Bernie Sanders is a Centerist

Can you explain this: Is it really due to that? How do you know? How do you know that's why?

quote:

---

Neither does the rate. The rate can go down while the contribution goes up if the income increases enough.

---

Unless you attribute the increase in income to the decrease in rate, we can at least say that the contribution is less than it would have been without the decrease.

quote:

---

What portion of the federal income tax was paid by the top 10% in the 1950s?* And how does that compare to the 70% of today?

​

How much of it has been shifted?

---

And if you read the source you will see that that is mostly due to increased income.Which really doesn’t fit the narrative of the poor oppressed rich.

The solution to the WalMart problem is to stop spending your money at WalMart, not using the federal government to force your will upon them. Nobody is stopping you. Go start your company and get to work.

Do you? Yeah, so all this about the massive shift from the change in the rates is off. That ain't my narrative.

quote:

---

Do you?

---

Partly. If you can influence your salary there is a stronger motive to award yourself pay rises when the tax rate is lower. So for company Directors and CEOs and some other high level officers, maybe.But that isn’t the whole story, even there.So in my view the tax burden has been shifted from what it would have been.

quote:

---

Yeah, so all this about the massive shift from the change in the rates is off.

---

See above. And remember that we’re still only looking at a part of the picture.

quote:

---

That ain't my narrative.

---

Seems to be the main point of complaints about the tax burden.

There are still plenty of rich people who will stay because they can keep making tons of money in the French economy. The rich people who leave will be replaced by people who are willing to make the same salary and pay those taxes. When a doctor leaves there is a spot left open for another doctor. They are treated as resources and are protected by massive spending on infrastructure, copyright protections, and public education that supplies good workers.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't have much of an opinion on it, but a 70% tax rate is ridiculous.

---

The income federal tax rate (which only covers about $1.5 trillion in $3.5 trillion federal budget, and even smaller percentage when state and local tax rates bring total USA budgets to around $5 trillion per year) for the top 1% is 27% roughly.The bottom 50% pay about 3.45% it seems. Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update | Tax Foundation But it does not count all taxes (especially as state and local tax rates are much flatter, plus lots of regressive taxes like sales tax rates).Payroll taxes take in almost as much as the federal income tax, so that makes the federal rates closer than the income tax alone would indicate.Even in New York, the average rate would be around 40% for the top 1% when all taxes are counted. New York City plus New York state have the highest combined income tax for the top 1%.

quote:

---

Actions have consequences. Maybe the socialists can begin forbidding people to leave their countries due to their policies? A new iron curtain, perhaps?

---

Don't confuse the "race to the bottom" effects with the actual economic climate taxes would have if we all had to pay the same rate depending on whatever state we lived in (for example: a world government with a uniform world tax rate).Right now, the game is rigged.In favor of lower income taxes.Montana, Oregon, Delaware, and New Hampshire have a zero percent sales tax.But businesses can't benefit from setting up shop in those states (which have higher income taxes than your average state - MINUS New Hampshire, which lacks that tax too) because the federal government won't allow the businesses to benefit from the zero percent sales tax rate when online buyers send money to a business in those states. It requires the state a person lives in to dictate the sales tax (which the state gets).There would be a race to the bottom in sales tax rates if the game wasn't rigged in favor of a race to the bottom in income taxes.And California is attracting higher income people way over Texas.Other issue.I wanted to talk more about the (no co-pay!) single payer issue too. Interesting issue as California could very well see just 12% of its Gross State Product go toward healthcare spending, if a measure with price controls was implemented.A cost control type of plan was detailed in the June 21 L.A. Times and the total cost would be about $331 billion a year max.About 12% or 13% of the gross state product.The rate in Texas is more like 17% or 18%.I lost my L A Times issue that detailed it though.

