dkp Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Hi Tom- 1. I didn't suggest eliminating the military and just having a National Guard. I think a 60% cut in military spending still leaves us spending 5X as much as any "competitor." A minor point: It would be 4X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. But the American people are taxed less than many developed countries tax their people. Remember, corporate tax "rates" have little no relationship to how much absolute tax they pay. Some of our most successful corporations pay absolutely no tax. The tax burden in the US is very low. Lower than almost all industrialized countries. The claim that some of our most successful corporations pay no tax is something often repeated. Yet, I have never seen the hard data to back a claim like this up. I'm not arguing, as I am truly ignorant on this, but would venture to guess that the vast majority of American corporations pay a fair share of taxes. Do you have any data to suggest otherwise? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You are assuming that the big 3 would, in fact, have closed down. Good point, but the Big 3 are in Big Trouble and worse off then many people realize. It's hard to imagine waking up one day and finding GM kaput but it can and will happen someday soon without some action on their or our part.In a worst case, the name on the buildings would have changed to Nissan, Honda, Kia etc Those aren't American owned companies. Sure they'd be employing American workers, but we need to save the company, not just the jobs. What is the difference, the stock holders would have had their interests changed to the new company, they would not have lost, the workers keep their jobs, the cars still get made, and the companys are run by new management that have proven to be able to do the job. I am sorry but not much would have changed but a little ego would have been lost. It is not like the big three did not have warnings, it is not like they went out of their way to change what they were doing. Now they have the money and the system that is failing is still in place so the short story is the tax payers are out a bunch of money with nothing to show for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Having the "by far" strongest military in the world is definitely a common good. Supporting millions and millions of people who can work but don't want to is not for the common good. It is a common evil. I already showed the magnitude of the waste on SS disability programs in the "One Trillion Explained" thread. That's where I'd start in fixing the budget. Hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Mark, if you feel guilty for not paying enough, please send more.I send enough. Everyone needs to live within their means, this should apply to the government also. Hi Wayne-- I'm trying to save everyone money! 1. Slash defense by 60% 2. Institute Medicare Everywhere 3. Raise the marginal tax rates on income over $10M to 50% and income over $100M to 70% Those three things would have YOU, ME and every other poster on this board living like Kings! And let's don't forget, we PAY INTO Social Security -- it's not welfare. 3. restated: 3. Take the rich people's money and YOU, ME and every other poster on this board will live like Kings! Communism...... And Social Security is welfare for the reasons we debated months ago. It pays minimums, regardless of how much the individual contributes. On top of that, it pays disability benefits to the tune of $100 billion a year for a supposedly 10 million+ working-age Americans who are supposedly unable to work. If your answer is to tax the rich more, how does that save EVERYONE money? You stated you're trying to save everyone money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Having the "by far" strongest military in the world is definitely a common good. Supporting millions and millions of people who can work but don't want to is not for the common good. It is a common evil. I already showed the magnitude of the waste on SS disability programs in the "One Trillion Explained" thread. That's where I'd start in fixing the budget. Hands down. Hi Jeff--- In 2008, there were 9M DI beneficiaries, and they collected about $108B. What percentage are evil? For refence, $108B is about 10% of the total defense budget (if you include all the off-book accounts). So, let's say a whopping 50% of the DI beneficiaries are evil fakers, that makes the savings about 5% of the total DOD budget if you catch them ALL. I think you might be looking under the wrong rock. I'd go for the really big stuff first, then chase those individual evil-doers! I think doctors who cheat Medicare are racking up around $33B alone! Now THAT is evil, man! I am jumping in late and might have missed something, but this link indicates the 2009 Defense Budget is just over $500B. That makes SSDI 20%+, by comparison. And yes, I would go first against the thieves and bums than the soldiers. Sorry, but that's the way I am. The rip-off is just too obvious. At least, there is room to debate the virtues and lack theroef of military cuts. Those call for judgment. No judgment is needed to stop handing money to thieves and bums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 3. restated: 3. Take the rich people's money and YOU, ME and every other poster on this board will live like Kings! Communism...... And Social Security is welfare for the reasons we debated months ago. It pays minimums, regardless of how much the individual contributes. On top of that, it pays disability benefits to the tune of $100 billion a year for a supposedly 10 million+ working-age Americans who are supposedly unable to work. If your answer is to tax the rich more, how does that save EVERYONE money? You stated you're trying to save everyone money. Communism? Whoa, where'd that come out of? No, progressive taxation has been a fixture in capitalist countries for, well, as long as capitalism has been around man! This has nothing to do with communism in the least. The theory of progressive taxation is not all that difficult. The principle idea is that those who derive the "greatest benefit" from the national infrastructure and resource, ought to pay the greatest share. When a guy makes $100M a year, he is getting a rather large benefit out of say, our military defense, or our air traffic control system, or the highways. Every single country with a largely capitalist economy has a progressive tax structure. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Communism? Man, that's waaaaaay, off the beaten path here. Sorry, mark, but let's call the concept what it is. Just because we are a capitalist society does not make progressive taxation any less communistic. That's exactly what it is. Apparently, we are comfortable with some level of communism, are we not? Now, just because progressive taxation is a tradition does not mean we need to go jack the rates up on the rich even more. If government was not so bloated with its efforts to feed, clothe and shelter bums, how much MORE progressive the tax structure should be would not even be an issue. I realize you could say the same regarding military spending. Personally, Mark, I'd be a "moderate" for you according to how Allan defines moderates. If you will agree to reduce SSDI's budget by 60%, or $60 billion, I'd agree to shave $60 billion off military spending, too. How about them apples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Mark, if you feel guilty for not paying enough, please send more.I send enough. Everyone needs to live within their means, this should apply to the government also. Hi Wayne-- I'm trying to save everyone money! 1. Slash defense by 60% 2. Institute Medicare Everywhere 3. Raise the marginal tax rates on income over $10M to 50% and income over $100M to 70% Those three things would have YOU, ME and every other poster on this board living like Kings! And let's don't forget, we PAY INTO Social Security -- it's not welfare. I was in the millitary under President Carter, the worthless one. We were so short on equipment, supplys and training that we could not do our jobs stateside let alone overseas. Anyone remember the failed rescue attempt that resulted in lost aircraft and their crews, not rescuing the hostiges and the world wide joke that was provided? IT WAS ILL PREPARED, UNDER STAFFED, UNDER EQUIPED AND DOOMED FROM THE START. Nope, I don't want to return to those days and I would not wish that upon our troops, wherever they are in the world and as a father who has a son in the Navy, I am willing to let him risk his life to serve our country BUT and it is a BIG BUT, he deserves the best equipment we can buy to help him do his job, anything less is treason from us to them. I lived what you are proposing, been there, have the Tshirt and there is no way that I will let our country do to our current troops what they did to me, NOPE, AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! The government can't manage to run a DMV or a post office efficently and you want to hand them nearly 20% of the national economy? Some how that just does not compute. We would all have a lower standard of care, more government in our lives telling us what to do, who lives and who dies, no, not for me but thanks for playing and don' forget to pass go and collect $200. As to who pays taxes. From the Nation tax payers union: link For Tax Year 2006 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $388,806 39.89 Top 5% $153,542 60.14 Top 10% $108,904 70.79 Top 25% $64,702 86.27 Top 50% $31,987 97.01 Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 2005 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $364,657 39.38 Top 5% $145,283 59.67 Top 10% $103,912 70.30 Top 25% $62,068 85.99 Top 50% $30,881 96.93 Bottom 50% <$30,881 3.07 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 2004 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $328,049 36.89 Top 5% $137,056 57.13 Top 10% $99,112 68.19 Top 25% $60,041 84.86 Top 50% $30,122 96.70 Bottom 50% <$30,122 3.30 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 2003 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $295,495 34.27 Top 5% $130,080 54.36 Top 10% $94,891 65.84 Top 25% $57,343 83.88 Top 50% $29,019 96.54 Bottom 50% <$29,019 3.46 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 2002 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $285,424 33.71 Top 5% $126,525 53.80 Top 10% $92,663 65.73 Top 25% $56,401 83.90 Top 50% $28,654 96.50 Bottom 50% <$28,654 3.50 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 2001 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $292,913 33.89 Top 5% $127,904 53.25 Top 10% $92,754 64.89 Top 25% $56,085 82.90 Top 50% $28,528 96.03 Bottom 50% <$28,528 3.97 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 2000 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $313,469 37.42 Top 5% $128,336 56.47 Top 10% $92,144 67.33 Top 25% $55,225 84.01 Top 50% $27,682 96.09 Bottom 50% <$27,682 3.91 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service For Tax Year 1999 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% $293,415 36.18 Top 5% $120,846 55.45 Top 10% $87,682 66.45 Top 25% $52,965 83.54 Top 50% $26,415 96.00 Bottom 50% <$26,415 4.00 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Who doesNOT pay taxes from the same source: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Tax Year 2005 All Returns Joint Return Filing Separately Head of Household Individual Returns Filing Separately, Head of Househod, and Surviving Spouses Total Returns 134,372,678 52,505,729 2,462,804 19,985,059 