Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[LV426]

They are free to the people getting the benefits.

No they're not! They're funded by payroll taxes everyone pays!

You don't know the first thing about the proposal you are opposed to!

The entire purpose of M4A is to do away with premiums and OOPE and replace it entirely with a payroll tax of about 6%.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average worker spends $5,000 a year on premiums and $1,500 a year on deductibles and OOPE, with the employer paying an average of $15,000 per employee. So, the average worker spends a total of $6,500 a year on their health care if they get it through their employer.

Sanders' M4A proposal calls for a 6% payroll tax as the premium.

Real Median Household Income in the US is $61K/yr.

So...let's do some math...you like math, right? Everyone likes math.

So 6% of $61K = $3,660

Now, is $3,660 > or < $6,500 in Flashtardia?

Be honest.

 

[LV426]

When somebody else is paying there is no reason to keep spending down.

Everyone is paying because M4A is funded by payroll taxes.

So it's not "free"...it's "free at the point of care". You're still paying your premium in your payroll taxes. Only, instead of paying the Medicare tax and the premium + deductibles and OOPE, you're just paying a flat payroll tax.

Not hard to understand, which begs the question; why are you having such trouble understanding it?

 

[LV426]

The hostility is high in you this morning. As usual, your post has more personal insults, vulgarity, and hatred than any logical or useful information.

Flash demands everyone make him comfortable enough so that he might make a bad faith effort to engage your argument.

Total entitlement complex.

 

[LV426]

Your hostility usually increases as the day progressives---by tonight your blood pressure (and hatred) will be sky high.

You find yourself slipping and falling back on your poor judgment that is substituted for conventional wisdom; you fall back on old, debunked arguments and then you fall back on lame attempts to dismiss that by attacking my style.

What a coward. What a lazy fucking fraud.

 

[Flash]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

How could you be so fucking wrong? Simple; you're too fucking lazy to do the work.

In fact, higher levels of government debt do not translate to lower economic growth.

How do I know that? Because I do my research because Conservatives lie about everything and will deliberately lie to push a false point.

Only a fucking idiot still thinks high levels of government debt correspond to poor GDP growth, even after the study that initially said that was corrected because it was wrong.

Read carefully. You posted a statement about percent of GDP spent by government and then switch to government debt.

According to the CBO economic projections as debt increases we should expect to see slower economic growth in the 2020's. Interest on the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next ten years. That takes away from "public investment" (spending). The CBO says each person could increase his annual income by $5,500 if we lowered our debt to the historical average of 42%. Economic studies estimate the current debt level is slowing the economy about 1% annually.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-06/55331-LTBO-2.pdf

Thomas Grennes, Michael Fan, and Mehmet Caner in “New Evidence on Debt as an Obstacle to US Economic Growth.”

 

[Flash]

Everyone is paying because M4A is funded by payroll taxes.

So it's not "free"...it's "free at the point of care". You're still paying your premium in your payroll taxes. Only, instead of paying the Medicare tax and the premium + deductibles and OOPE, you're just paying a flat payroll tax.

Not hard to understand, which begs the question; why are you having such trouble understanding it?

At $14 trillion over a decade it is definitely not free. The payroll tax will have to be much higher than currently if it is going to pay for itself (rather than have the wealthy pay for everything).

But when the government (or private heath insurance) pays for our healthcare, we aren't concerned with the costs. I get calls weekly wanting to give me free stuff because Medicare will pay for it.

 

[Flash]

Flash demands everyone make him comfortable enough so that he might make a bad faith effort to engage your argument.

Total entitlement complex.

I don't think I am entitled to free government programs paid for by the wealthy--that is your proposal.

 

[Wolverine]

Every rational, sober adult would complain if someone pissed in their soup, dispshit.

Apparently you don't.

Speaks volumes.

That is a very typical Liberal post, does nothing to address the FACT that they just had their ass handed to them!

 

[Flash]

WTF are you talking about?

You're the ones who screech that raising the tax rate to 90% (which it was for almost 20 years) is too high!

You're the ones who screech that any tax increase is too high.

It's like we are in bizarro world now...Democrats don't want to raise taxes high enough to pay for it? AOC just said the other day she wanted a 70% top tax rate.

FFS, Flash, you are 100% a sophist.

I didn't propose raising taxes---read carefully. I said the Democrats are never going to raise it enough to cover all their spending programs. I didn't say they should. You type before you think.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

That is a very typical Liberal post, does nothing to address the FACT that they just had their ass handed to them!

Why do you enjoy eating piss-soup?

 

[Cinnabar]

Which amounts to less than the amount of fraud committed by Rick Scott himself.

Also, if you want to prevent fraud, you have to fund agencies that police it.

But you don't want to increase spending in order to fight fraud...so really, your position is masturbatory; you oppose increasing spending to fight fraud because of fraud that comes from lower spending on oversight.

Total fucking masturbation.

Off topic but it is astounding, although not surprising, that the right wing actually seated a Senator who pulled off the largest Medicare fraud in history. Typical crime family activity.

 

[LV426]

Read carefully. You posted a statement about percent of GDP spent by government and then switch to government debt.

The argument in Growth in the Time of Debt was that high levels of debt-to-GDP translate to lower levels of economic growth.

THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA IN THAT STUDY.

When you don't click on the links I give you, you end up making false arguments and assumptions.

