Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The health care reform bills number one goal was to reshape medicaid and medicare to make them more viable for the future. Sure it's not perfect, but at least it's a start and something to work from.
I wish that were true, Tim, but the only cost "containment" was really cost-shifting, namely paying providers less. The presence of the companion bill to undo the medicare payment reductions belies even that alleged concern.
Still, I admit that's a quibble. As you state, we agree much more than we disagree.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Swimming in LEB tears.
|
|
The bill addresses costs in one manner that keeps getting overlooked. By forcing everyone to get health insurance it effectively ends the massive amounts of cost shifting that is currently going on from the uninsured or underinsured to the insured, the healthcare workers and the taxpayers. By accounting for everyone it allows us to then work on systems in the future that can actually address the greater cost issues. The issues with cost are tangled in decades of history and aren't simple. To pretend otherwise is naive.
Something that also keeps getting overlooked is the Medicare cost panel that the President is able to appoint to help identify waste in the system, of which there is plenty. Something like 80% of the things that we do in our healthcare system have literally no evidence backing their efficacy. Many seemingly common sense intervention are turning out to be entirely ineffective or actually harmful because of the risks involved in doing procedures or in false positives.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
You know this stuff really isn't that hard to figure out if you are able to have a non-biased view.
Here it is better than I can state it:
Nonpartisan economic analyses show that while any tax increase will lower overall demand and thus reduce economic growth, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy create far less economic growth than other potential tax cuts or spending increases of equal size. So if we were to let the Bush tax cuts on top earners expire and use the money for something else—whether it’s infrastructure spending or more effectively targeted tax cuts—we could be much better off.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/07/would-raising-taxes-on-rich-hurt-the-economy.html
It makes sense. It's all about how productive for the economy those dollars are. Is it better to give the rich a tax break that may be spent on jobs OR saved or spent on luxuries, or is it better for the economy if that money goes to infrastructure or unemployment benefits where it WILL be spent?
People on the right have an ideological aversion to taxes and will believe what they want to believe, even when it's wrong, to the detriment of the country.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
You know this stuff really isn't that hard to figure out if you are able to have a non-biased view.
Here it is better than I can state it:
I hate to be picky, particularly on someone with whom I often agree, but Newsweek and Ben Adler aren't exactly unbiased sources. I'll stick with the econometric literature that says that any tax increase is contractionary -- including the article this past June in the American Economic Review by the Romers, who aren't exactly Republicans, since Christina was the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors when the article was published.
John
|
|
howlostami
Trad climber
Southern Tier, NY
|
|
John;
Entitlement programs are a tough one. It is free money for a lot of people, and there are a lot of people who are dependent on them. The sad fact is that we are going to have to phase back services and decrease aid over time. It's just the way it has to be. It's tough for a politician to vote for that. I suppose the best way to fix entitlements it to get more people employed so they start paying into the system instead of getting paid.
I suppose that's the root of my current gripe. I "jobless" recovery does nothing for getting America back onto a sustainable track. The wealth gap grows, and we don't get people back working and off of governement asssitance (not that there is anything wrong with that). So here we are after a decade of jobless growth (and some shrinkage) with high unemployment and high utilization of government services.
Personally I don't know how to stimulate job growth, technology is a prime mover, but that's just one piece of the puzzle. I think consumer and busness confidence is a big part, and fortunately those are growing, so maybe next year will bring real job growth.
-Tim
P.S. and thanks for being rational, I appreciate that.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
FROM BLACK ECON PROFESSOR AT STANFORD THOMAS SOWELL TODAY:
Can Republicans Talk?: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Guess who said the following: "It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered."
Franklin D. Roosevelt? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi?
Not even close. It was Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under conservative Republican President Calvin Coolidge.
What was Mellon's point? That high tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenues to the government. "It is time to face the facts," he said. Merely having high tax rates on large incomes will not bring in more tax revenues to the treasury, because of "the flight of capital away from taxable investments."
This was all said in 1924, in Mellon's book, "Taxation: The People's Business." Yet here we are, more than 80 years later, still not facing those facts.
It is not just a question of what Andrew Mellon said. It is a question of hard facts, easily checked in official documents available to all-- and ignored all these years.
Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later.
What happened to all those millionaires? Did they flee the country? Were they stricken with fatal diseases? Did they meet with foul play?
Not to worry. Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates that Mellon had been urging, there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled "Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925."
Where had all the income of those millionaires been hiding? In tax-exempt securities like state and local bonds, among other places. Mellon had urged Congress to end tax exemptions for such securities, even before he got them to cut tax rates. But he succeeded only with the latter, and only after a political struggle with those who made the same kinds of arguments that are still being made today by those who cry out against "tax cuts for the rich."
Still, one out of two is not bad, when it comes to getting Congress to do something that makes sense economically, rather than something that looks good politically.
The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.
As for "the rich"-- who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today-- those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after "tax cuts for the rich."
How can that be? Because high tax rates on paper, that many people avoid, often does not bring in as much tax revenue as lower tax rates that more people actually pay, after it is safe to come out of tax shelters and earn higher rates of taxable income.
The investors do this because it makes them better off, on net balance, even after they pay more money in taxes on incomes that have gone up. More important, the economy benefits when there is more investment in things that create more jobs and rising output.
None of this was unique to the 1920s. The same scenario played out again in later years, during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43 administrations.
But economic success is not the same as political success. As former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it, "Demagoguery beats data."
