patrick.net

We’d go bankrupt overnight. Government isn’t rewarded for saving. It’s rewarded for shady deals peddling money to well connected.

The same people promised Obamacare would lower prices.

I read a story the Left was hyping a couple weeks ago. Two old retired people committed suicide because they couldn’t afford their medical bills....
So two people who HAVE MEDICARE are so unsatisfied with it that they killed themselves?

Interesting...

How will paying even more in taxes somehow save me money???

"A net worth tax of 0.38 percent"

Which means that keeping your cash in a mattress would be better than a savings account in a lot of cases.

If they want to raise taxes, how about doing away with the earned income tax credit, per kid tax deduction, and head of household nonsense?

OccasionalCortex says

So Wyoming has less than 1% of the US population. But they round that up for representation in the House because each state is guaranteed at least one Rep.
...
1% of $200 billion is: $2 billion

Wyoming has 1 representative out of a house of 435 representatives. So wouldn't the rich people in Wyoming be responsible for only 1/435 * $200 MMM = $460 MM? Still, you're point is well taken about the problems inherent in apportionment.

On the positive side, California would be paying at least something for its enormous hoard of illegal aliens.

CBOEtrader says

The same people promised Obamacare would lower prices.

The same people promised Obamacare would lower prices and wrote Obamacare with specific carveout to exempt themselves.
FIFY 👍

Booger says

Which means that keeping your cash in a mattress would be better than a savings account in a lot of cases.

This is on net worth over one million, so it's probably not affecting you, unless,...you aren't,...no it couldn't be,...one of Trump's sons ?

Also, do you know what .38 percent means ?

Here is the right answer:

1. present all non-emergency bills in advance of treatment to let people shop around for the best price/quality they can find
2. regulate all emergency bill prices because no one has time to shop when they are bleeding to death

That is, apply market forces to keep medical prices down, but where there can be no market, regulate prices.

To accomplish these things, the AMA and their lobbyists will all have to be stopped.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2019

marcus says

This is on net worth over one million,

Today $1M, tomorrow $100K. Today, 0.38%; tomorrow, 3.8%. Money obtained from taxes is NEVER enough, and once introduced, taxes almost always go up. Solution: do not introduce new taxes...

Besides, $1M worth is most of CA city homeowners...and even in my low house price state of TX, I am over $1M net worth because I managed to buy house in place where it has appreciated twofold in 10 yrs.

As for taxation, the right answer is to tax nonproductive rent-seeking and to not tax salaries or commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Rent-seeking is a concept in public choice theory as well as in economics, that involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth-creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[1] and potential national decline.

Attempts at capture of regulatory agencies to gain a coercive monopoly can result in advantages for the rent seeker in a market while imposing disadvantages on their incorrupt competitors.

To accomplish these things, the US Chamber of Commerce and their lobbyists will all have to be stopped.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2019

6rdB says

Solution: do not introduce new taxes...

THe net worth tax may be a bad idea. But medicare for all is going to involve some sort of new tax or an increase in the medicare tax. The idea is that you would save more on reduced or eliminated health care insurance than the increase in taxes.

IT seems like this would be great for corporations, which makes me wonder why we don't have it already. I'm guessing it's becasue the decision makers fear that their health care quality for their family might go down or cost them a lot personally if such a system were put in place.

marcus says

This is on net worth over one million, so it's probably not affecting you,

It's probably affecting everyone here, including anyone who owns a house in CA. Yes I am assuming that the value of your house counts towards your assets. That and you need way more than 1 million in assets to retire. Why do you think it's acceptable to punish anyone just trying to be responsible and save for their retirement?

marcus says

The idea is that you would save more on reduced or eliminated health care insurance than the increase in taxes.

That only works if you are a deadbeat that pays little or no taxes.

:
Medicare (and medicaid etc other public provided health care) is already paying for a majority of health care that is provided and received in the U.S.

So we're not talking nearly the increase in taxes compared to the decrease in health insurance expenditures. This should be obvious.

marcus says

So we're not talking nearly the increase in taxes compared to the decrease in health insurance expenditures.

You mean like that $2500/year annual savings that Obama promised that we never got?

:
If we had free college for all, it wouldn't really be for all. Obviously you would have to earn (academemically) the right. Otherwise community college and associates degree to be some kind of trade or technician could also be free. But even there - not everyone would be eligible.

This would provide higher motivation to k - 12 students, that is the ones that don't already get it. That is, a very clear pay off for working hard in school.

It could also be specified that it's targeted at career or public service in order for it to be "free." So all the people coming out are tax payers or public servants or both.

Were talking a good investment by the government in a very competitive world.

Hard for me really to think of a better use of tax dollars.

("but waaaaah, I didn't get it. No fair")

Booger says

You mean like that $2500/year annual savings that Obama promised that we never got?

YOu have a point. In todays polarized world, if democrats are associated with a policy, all the narcissistic selfish children we call republican congress people would ruin their own country before allowing a democrats policy to be successful.

That is by far the best argument you can make for not bothering. Republicans would find a way to obstruct and sabotage.

marcus says

Booger says

Which means that keeping your cash in a mattress would be better than a savings account in a lot of cases.

This is on net worth over one million, so it's probably not affecting you, unless,...you aren't,...no it couldn't be,...one of Trump's sons ?

Also, do you know what .38 percent means ?

I'm close to 8-digit net worth, but not one of Trump's sons either. What's your point, that people associated with Trump are rich and successful?

I know what 0.38% means. Indeed, as Booger notes, it means that the tax will exceed what most banks are currently paying on basic accounts. That said, I hope people aren't parking millions in such poorly-performing accounts that are only government-insured to 0.25 million.

