Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[ecco]

The top tax rate (anything over $200,000) was 91% in 1960. The tax rate on the richest Americans, in 1964, was 77%. Remember 1964, anybody? the 'War on Poverty?" The richest were taxed at an extremely high rate, and 19% of Americans lived in poverty.

And then the rates were lowered and here we are 50 years later and we have a much greater disparity between the wealthiest and everyone else.

 

[Salvador]

I remember my father actually turning down a job offer, because the raise that went with it put him in a higher tax bracket, and at that would have left him with less money than he made with the job he already had. Fortunately, the company came back with a better offer, and he took that one. But think about it: do you really want a return to a society where people don't dare invest, or make more money, or be more ambitious, because if they did the government would confiscate everything?

Only the amount of income that passes somebody over into a higher tax bracket, is taxed at the higher tax rate; for example, if a single individual had earned $500,100 of taxable income last year, $9,525 of this income would be taxed at 10 percent, $29,174 would be taxed at 12 percent, $43,799 would be taxed at 22 percent, $74,999 would be taxed at 24 percent, $42,499 would be taxed at 32 percent, $300,000 would be taxed at 35 percent, and the one hundred dollars earned over the $500,000 amount would be taxed at 37 percent.

In other words, the entire $500,000 isn't taxed at the highest marginal tax rate of 37 percent, just the $100 over the $500,000 of taxable income is taxed at the highest marginal tax rate of 37 percent.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxes/$9,526 to $38,700federal-income-tax-brackets/

In the above example, this person ends up paying $150,789.50 in income taxes. Under my tax hike proposal, he would end up paying only $9,006 of additional income taxes, while receiving back a $4,800 U.B.I, benefit as well as universal hospital insurance coverage valued presently at around $2,900 annually on average per recipient; so then, he'd only be paying a bit more than $1,300 in taxes than the benefits he receive back from paying these additional income taxes. Somebody, who'd made $500,100 this last year really shouldn't complain about loosing $1,300 this year in order to be sure he is doing his part with helping everybody in his society have at least a subsistence living allowance.

Under my $400/month U.B.I. benefit w/ Medicare for everybody plan, if you are a middle aged individual taxpayer whose annual income is somewhere below $460,000, you'd most certainly would receive more in benefits than what you'd pay in additional income taxes; hence, anybody whose annual income is now less than $460,000 would sure likely benefit financially from my proposed $400/month U.B.I. benefit w/Medicare 4 all plan, and these folks earning less than $460,000 should then certainly favor my $400/month U.B.I. benefit with Medicare for all proposal. ...

 

[Lyndon]

$400 a month times 300 million people is 120 billion/ month or 1.45 trillion a year

 

[dianaiad]

My proposed tax hikes shouldn't be considered as confiscatory, because it'd allow us privilege class citizens to keep half our earned income, while much of our taxes would go directly to working class folks for medical insurance as well as for them to have money promptly at their disposal if need be for them to make it through times of financial struggles. ...

Employers will have the benefit of not having to provide health insurance benefits for their employees.

Half of my proposed tax hikes are on consumption rather than income tax hikes, so these taxes couldn't be avoided by way of stashing money aside in tax shelters.

With a $400/month U.B.I. benefit and universal Medicare health insurance coverage, very few people would ever need to become financially bankrupt because of an unfortunate injury or medical illness.

The problem here is that there just aren't enough rich people with enough money to do what you think it will. Paul Ryan once made a statement that Politifact rated as 'half true' because while what he said was true, he was using out dated numbers. If he had used the updated ones, his point would have been supported even more strongly.

What he SAID was that if the Government imposed a 100% tax on everybody who had more than a million dollars, the government would only get enough money to run things for four months. After which everybody would be broke and there wouldn't be anybody earning enough to tax at any percentage.

What Politifact found was that he was half right. In fact, it turns out that such confiscation would only run the government for 2.5 months.

The proposed health care system would be THE biggest government agency we have; costing more than the military or any other aspect of the government. So, taking everything might run such a system for...let's be optimistic and say that it would run the health care system for two years Perhaps three.

Then what?

Who would be left to tax?

Remember. It is the wealthy who hire people. It's the wealthy who own the companies that manufacture stuff. It is the wealthy who make it possible for the lower and middle class (financially speaking) to buy stuff...like food and clothes and property. In fact, doing that sort if thing is what made them wealthy in the first place. It is, after all, about the only things that do make one wealthy.

But taxing the heck out of them doesn't help US at all. it only punishes them, and why? I don't get it, quite frankly.

 

[dianaiad]

You forgot to mention the number one thing wealthy people do: Hire really good tax accounts to take advantage of the tax loopholes that wealthy legislators built into the tax code.

That, too. What they will NOT do is invest their profits in businesses that hire people.

