and perpetuate the cycle. If we had socialized medicine I doubt the average American would pay much more by replacing healthcare costs with increased taxes. It would sure help small and medium sized business as well, and may lead to higher wages. There’s nothing radical about wanting my taxes to pay for my healthcare; the rest of the world does it successfully.

 

[NicMouse64]

because we don't bribe rioters for one

The other question is what does that mean to you? Do smokers get unlimited hospital admissions and meds? Are overweight folks getting unlimited admissions and meds? Dialysis? new livers for alcoholics? ED meds for sex? invitro? transition surgery? prosthetics (and how nice)? home health? cancer med costing $60k/month?

When are you willing to cut people off and say "if you can't afford it, you don't get it"?

No. Much of the things you have would be under the guise of a charity or private insurance catostrophe fund. I would only provide a physical and blood tests for true medical emergencies not related to chronic conditions (gunshot wounds, heart attack, etc.). Not "bribing rioters" may be a cool use of semantics but in a realistic world that is more or less what you have to do to prevent riots. I get that may not fit into your ideology but I think it is well supported by historical facts.

 

[deleted480308]

No. Much of the things you have would be under the guise of a charity or private insurance catostrophe fund. I would only provide a physical and blood tests for true medical emergencies not related to chronic conditions (gunshot wounds, heart attack, etc.). Not "bribing rioters" may be a cool use of semantics but in a realistic world that is more or less what you have to do to prevent riots. I get that may not fit into your ideology but I think it is well supported by historical facts.

ok, so your proposal of medicare for all is to eliminate almost everything that medicare currently covers and restrict to only triage level labs? So you propose that we admit to the ED, figure out they need dialysis and then you would cut them off if they can't afford it?

 

[NicMouse64]

What do you make of the fact that the Native Americans were killing and stealing land from neighboring tribes for thousands of years prior to the European arrival? That some tribed allied with those same Europeans to eliminate other tribes for their benefit?

Not trying to make a grand gotcha point. It's just that war, people, and territory have been in constant flux since we left the caves. Why is it only a point of concern when the Europeans did it in America? Is that just the one we should be guilty for? How many more generations of Americans need to be judged on this point?

I think that the point is that history is a constant power struggle. I do not feel guilty for that which my ancestors did, nor should you or anyone else. They were just acting on their falliable human nature, and maybe not "moral" but it's just how we are.

I prefer to learn from history rather than repeat it. The lesson is be powerful and be better than the rest of the world so others can't come in and wipe you out. I was merely using it to see if SB was consistent in his ideology. The reason I have my political views are because I don't think that a heavily skewed distribution towards the wealthy will be good for society as eventually those at the bottom will get fed up and revolt...you know like in history. Europeans did what humans have done since the beginning of time. That is why I think we must give the basic necessities to the poor so that we do not have to act on our basic instinct to survive....because our basic instinct no matter what culture or ethnicity is that of violence and power struggle.