California is moving higher and higher in income.With high taxes.

quote:

---

Per capita income was $38,956 as of 2006, ranking 11th in the nation, but varies widely by geographic region and profession.[35] By 2016, per capita income had increased to $56,374, ranking 6th in the nation
....
California in 2010, when measured as a percentage of GDP, had the 4th highest tax burden of all the fifty states at 13.4% of the state GDP.[45]

​

The maximum 13.3% state personal income tax rate is the highest in the nation, but only applies to incomes over $1 million

​

....
The 8.4 percent "average" sales tax assessed by the state and local governments of California is one of the highest in the nation and varies by city and county from a low of 7.5% to 10.0%

​

....
Economy of California - Wikipedia

---

Look at the Gross state product.GDP
$2.603 trillion (2016)Very high.Health Care spending will be $370 billion in 2017About 14% of California GDP.Not 18% as this article states.CA Bill Proposes Free Health Care for All, but Has No Funding Plan – PJ Media

quote:

---

CA Bill Proposes Free Health Care for All, but Has No Funding Plan

​

By Charlie Martin April 3, 2017

​

chat 151 comments

​

Nearly every human culture has a folk tale -- or more than one -- about an unending source of wealth. Sometimes it's spinning straw into gold; sometimes it's a goose that lays golden eggs or that gives golden feathers; sometimes it's a magic hand-mill that will grind out your heart's desire; sometimes it's a magic purse that's always full no matter how much you spend.

​

I starting thinking about these stories the other day when I read about the single-payer plan being proposed by state Senators Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) for California. It sounds wonderful:

​

Under the proposal, which was announced in February, the state would cover all medical expenses for every resident regardless of their income or immigration status, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health and nursing home care.

​

Insurers would be prohibited from offering benefits that cover the same services as the state.

​

The program would eliminate co-pays and deductibles, and patients would not need to get referrals to see eligible providers. The system would be administered by an unpaid nine-person board appointed by the governor and the Legislature.

​

CA Bill Proposes Free Health Care for All, but Has No Funding Plan

​

By Charlie Martin April 3, 2017

​

chat 151 comments

​

Nearly every human culture has a folk tale -- or more than one -- about an unending source of wealth. Sometimes it's spinning straw into gold; sometimes it's a goose that lays golden eggs or that gives golden feathers; sometimes it's a magic hand-mill that will grind out your heart's desire; sometimes it's a magic purse that's always full no matter how much you spend.

​

I starting thinking about these stories the other day when I read about the single-payer plan being proposed by state Senators Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) for California. It sounds wonderful:

​

Under the proposal, which was announced in February, the state would cover all medical expenses for every resident regardless of their income or immigration status, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health and nursing home care.

​

Insurers would be prohibited from offering benefits that cover the same services as the state.

​

The program would eliminate co-pays and deductibles, and patients would not need to get referrals to see eligible providers. The system would be administered by an unpaid nine-person board appointed by the governor and the Legislature.

​

The authors say they intend to pay for the program through "broad-based revenue," but details of a funding proposal have not been hashed out.

​

I bet.

​

Political conservatives saw problems. California Gov. Jerry Brown immediately objected:

​

"Where do you get the extra money? This is the whole question," Brown said in an interview after wrapping up a day's worth of events and meetings in Washington.

​

Gov. Brown expanded on his comments later:

​

But in the wide-ranging discussion with reporters later, he dismissed any notion that it might soon be time to look for a different way to fund healthcare in California -- including the idea of a single-payer, universal system.

​

"I don't even get it," said the governor. "How do you do that?"

​

He pointed out that the overall cost of medical care in California is equal to 18% of the state's gross domestic product, which would be about $450 billion.

​

"You take a problem and say I'm going to solve it by something that's even a bigger problem, which makes no sense," he said.

​

This, of course, is the usual greedy corporate conservative talking point: that things have to be paid for somehow, and from where will the money come? ... Wait, you say Brown is a liberal Democrat? Why, that's odd.

​

Of course, the answer is "broad-based revenue," which is to say they want to tax something. Anything. As Brown points out, to actually pay for all health care would mean taxing one-fifth of California's GDP for health care alone.

​

Every culture has its Magic Purse, a folk tale of wealth without work, and in every one of those folk tales, when you try to take too much, you end up losing everything. The Magic Purse in our folklore is called "the government," and California is trying hard to prove that Magic Purses really are just fairy tales.

---

14%Not 18%Facts matter.Lots of other bad numbers from critics of single payer are repeated endlessly.But, I will be that this policy (if implemented) proves your economic theories wrong.

quote:

---

If the "rich" leave the taxes they pay will have to be paid by middle and lower income folks. Don't forget that the rich pay a huge percentage of the income taxes.
I'd think that folks would treat them as a resource to be protected and nurtured rather than as enemies.