 

[dianaiad]

Anecdotal evidence is not worth very much.
For 2018
Salary Rate Tax
82500 22% 18150
82501 24% 19800
Tax Difference 1600

So, yes, if someone was making 82,500 and was given a 700 annual raise, they would be losing 900.

On the other hand, if someone was making 82,500 and was given a raise of only 700, they probably should take the hint and start looking for another job.

In the vast majority of instances, a raise gives you more spending power.

That's 2018. I was talking about what happened when the income tax brackets were a bit more draconian (remember, the 'wealthiest' were taxed 91% at the time; going up a tax bracket could really wipe someone out. The early 1960's.

I had to giggle when I saw your post. I mean, sheesh....*I* am almost seventy and have been retired for six years. The thought of my 93 year old father worried about changing tax brackets last year made me go wait. what?

 

[dianaiad]

And then the rates were lowered and here we are 50 years later and we have a much greater disparity between the wealthiest and everyone else.

And you think that it is the job of the government (the rest of us) to repair that disparity, do you? Perhaps there is such a disparity. I don't honestly know, but the thing is, the vast majority of US citizens are better off than people they call 'wealthy' elsewhere.

When we have 12% under the poverty line as opposed to 19% in 1960, and even the most poverty stricken have homes with TV sets, indoor plumbing and running water, as well as free access to public schools for their children, when the poor of other nations have no such amenities....what difference does it make that our wealthiest citizens have even more? I have written that I am right on that poverty line myself. I had to retire too early because of my health, and my income is, well, low. However, I have my own home, my own computer (I built it myself, thankyouverymuch) , clothes, food, a really fancy sewing machine, art supplies, I don't feel one whit "Poor," though I'm told I very much am. I am not unique. Most of the people on and under the poverty line are very much like me.

So when I hear about making the wealthy 'pay their fair share,' or complaints about how much wealthier the richest of us are than the rest, I think we are dealing with sour grapes and jealousy gone nuts. The REASON they have more is because they are doing more with their money. Investing in businesses, buying things...what, you think they all sit on golden chairs melted down from the jewelry they have stolen from the 'masses?"

No. They have invested, they hire people. They buy things...which require people to manufacture. The wealthy who do nothing like that with their money lose it.

I don't know if you are theist, but there is this parable in the NT about talents (the gold kind, not the ability). A man gave his servants various amounts of money to deal with while he was gone. The ones who doubled what they were given were praised, and allowed to keep the profits. The one who buried his one talent lost even the one he buried.

Yeah, the wealthy get wealthier...but only by making those who work for them 'rich,' too. By 'rich,' I mean 'able to live and buy stuff." Henry Ford had that right, when he insisted upon paying his workers enough so that they could buy his cars.

My own view of this is that we have a symbiotic relationship with the wealthy; they can't stay wealthy if WE can't purchase what they manufacture. WE can't get jobs which pay us enough to buy stuff if THEY don't make profits. If we destroy them, where will we be?

Better that we do something else. Instead of trying to take their wealth away from them, why don't we decide to become wealthy too? It CAN be done. It has been done....and it has been done by someone in the family of the very wealthiest. it has been done recently, too...by people who found something the rest of us wanted, and provided it.

If you (general you) don't want to take the risks and work the hours required to do that, and you (again, general you) just want a job that pays you enough to by the stuff you need and want, then consider what will happen to that job if you destroy the guy who hires you.

 

[Salvador]

$400 a month times 300 million people is 120 billion/ month or 1.45 trillion a year

My proposed $400/month basic income benefit is for legal adult U.S. citizens over the age of 18, of which there are approximately 237 million. ( $4800/yr * 237 million = approximately $1.14 trillion ) There'd still be the $2,000 annual refundable child tax credits, thanks to Senator Marco Rubio and tax reform, to help out impoverished families. ...

How Much is the Child Tax Credit for 2018, 2019?

 

[Salvador]

Who would be left to tax?
.

Additional taxes on consumption, rather than additional taxes on income, would pay nearly half the cost of my proposed $670 billion in additional taxes that'd be needed in order for my proposed $400/month U.B.I. benefit with universal hospital insurance plan to be implemented without increasing our national debt.

 

[dianaiad]

Additional taxes on consumption, rather than additional taxes on income, would pay nearly half the cost of my proposed $670 billion in additional taxes that'd be needed in order for my proposed $400/month U.B.I. benefit with universal hospital insurance plan to be implemented without increasing our national debt.

Hmnnnn.....did you read my example of what happened when the added consumption (read...luxury..) tax was passed in 1990?

Though I do have to admit that I would be a whole lot more likely to support an added 'sales' tax. Mind you, I wouldn't be all that happy to have to pay MORE than the 10.25 percent sales tax than I do now.

 

[Salvador]

Hmnnnn.....did you read my example of what happened when the added consumption (read...luxury..) tax was passed in 1990?