If the Gates Foundation and the Zuck Foundation are subject to the tax, I'd have some interest in it. Alas, these tax evasion schemes will be, yet again, evading taxes.

marcus says

If we had free college for all

I do not see how that would work - cost of college is out of whack even nowadays when colleges have some limitations on how much money they can dump into associate Vice Provosts for Diversity/Womyn's studies/Lacrosse teams. If Gov't would cover everything, we would see proliferation of useless administrative positions and net result would be even more taxpayer money sunk into colleges.

6rdB says

Today $1M, tomorrow $100K. Today, 0.38%; tomorrow, 3.8%. Money obtained from taxes is NEVER enough, and once introduced, taxes almost always go up. Solution: do not introduce new taxes...

Just for reference, the original 1913 income tax was 1% on (inflation adjusted) income over $77k and a 6% on (inflation adjusted) income over $12.7 million. So, yup: the 0.38% is just the camel's nose under the tent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

marcus says

:
If we had free college for all,

We already have more college graduates than jobs that require a degree. Why would we want to subsidize something that we already have too many of?

SunnyvaleCA says

So, yup: the 0.38% is just the camel's nose under the tent.

Illinois 3% income tax was sold as "temporary" which was supposed to be removed "very soon". This "temporary" tax is now nearly 5% and may soon go to 7.99%. There is plenty precedent for lack of trust with new taxes...

marcus says

:
If we had free college for all.
...
Were talking a good investment by the government in a very competitive world.

Hard for me really to think of a better use of tax dollars.

("but waaaaah, I didn't get it. No fair")

We already have 13 years of "free" education per person. What will students learn in the "free college" that they haven't already learned in the preceding 13 years? Many community colleges are inexpensive already. The public libraries are absolutely free.

Here's an idea... if we didn't bring in H2Bs then maybe companies would hire under-educated employees and train them! (Note: many H2Bs lie about their qualifications and are also under-educated.)

Also, people fail to realize that liberal arts degrees at the top colleges were designed for kids of rich parents who will just move into the company business or inherit a windfall. Those degrees aren't much help for people without connections and other advantages in the real world. There should definitely be no taxpayer-subsidized "free" college in those degrees designed for the Chelsea Clintons and Obama girls of this country.

Honestly we should not pay or guarantee loans for any Liberal Arts or Business degrees.

HEYYOU says

Anyone that can't pay cash for healthcare is a loser,dependent on insurance socialism to make up for their failure to be wealthy as a great American entrepreneur. This is America where anyone can be a success.Why do they choose failure?

👍👍👍
Every once in a while our very own HeyYou makes some sense.

SunnyvaleCA says

if we didn't bring in H2Bs

Seems like Trump wants to bring in more of these. HE wants only immigrants with skills (or money)

Not once has government ran anything saves money. So utter bullshit premise right off the bat.

marcus says

If we had free college for all, it wouldn't really be for all. Obviously you would have to earn (academemically) the right.

I doubt that. I haven't heard anyone talk about "earning" their free tuition - we already do that today with scholarships? They're talking about REAL free, and about debt cancellation.

Free college for all will become an ever increasing cost, and ever increasingly occupy our future politics. Loser students will flock to useless majors in greater numbers than ever seen before. There will be a surge of enrollments of those with loser work ethics, and they will choose loser majors so they can party on the govt's dime, and they will have no financial skin in the game. And, they will take extra years to complete because they aren't paying, further raising costs due to increased congestion and higher average years to degree completion. But, every election will be filled with reasons why "it's not the students fault they aren't making money after college. actually, the school & govt failed them. we need more $$ to "fix" it."

Race will enter the equation too. Certain groups of people will continue to fail in high numbers, and the left will say this is due to institutional racism committed by our govt. Again, more $$$ will be demanded to "fix this racist stain on our society". Costs will spiral upwards because we wont admit why they fail, and it will be the govt's duty to fix since they now fully provide this service.

And, new loser degrees (like "lesbian dance theory" - a real degree) will be created in huge numbers to serve those who just want the degree title or to party / socialize, or don't want to work hard. Again, enrollments will balloon, pressuring costs and resources that could be used for winner degrees.

I think tuition costs should be "fixed" by redirecting our current financial aid / loan system so that the money is proportionally directed towards winner majors. If we reduce funding to loser majors, there will be less graduates with the loser major, reducing supply of the loser degree, and wages for those degrees could even rise a bit and be less loserish. Subsequently, the money taken away from a loser majors and given to winner majors will increase supply of winner degrees, like STEM. Then, we will have less need to import foreigners to fill our high skill jobs. Loser degree students will not 1 for 1 trade into winner degrees to follow the redirected funding, so total enrollments would fall, likely saving money.

Our current system of telling students to goto college and pick any major sucks, and does them a disservice. Many of them pick loser degrees and think things will work out for them, and they will make top dollar salary despite the loser degree because their parents and teachers told them they were special. But they aren't, and then they go on TV and complain about crushing debt and no job openings. If we concentrated funds in some kinda of proportion to the demand for the winner degrees, it would very obviously demonstrate, and guide students into majors more likely to help them and society. Letting a student fool themselves into thinking a loser degree will work out well is a pathetic failing of society IMO.

edit - I don't really think that everyone who picks a degree like Art is a loser. Not at all, and I'm glad we have these degrees available in some supply. But, I'm just trying to emphasize that some degrees are over supplied and have low financial payoff potential, and so aren't deserving of much taxpayer funding IMO.

Booger says

#fuckingshithole