---

But, what if everybody were made richer?It would bring in more income tax revenue, right?Can't that be part of the debate instead of simply assuming that everybody is out to rip rich people off?I look at it like this:Imagine if every person had a nurturing environment that rich kids benefit from.
Then imagine what kind of grown ups we would have today.
Then ask ourselves if all kids are natural born parasites.
Then ask ourselves if the debate over government policies misses the point when we assume that individuals are parasites while they struggle to learn, survives, and thrive.But, back to real world policy.Would health care policy count as an investment (which pays returns?) or just a luscious give away for the poor?What (government) costs are justified?Would a massive "free stuff" plan be as bad if the costs were lower than a certain amount?Would every Californian being automatically covered (with no paperwork or difficult signing up requirements) metabolically "free the mind" (so to speak) and souls of Californians to concentrate on their careers and work as opposed to obsessing over getting a cancer or infection taken care of (and going through the endless maze of coverage rules, which often require reducing income and quitting jobs)?What about plain human rights.Look at this.Semi private single rooms at nursing homes cost about $100,000 a year now.Semi private rooms with a roommate at a nursing room cost about $90,000 a year.Assisted living rooms cost $48,000 roughly a year.Medicaid will cover the costs if assets are low enough.The elderly (in the later years) are a major source of burdensome government expenses (especially as Medicaid is concerned), but would we be better off without the expenditure?I think society (as well as the families) is better off, but the cost to benefit ratio to the economy is not going to cause a particularly justifiable expense to taxpayers (unless the argument can be maid that the hurt the loved ones suffer from will drag down economic output).I think we need to see health care as a human right.Medicaid doesn't cover mouth infections in most states (it is "dental" until the infection spreads to - for example - the brain, and a Maryland male on Medicaid couldn't afford to pay out-of-pocket for his gum infection SO HE DIED FROM A BRAIN INFECTION)What about human rights?Here is google links on the California "free stuff" debate.california health care free stuff no co-pays - Google SearchThen health care spending by state.health care spending costs by state - Google SearchCalifornia's budget is in deficit because lower income people aren't paying quite enough it seems.california state budget revenue - Google Searchtwo articles critical of California health care.California’s single-payer plan costs $400 billion twice the state’s entire budget - VoxCalifornia’s single-payer plan costs $400 billion twice the state’s entire budget
The state’s ambitious bid to establish a single-payer health care system has a hefty price tag.thenCalifornia's Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Cost More Than the State's Whole BudgetCalifornia’s Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Cost More Than the State’s Whole BudgetLike in Colorado, New York, and Vermont, California is learning that a single-payer plan would be prohibitively expensive.Eric Boehm|May. 23, 2017 2:45 pmI still think we should look at net economic benefits of a policy.And not accuse people of being parasites for just wanting to survive the thousands of things that break down and kill the body.

I agree that letting everyone become richer would be a good thing-- maybe lowering taxes for everyone and removing some of the disincentives to earning more would help.But if Calif. enacts free healthcare for everyone, how many of the nation's critically ill would move there?"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Curiously I haven't shopped at Walmart in decades, but they are still using my tax dollars to subsidize their profits by getting/teaching/encouraging their workers to file for medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance, so no, your plan does not work.RI passed a minimum wage bill that is in the process of raising it to $15/hr over the next couple years. Walmart left the state. Good riddance. Where they were we now have a new company paying better wages. Imagine that, my plan works. Again, having my own company has had negligible effect on large corporations getting handouts from the government and paying next to no taxes due to loop holes and off-shore accounts.Again, your plan is not working.Got anything that actually works?Enjoy

Not just you personally, the collective you, i.e. all of us.Last time I was in a WalMart it was packed. How many employees do you have? How do you go about democratically running your company so that decisions are made that support all the workers equitably? I'm not the one trying to solve the problem.But I understand that there are jobs that don't provide enough value to be worth a livable wage.
And that forcing compliance to your ideas via federal regulation is morally wrong.I'll just go with the status quo until someone convinces me they have something better.

Coyote said:

quote:

---

I agree that letting everyone become richer would be a good thing-- maybe lowering taxes for everyone and removing some of the disincentives to earning more would help.
But if Calif. enacts free healthcare for everyone, how many of the nation's critically ill would move there?