Though I do have to admit that I would be a whole lot more likely to support an added 'sales' tax. Mind you, I wouldn't be all that happy to have to pay MORE than the 10.25 percent sales tax than I do now.

I'm in favor of additional federal excise tax on tobacco and alcohol, these aren't luxury sales taxes; these sin taxes would help pay for the added costs alcohol or tobacco consumption put on our health care system. These taxes wouldn't even negatively financially impact you, unless you are a heavy smoker or drinker.

 

[ecco]

That, too. What they will NOT do is invest their profits in businesses that hire people.

I disagree. Many Legislators own stocks. That's one reason why "Long Term Capital Gains" are taxed at lower rates.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
So, yes, if someone was making 82,500 and was given a 700 annual raise, they would be losing 900.

On the other hand, if someone was making 82,500 and was given a raise of only 700,​

That's 2018. I was talking about what happened when the income tax brackets were a bit more draconian (remember, the 'wealthiest' were taxed 91% at the time; going up a tax bracket could really wipe someone out. The early 1960's.

I had to giggle when I saw your post. I mean, sheesh....*I* am almost seventy and have been retired for six years. The thought of my 93 year old father worried about changing tax brackets last year made me go wait. what?

Your father's name is "someone"?

 

[ecco]

And you think that it is the job of the government (the rest of us) to repair that disparity, do you? Perhaps there is such a disparity. I don't honestly know,

With all due respect, if you do not know that there is a great disparity between the wealthiest and the rest of the population, then you have no business commenting on the subject.

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth,

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality​

Perhaps you should do some research.

 

[ecco]

I don't know if you are theist

Your answer is right there in front of you.

Yeah, the wealthy get wealthier...but only by making those who work for them 'rich,' too. By 'rich,' I mean 'able to live and buy stuff." Henry Ford had that right, when he insisted upon paying his workers enough so that they could buy his cars.

Ah, yes, good old Henry Ford. Do you really believe that the super-rich of his time like the Rockefellers and the Flaglers and the Vanderbilts cared about their workers? They tried everything in their power to prevent Unions. Unions, not employers, provided health care and retirement benefits.

I agree that Sam Walton hired many people. Do you think the average Walmart employee can support a family of four on his income?

Do you think people like Trump hire illegal immigrants to work at menial jobs because they care about the workers?

As I said in the above post, you really need to get educated before you comment.

 

[ecco]

Hmnnnn.....did you read my example of what happened when the added consumption (read...luxury..) tax was passed in 1990?

Though I do have to admit that I would be a whole lot more likely to support an added 'sales' tax. Mind you, I wouldn't be all that happy to have to pay MORE than the 10.25 percent sales tax than I do now.

Two people. One makes $100,000 annually. The other 50,000.
Both buy $25,000 cars. Both pay 10.25% sales tax amounting to $2562.
For the first person, the tax is 2.5% of his income. For the other, it is 5% of his income. The impact of sales taxes is harder on people with less money.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm in favor of additional federal excise tax on tobacco and alcohol, these aren't luxury sales taxes; these sin taxes would help pay for the added costs alcohol or tobacco consumption put on our health care system. These taxes wouldn't even negatively financially impact you, unless you are a heavy smoker or drinker.

How much more tax do you want to make those poor folks pay? Where I live, taxes comprise something like 36% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes.

Now I don't know about you, but great googly moogly.

........and it doesn't matter how high they raise the taxes on tobacco or alcohol; I'm a Mormon. I neither smoke nor drink...but 36% Seriously? ...and California is by no means the state with the highest taxes on this stuff.

 

[dianaiad]

I disagree. Many Legislators own stocks. That's one reason why "Long Term Capital Gains" are taxed at lower rates.

Well, optimism is nice, but...history has shown us that raising taxes has never BEFORE inspired people with money to invest it in businesses that hire people.

 

[dianaiad]

ecco:
So, yes, if someone was making 82,500 and was given a 700 annual raise, they would be losing 900.

On the other hand, if someone was making 82,500 and was given a raise of only 700,​

Your father's name is "someone"?

He certainly is someone.

 

[dianaiad]

Your answer is right there in front of you.




Ah, yes, good old Henry Ford. Do you really believe that the super-rich of his time like the Rockefellers and the Flaglers and the Vanderbilts cared about their workers? They tried everything in their power to prevent Unions. Unions, not employers, provided health care and retirement benefits.

I agree that Sam Walton hired many people. Do you think the average Walmart employee can support a family of four on his income?

Do you think people like Trump hire illegal immigrants to work at menial jobs because they care about the workers?

As I said in the above post, you really need to get educated before you comment.

Ecco, I do not like personal insults. I had my fill of them at CARM, where attacking one's opponents by personally insulting them is SOP. I won't deal with it now.