That's symptomatic of laziness.

 

[LV426]

According to the CBO economic projections as debt increases we should expect to see slower economic growth in the 2020's.

But the study says that's not because of the debt!

The study says that's because of a decline in purchasing power by consumers who are forced to spend more of their income out of pocket on services like education and health care!

The CBO says each person could increase his annual income by $5,500 if we lowered our debt to the historical average of 42%.

Right, and one way of lowering that is by...raising taxes to produce more revenue.

Increasing government spending on education and health care has a direct impact on consumer spending by consumers. We just saw that happen in Kansas.

Also, Democrats are the ones who have reduce deficits, not Republicans. Democrats achieved that during Clinton and during Obama by raising taxes!

 

[Flash]

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't take campaign contributions from the mega-wealthy, and their average donations are under $30.

What a fucking fraud.

A lot of campaign spending is from independent groups, PACs, the parties, etc. What the candidate accepts or doesn't accept does not mean they do not benefit from that big spending. You are not that naive but just giving it the partisan spin.

Look at the campaign disclosures to see the large contributions from wealthy groups spent on behalf of candidates. They can only give $2700 to a candidate, but they spend hundreds of millions. That is their wealthy supporters you pretend do not exist.

 

[LV426]

At $14 trillion over a decade it is definitely not free.

I never said it was!

I said it was funded by payroll taxes that replace premiums, deductibles, copays, coinsurance, drug costs, hospital stays, ambulance rides, dental, and vision.\

You pay the payroll tax so you don't have to fork out a co-pay or premium.

The payroll tax will have to be much higher than currently if it is going to pay for itself (rather than have the wealthy pay for everything).

First of all, the Medicare tax is a mere 1.45% for workers. That's it. The highest I've heard any M4A tax is 8%...so even if it is 8%, that is still less than the average worker pays in premiums and OOPE through their employer.

Since there's no cap on taxable Medicare income, the wealthy end up paying more because they have more money.

Again, not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

But when the government (or private heath insurance) pays for our healthcare, we aren't concerned with the costs.

Completely untrue!

Right now, all costs for health care are set in collusion between providers and insurance companies who are setting the costs for them to both mutually benefit. What do you think a "chargemaster" is? It's literally a document that lists the price for everything, and those prices are determined by the insurer and the provider with the goal of maximizing profit.

A M4A system doesn't have that incentive, so instead of colluding with providers, the single payer negotiates with them to lower the cost.

Again, not hard to understand.

I get calls weekly wanting to give me free stuff because Medicare will pay for it.

Wait - you're on Medicare now? I don't understand.

 

[LV426]

I don't think I am entitled to free government programs paid for by the wealthy--that is your proposal.

For the seventh time, they're not free! You're still paying a payroll tax. The gross amount you pay is determined by your income, but it's a flat rate.

Why can't you debate honestly? Why must you engage in sophistry as your sole tactic?

 

[Flash]

But the study says that's not because of the debt!

The study says that's because of a decline in purchasing power by consumers who are forced to spend more of their income out of pocket on services like education and health care!

It says it is not because of the debt???? Show me. You must have read the CBO report as carefully as you read the Mueller report.

Consequences of High and Rising Federal Debt

If federal debt as a percentage of GDP continues to rise at the pace that CBO projects it would under current law, the economy would be affected in two significant ways:

•That debt path would dampen economic output over time, and

•Rising interest costs associated with that debt would increase interest payments to foreign debt holders and thus reduce the income of U.S. households by increasing amounts.

That debt path would also pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook, although those risks are not currently apparent in financial markets. In particular, that path would have the following effects:

•Increase the risk of a fiscal crisis—that is, a situation in which the interest rate on federal debt rises abruptly because investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government’s fiscal position—and 4. The range of likely outcomes that CBO’s models produce is less informative after 20 years because the key parameters governing the economic effects of fiscal policy in the agency’s models are based on the nation’s historical experience with federal borrowing. At the high end of such a range for 30 years in the future, projections of debt as a percentage of GDP would grow to amounts well outside historical experience.

•Increase the likelihood of less abrupt, but still significant, negative economic and financial effects, such as expectations of higher rates of inflation and more difficulty financing public and private activity in international markets.

 

[LV426]

I didn't propose raising taxes---read carefully.

I never said you did...what you're saying is that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible because they want to raise taxes, mostly on the wealthy, to pay for things. You said that they wouldn't raise taxes high enough because of their donors, yet every single Democrat that has talked about raising taxes has talked about raising them substantially higher, with AOC, Sanders, and Warren all saying a 70% rate.

It's like you don't even pay attention to what people say; you're too busy trying to craft a false narrative because you're lazy.

 

[LV426]

I said the Democrats are never going to raise it enough to cover all their spending programs.

How do you know that?

What are you talking about?

How many Democrats have called for a 70% tax rate? Two of the three leading 2020 nominees have. AOC has. Most progressive Dems have.

So now your argument has shifted to "Democrats aren't fiscally responsible" to "Democratic plans are fiscally responsible, but they won't make them so"?

 

[LV426]

A lot of campaign spending is from independent groups, PACs, the parties, etc.

Again, Sanders and Warren have both forsaken PAC money.

You're not paying attention; you're acting in bad faith and exercising sophistry because of your ego.

You're not as savvy or intuitive as you think.

Get over yourself.