59,347,974 22,518,974 Paying Returns 90,593,081 40,081,459 2,004,781 6,572,893 41,900,155 8,611,467 Non-Paying Returns 43,779,597 12,424,270 458,024 13,412,166 17,477,819 13,907,508 Percentage of Non-Paying Returns 32.6 23.7 18.6 67.1 29.4 61.8 Source: Internal Revenue ServiceTax Year 2004 All Returns Joint Return Filing Separately Head of Household Individual Returns Filing Separately, Head of Househod, and Surviving Spouses Total Returns 132,226,042 51,975,649 2,453,292 19,647,748 58,067,165 22,183,228 Paying Returns 89,101,934 39,485,293 2,043,973 6,879,952 40,649,164 8,967,577 Non-Paying Returns 43,124,107 12,490,356 409,319 12,767,895 17,418,001 13,215,750 Percentage of Non-Paying Returns 32.6 24.0 16.7 65.0 30.0 59.6 Source: Internal Revenue ServiceTax Year 2003 All Returns Joint Return Filing Separately Head of Household Individual Returns Filing Separately, Head of Househod, and Surviving Spouses Total Returns 130,423,626 51,510,779 2,320,275 19,506,611 57,002,781 21,910,065 Paying Returns 88,921,904 39,735,379 1,936,804 7,094,941 40,112,114 9,074,411 Non-Paying Returns 41,501,722 11,775,399 383,471 12,411,670 16,890,668 12,835,654 Percentage of Non-Paying Returns 31.8 22.9 16.5 63.6 29.6 58.6 Source: Internal Revenue ServiceXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and you want to take more from the most productive members of our economy, those who take the risks, for good or ill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Mark, you are right. It is not communisum, it is well down the road to but not quite Socialism from wikipedia Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories ofsocial organization advocating state or collective ownership andadministration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement as well as the intellectual movement that criticized the effects of industrialization on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4] The first socialists predicted a world improved by both technologyand better social organization, and many modern socialists share thisbelief [5][6],although modern socialists have a bigger emphasis on egalitarianismwhereas traditional socialists favored meritocracy. Socialists mainlyshare the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequalsociety and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone insociety to attain such status. Therefore socialists advocate thecreation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power aredistributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreementamong socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1] Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionismand economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Anotherdividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how asocialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economiesdirected by a state that owns all the means of production. Others,including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists in the1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[7]Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets; Libertarian socialism (which includes Social anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I hear you, mark, but in the real world I live in, money is a means of production. I know money is a fiat, but it sure is one heck of a powerful fiat. So, let's treat it for what it is. Now, take one's means of production and, as Marx says, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." But let's Americanize that phrase.... "From each accoding to his ability; to each according to what he will feign as need." Edit: Soon, I will acquire the requisite skill to hold the shift key, while pressing "m" at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Supporting millions and millions of people who can work but don't want to is not for the common good. It is a common evil. I already showed the magnitude of the waste on SS disability programs in the "One Trillion Explained" thread. That's where I'd start in fixing the budget. While I see no reason to rehash that long thread, I'll just note that it showed no such thing about the supposed waste in Social Security disability. It fundamentally comes down to your rock-hard belief, based on the opinion of some lawyer you know but in the total absence ANY facts whatever, that it's impossible for 3% of the US population to be disabled. Instead, you repeatedly asked if anone could really believe that. It's not clear what alternatives you favor (starvation? dying in an SRO? begging on street corners?), but it's a reach to think that those who can work would prefer to get the low levels of SS that they actually earn.I still think you're confusing SS DI with some abused local or private disability plans that hit the news for good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Mark, I did not take what you said as being against the troops but I think your view of what the millitary is and how it should be use is vastly different from mine and having been on the other side, I am a little sensitive on the subject. That said however, we do need our bases world wide, we do need the best equipment that we can get. These things cost money, many times in part due to the excessive rules placed on contractors by our government. Everone knows about the expensive hammers and toilet seats, these are not so much examples of how contractors rip off the government, rather the government places so many rules and requires so much documentation about complyance with the rules that the price is just crazy but it was government that drove the price up. I know a little about defense contractors as I work for one. I can tell you that there is no one here that wants to do a bad job, no one that wants more than a fair days pay for a fair days