As long as the voters keep buying the "tax cuts for the rich" demagoguery, politicians will keep selling it. And it will keep selling as long as it goes unanswered. The question is whether today's Republicans understand that as well as Andrew Mellon did back in the 1920s.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
It is amazing that liberals still believe that raising taxes helps individuals, and increases government revenue.
Here is what I want all you libs to do -- since you believe the above nonsense, it seems that it would be your Bidenesque patriotic duty to give the government more of your money each month, and especially on April 15th. Question -- why won't you do this given your professed love for the wonders of higher taxation?
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
You have to love all those billionaire libs who hide their wealth in offshore bank accounts (e.g. the Kennedys). I wonder why they do that?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Acutally John what I was trying to say what that if I try to be as unbiased as possible (everyone is biased but those who recognize it may hopefully compensate for it) I (or anyone else) should be able to make a judgement about how resources are best allocated towards a healthy economy.
I googled some key words for my thoughts and found a quote which supported them, not the other way around of finding a biased source of info and being influenced by it.
You say:
any tax increase is contractionary
That is an incorrect ideologically based statement. Suppose the tax increase is levied on an action of shipping jobs offshore and the revenue from that tax is used to train the people in America that lost those jobs. Or suppose there is a tax increase on luxury yachts worth over $10 million dollars and those taxes go to improving infrastructure used to support business. Those tax increase are going to help the economy.
It's all about what the dollars are spent on that determines how productive they are for the economy as a whole. Money spent on infrastructure, effective education, enhanced communciations capabilities (e.g. the Internet) will help the economy. Money spent on expensive jewelry, houses, cars, yachts and trips won't help nearly as much.
Of course money spent on welfare for those able to work and other entitlements for those not deserving is a real black hole for money, BUT it's a small part of the problem percentage wise.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
It was oh so predictable to see the reactions to the deficit commission's recommendations. We need to raise taxes and cut spending to balance to budget (long term of course). But the right wingers won't allow taxes to go up and lefties won't allow spending to be cut.
Fiscaly conservative should mean balance the budget first, then cut spending and taxes further. But of course those who call themselves fiscal conservatives just want to cut spending and taxes and never fix the defecit.
|
|
Nibs
Trad climber
Humboldt, CA
|
|
John - have you seen any of the recent interviews with Reagan's budget director David Stockman? according to him maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% would be irresponsible. He further states that his fellow republicans have no fiscal credibility. I posted a link to an interview and Crowley posted a link to his op-ed piece which is scathing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html
I'm with you Fet; cut spending and raise taxes on the top 5%.
[edit] let the tax cuts expire for the top 5%.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
FROM BLACK ECON PROFESSOR AT STANFORD
Racist anti-intellectual much?
(The shouting helps.)
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
A little projection going on here heh?
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
I bet you all can't wait for a one party democracy.
If I smell what you're cookin' that is a very perceptive comment.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Accused rapist Julian Assange's release of documents appears to be having unintended consequences according to this article in the Daily Beast.
An Excerpt, quoted from Leslie Gelb:
...When you remove the gossip and obvious trivia that mesmerized the press, you clearly see what the Wikileakers never expected: A United States seriously and professionally trying to solve the most dangerous problems in a frighteningly complicated world, yet lacking the power to dictate solutions. U.S. policymakers and diplomats are shown, quite accurately, doing what they are supposed to do: ferreting out critical information from foreign leaders, searching for paths to common action, and struggling with the right amount of pressure to apply on allies and adversaries. And in most cases, the villain is not Washington, but foreign leaders escaping common action with cowardice and hypocrisy.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Brennan...Canada is next on the list....you'd better support Palin or else...rj
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of 28 April 2010.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president."
"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince."
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
The Churchill quote that "Americans always do the right thing, once they've tried everything else" comes to mind.
The last election proves BHO as rejected as one more item of,
"everything else".
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Yes, I've seen Stockman's comments -- then and now. He isn't an econometrician. The Romers are.
As for the hypothetical about a tax on outsourcing, there is no theoretical reason why such a tax couldn't increase jobs, but neither is there any theoretical reason why should a tax couldn't decrease jobs. Increasing trade increases domestic jobs, and barriers to trade decrease domestic jobs -- all other things being equal -- but all other things, including time lags, public perceptions, and information, are not equal. The only way to know whether such a tax would save jobs would be to try it and then try to measure the results.
The Romers' study is simply the most recent of many econometric studies that measure what actually happens when real taxes get raised. Their results -- that tax increases are always contractionary -- simply confirms what the other econometricians found. Their methodology was new and useful, but the main reason for that study's widespread notoriety remains that it is a peer-reviewed article in the most prestigious publication in American economics, co-authored by the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors at the time that the President was arguing for raising taxes.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
First of all Obama wants to raise taxes on INCOME over $200/$250K. A rich person's income below that threshold still enjoys the lower rates of everyone else.
John if taxes are increased all else being equal, of course it hampers the economy, resources are being removed. However that tax revenue goes to something. In this case the perception will be it is going to reducing the deficit. So the question is will the perception and effect of a lower national debt and corresponding interest payments outweigh the perception and effect of higher taxes on high incomes. As many people have said, the last 9 years have shown these high bracket lower tax rates haven't been much of a factor in keeping the economy healthy.
Perhaps the compromise solution is the best. A temporary extension. I also think I like the idea of the deficit reduction committee: simplify the tax code. Lower the rates and get rid of deductions. Rich people have the expertise to game the current system. That's why they often pay a lower effective rate than those at lower tax brackets (which is a good reason to raise their current rates).
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!