​

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

---

Medicaid is already 100% free (though New York has a Medicaid program that allows certain people - with higher incomes than beneficiaries typically have - to pay 50% of the cost with the program covering the other 50% PLUS Iowa and others require a 20% co-payment for ObamaCare expansion beneficiaries), but how to qualify?Here is how to qualify for free nursing home funding.

quote:

---

Study: Long-term care costs continue to rise

​

From staff and wire reports
May 10, 2016

​

Long-term care grew more expensive again this year, with the cost of the priciest option, a private nursing home room, edging closer to $100,000 annually, according to a survey from Genworth Financial.

​

Americans also are paying more for other care options like home health aides and assisted living communities, while adult day care costs fell slightly compared to 2015, Genworth reported in a study released Tuesday.

​

Private nursing home rooms now come with a median annual bill of $92,378, an increase of 1.2 percent from last year and up nearly 19 percent since 2011. That breaks down to a monthly bill of $7,698.

​

Genworth Financial Inc. sells long-term care coverage and didn't address that cost in its study, which was based on information from 15,000 long-term care providers.

​

Coverage costs also are rising, and many people don't understand these expenses until they face them, said Joe Caldwell of the National Council on Aging, which is not connected with the study.

​

"It's really becoming more and more difficult for the average family ... to even purchase long-term care insurance," said Caldwell, the nonprofit's director of long-term services and support policy.

​

Medicare doesn't cover long-term stays, so a large swath of people who need that coverage wind up spending down their assets until they qualify for the government's health insurance program for the poor, Medicaid.

​

There are no cheap options for those without long-term coverage. Semi-private nursing home rooms cost $82,125 annually, a bill that has climbed nearly 17 percent over the past five years, according to Genworth.

​

Genworth found that the median annual cost for assisted living communities adds up to $43,539 this year. In-home health aides, who help patients with non-medical tasks like bathing or dressing, cost $46,332 annually, or $3,861 a month.

​

http://journalstar.com/...5-fb4b-5bc2-9ce1-5b548d92c115.html

---

RAZD talked about how Wallmart actually slows the economic growth of the nation by holding down wages so Medicaid can be avaliable for its employees.Remember that this company has 1.5 million plus employees - about 1% of the workforce.Here is RAZD in his own words:

quote:

---

The solution to the WalMart problem is to stop spending your money at WalMart, not using the federal government to force your will upon them.

​

Curiously I haven't shopped at Walmart in decades, but they are still using my tax dollars to subsidize their profits by getting/teaching/encouraging their workers to file for medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance, so no, your plan does not work.

​

RI passed a minimum wage bill that is in the process of raising it to $15/hr over the next couple years. Walmart left the state. Good riddance. Where they were we now have a new company paying better wages. Imagine that, my plan works.

​

Nobody is stopping you. Go start your company and get to work.
Again, having my own company has had negligible effect on large corporations getting handouts from the government and paying next to no taxes due to loop holes and off-shore accounts.

​

Again, your plan is not working.

​

Got anything that actually works?

---

Back to Coyote again.The critically ill don't need to move to California.The issue in California isn't about helping the "freeloaders".It is about freeing the economy for growth.No need to SPEND DOWN assets to qualify for Medicaid.No need to HOLD DOWN wages (growth!) to qualify for ObamaCare subsidies and/or Medicaid.The government of California (and with the Federal government which pays a lot of this 65%) already spends about 65% of its 13.5%-14% GDP percentage for healthcare.NOW.About 9% of the California GDP is already paid for by the government for healthcare.The single payer plan (if it involves certain cost control measures) will run from 12.3% to 12.7% of the California GDP to operate.The other 3.5% or so will need to be covered by taxes.But that is the static analysis.The situation will be dynamic.Understanding the dynamics of the economic situation, imagine the economic growth that will come when WORKING PEOPLE come to the state (to contribute!) for the healthcare system (among other reasons).That is just the in migration issue.Don't forget the further "dynamic scoring" factors to consider, and I'm referring to the benefits of cheaper healthcare leaving lots of additional money in Californian's overall pockets.Look at all the leftover money the citizens of California will have to spend on all sorts of economically boosting products, services, events, traveling, etc.This is pro growth all around.Economic dynamite.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

The amount California is paying in healthcare will go up if very sick people move to California to access free healthcare. The very sick are usually not employed or retired, and they make up a large percentage of overall healthcare costs in any system. Something like 85% of your lifetime healthcare costs occur in your last 5 years of life.This was the problem with the ACA markets. They were burdened with a disproportionate number of sick people. The same could happen to California if they don't use rules for acquiring residency, or something of the sort.