work, no one that seeks to rip off the government because they have big pockets and yes we have been in the spotlight in the past and it nearly cost the program and my job due to ONE person who made a bad decision. That one incident got airtime for months giving the general public the wrong impression and causing my company a lot of money to comply with mandatory training, company wide to make sure no one will make that type of error again. It was high up in management yet thousands of people go through the training yearly, even those of us who couldn't possibly have anything to do with what happened. EDIT: Defense contracors do a great job of providing high quality products, in limited quantities (you know something about voulume and the price per unit when you made stereo equipment don' you?) for the most reasonable price that they can produce for. They bend over backwards to provide the best quality, lowest cost product that they can. It is just good business, like any business, you need to please your customer.We are proud of the product that we produce and the value we deliver to our customer. End edit As to medicare, if the system is run BY the government and PAID for by the government, the doctors will stop having the option to take medicare patents or not, either they do and accept what the government pays or they don't and try to get people to pay out of their own pocket for healthcare as there will be no other options. Thus you will have a defacto medical system the same as the British system because there will only be one game in town and if you don't play ball their way, they will take their ball and go home. Bingo end of private doctors for the average man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Larry, in the old thread, I put it all out there in the forefront with accurate facts backed by all the links. There are 186 million working age Americans. FACT. There are 10.1 million working age Americans on (not "used to be on" but ON) disability. FACT. I know I made a real leap in faith in suggesting there is rampant fraud when 1 in 18 working age Americans is collecting disability. That was quite a stretch on my part. (BTW, that's not 3%; we do not count non-working-age Americans in the working-age population; the figure is 5.4%). So, in responses, "Yes" I made an assumption. I will stick by that assumption. I cannot prove what I proclaim with the degree of proof you want. For you to believe anything in this regard, you'd need signed confessions by each and every one of the culprits. Well, we'll never get that. I stick by my assumption. There is NO WAY 1 in 18 working age Americans is disabled to the degree that the disability PREVENTS them from seeking and obtaining gainful employment of any kind. If you believe 1 in 18 working age Americans is disabled to the degree that the disability PREVENTS them from seeking and obtaining gainful employment, I have a lead on this beautiful ocean-front tract in Arizona you might be interested in..... All kidding aside, you're right in that I was asking anyone to chime in and state why they believe this high number could really be legitimate. All I got was silence. That silence is a tribute to the fact that most people use their common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Everone knows about the expensive hammers and toilet seats, these are not so much examples of how contractors rip off the government, rather the government places so many rules and requires so much documentation about complyance with the rules that the price is just crazy but it was government that drove the price up. There is a complicated and VERY expensive system of rules and processes that, when I worked for Uncle, established outrageous percentages of overhead AND indirect costs. It was extremely frustrating to those of us in programs that were trying to get reasonably-priced contract support, to find that for a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars of work, we ended up spending 2 to 3 times that amount out of budgets that we thought were already pretty small for our purposes. This seemed like a giant mutual back-scratching scheme to give contractors tons of money. That's one reason why I'm very skeptical that contracting out government responsibilities to private companies saves the money that "private efficiency" is supposed to.As to medicare, if the system is run BY the government and PAID for by the government, the doctors will stop having the option to take medicare patents or not, either they do and accept what the government pays or they don't and try to get people to pay out of their own pocket for healthcare as there will be no other options. Thus you will have a defacto medical system the same as the British system because there will only be one game in town and if you don't play ball their way, they will take their ball and go home. Bingo end of private doctors for the average man. There's a lot of gray areas in the words "run by" and "paid for by" the government. The Medicare statute sets forth deductibles, and establishes a system of determining what the fees and payments are, but the actual administration of payments is done in the private sector by insurance companies. The system started off in 1965-1966 with a lot less control, but found abuses forcing their hand over time. Actually, I believe that federal law prohibits docs from forcing patients to pay uncontrolled fees for Medicare services out of their own pockets. But, yes, restrictions have grown over time. HOWEVER, please note that the Medicare system has been in place for over 40 years, and the system of private doctors hasn't ended. Congresses and many administrations have tried to keep Medicare equivalent to, as well as part of, the private medical care system. Many docs and hospitals often don't see it that way, but that's the price of a massively expensive health care system that has done a lot of enriching and whose costs increase a LOT faster than general inflation. In fact, it would be easier on docs, hospitals, and everyone if med care inflation wasn't as great!It's still true that because of the contrast between the much lower earning power of the clear-cut class of the aged (and, separately, the Social Security diabled) than the population as a whole, while their medical expenses are far higher (again, even more so for the SS disabled), that very high percentages of the aged and disabled are not insurable in the private market -- hence the need for Medicare for those categories of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 mdeneen wrote the following post at Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:46 PM: I remember (because I am old) how the AMA campaigned against MediCare in the 1960s. It was "communism" it was "socialized medicine" and it was going to WRECK the medical profession. They spent tons and tons of money on all that propaganda and advertising. Nothing of the sort happened at all. Doctors love Medicare because in many cases it pays better than insurance contracts. People who have Medicare love it, because the alternative is to A) die; go broke paying doctors. I have several doctor friends. You know who they HATE? HMOs! That's right - they hate the "private enterprise" HMOs that are jamming these guys with horrible contracts. Patients love medicare? Not the patients that I have had to deal with that medicare refused coverage or made them stay as in-patients instead of pay for home IV therapy which would be cheaper anyway. Medicare refused payment for multitudes of therapys so patients don't receive the therapys do to complicated bureaucrat BS from medicare. Not my patients that medicare part D doesn't cover certain meds. Not the patients that wanted to stay at home and die and only needed fluids for hydration for comfort that medicare would not cover on a out patient basis. Doctors love medicare? Ask almost any doctors office manager about the hoops that they have to go through for medicare billing. My wife's office has to spend a lot of money for training for her employees every year just to keep up on all of the red tape caused by medicare regulations. Most of the ***'s payment schedules are based off medicare payment guide lines. The physicians I know, including the one I'm married to, believe medicare is a pain in the A** along with the ***'s. Pharmacies love medicare? Our pharmacy has to go through a ton of checking and data gathering above and beyond the normal for good pharmacy practice just to have data available for a medicare audit. All of this cost money and time from providing good pharmaceutical care. If you think government can provide universal healthcare for the greater good of all you are sadly mistaken. My children have each lived a year in a socialized medicine country. Finland and Denmark. In each country there is a gray market for healthcare. The citizens could go to the "free" health clinic which they pay enormous taxes. Both of my children had incidences in there host families where the families went to the gray market and paid cash instead. They could have received the care in the government clinic but would have to wait a unappropriate amount of time or the care needed was not provided. So the rich or more well off receive better care than the masses and the masses still receive inferior or inadequate care. The only thing that changes is that the government has a stake in the decision and controls their lives. In Illinios down state pharmacies are closing since the state government will not pay their medicaid bills. The pharmacies can not operate with payment 6 to9 months late. That is a government payment system. So how does that help the greater good of all the patients in that town that are not on medicaid that are paying taxes to support it. Now they don't have a pharmacy to go to. Vets are happy with VA hospital care? My father went through the VA system for his bowel resection and following therapy. The care was substandard and very limited. My brother -in law was going through the VA system until he finally got fed up and went to private system. A back surgery which he needed was preformed and he is back to work now. In the VA system he was told he would have to wait for 6 months for evaluation to see if he was a canidate for the surgery. Check out the VA hospital formulary for drugs. Yes they have a large selection but not standard for non VA hospitals. I did a rotation through the VA system in my training. The medicine praticed there is all governed by what there regulations provide. So the care was regulated by a bunch of bureaucrats. When there is a single payor they will be able to dictate who, when, where, why and for what they will pay. It will also dictate the standard of care and who will be able to provide it by choice of who they will pay. What is the difference if the doctors are employed by the state or just paid by the state. Either way the state still controls them. Medicare is socialized medicine. What else could it be. It is a social program provided by the government that the people have to pay for whether they want it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 mdeneen, Just reposting as I have not seen a reply to my original. America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. But the American people are taxed less than many developed countries tax their people. Remember, corporate tax "rates" have little no relationship to how much absolute tax they pay. Some of our most successful corporations pay absolutely no tax. The tax burden in the US is very low. Lower than almost all industrialized countries. The claim that some of our most successful corporations pay no tax is something often repeated. Yet, I have never seen the hard data to back a claim like this up. I'm not arguing, as I am truly ignorant on this, but would venture to guess that the vast majority of American corporations pay a fair share of taxes. Do you have any data to suggest otherwise? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The principle idea is that those who derive the "greatest benefit" from the national infrastructure and resource, ought to pay the greatest share. When a guy makes $100M a year, he is getting a rather large benefit out of say, our military defense, or our air traffic control system, or the highways. For simplicity's sake: Wouldn't this also be true with a flat-tax? Ex: Flat tax of 20%. Those making $50,000 would pay $10,000 in taxes. Those making $100,000,000 would pay $20,000,000. I have never understood the fairness of taxing those at a higher income level with a higher percentage of taxes as they are already paying a much larger share than those at lower income levels. This is evidenced by the data I included in some earlier posts. To refresh: The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income TaxThe U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners, by household, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes in 2005, whereas the bottom 50 percent paid a little over 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns filed in 2005 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all. Source: SOI Bulletin, Statistics of Income Division, Table 6. Zero tax liability figures from The Tax Foundation, Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data, Fiscal Fact No. 104. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 mdeneen wrote the following post at Sat, Jan 24 2009 1:30 AM: I completely dig policy arguments when they are about the material ideas in play. If someone can show a superior means of delivering healthcare to 300M people, I'd love to hear about it. But simply invoking childish and totally bogus emotional tags like "communism" and "socialism" to an idea because you think it has magical emotional power is just nonsensical TalkRadio kiddie banter, and I am sure people on here are way better than that. I can't show you a superior means of delivering healthcare to 300 M over what we have, I just showed you that an expansion of medicare may not be superior. What is childish and totally bogus emotional about describing something as a socialistic program that is by definition a socialistic program. If it was a capitalistic program I would have no problem calling it a capitalistic program. I am not the one that came up with the meanings of words. I haven't used the radio or kiddie banter. I don't think that using any decriptive words have magical emotional power do you? I feel that reply to what you think I mean ( and can have no idea) is arrogant and condescending. Is not the healthcare of Denmark, Finland and Britain considered socialized medicine. I have heard that term used in discussions on capital hill. So our representatives must all be using kiddie bantor, which they may be at some times. So sometimes kidie's say the truth and the truth hurts. You are the one that said socialism is a nasty sounding name. Why do think it is nasty sounding? Could it be because so many people have seen it tried and failed in so many places. And yes the police, fire, utilities and public education are paid for on a socialistic method to a degree. Fire and police I have no problem with since it is local and we have more control. Education is another whole bucket of worms. I did not say that all socialistic ideals are bad, they are a better way for certain goods and services, I just don't beleive that they are our answer to all problems either. Webster's Socialism 1. Any of various enconomic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 mdeneen, A couple of points: One, corporations have a tremendous incentive to pay out most of their profit each year as there are substantial penalties for retained earnings. These profits are often paid out to the ownership of these corporations and taxed at the individual level. Two, since the 90's, many businesses have been using an S-corp. or LLC structure, rather than a full-corporation (C-Corp). These types of corporations are generally referred to as, "flow-through entities," or, "pass-through entities," as the profits flow through to the business owners who pay the tax at the individual level. Therefore, these types would be included in the statistics published about corporations paying no tax. Three, since the corporate tax cut in 2003, the U.S. has had the highest level of corporate tax receipts in over 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Socialism 1. Any of various enconomic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Oops, just to take this one point -- no one is advocating collective or "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution" of health care. That's certainly not what Medicare is, or anything else in US health care except public hospitals and a handful of publicly-supported health centers.Yes, in police, fire, air traffic control, etc. But not health care. No one I know of is proposing it, either. It seems to me that proposals to extend Medicare are first of all fixes for the 15+% uninsured. Yes, other problems might be addressed along with it, such as the extreme experience rating that causes a small firm's insurance rates to climb if it employs even one very sick person, or the wild disparity in health insurance costs that is a terrible drag on old industries, such as US auto manufacturing, that incentivizes outsourcing and moving manufacturing to foreign countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.