• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Total taxation in the US is one of the lowest in the developed world

OpportunityCost said:
A 10 year old would have gotten it by now.
Click to expand...
Agreed, so the question is, why is it impossible for you to go back and understand that I was not focused on manufacturing workers, I was focused on the broad-based wage gains FOR ALL during the 30 great years....as opposed to the shift wage gains going to the top quintiles after 1980.
The wage gains ended when the profit went down when US manufacturing was not domestic.
Click to expand...
No, wage gains shifted to the top quintiles due to changes in labor laws and union influence, tax policy.
When all factions of manufacturing were being destroyed by imports, from resources to the final profit. A service industry and the number of jobs employed at high end wages will not sustain the US economy.
Click to expand...
Yer just spinning off on unsubstantiated claims, devoid of reality and ignoring what I was speaking to.
 
upsideguy said:
Ok... $75K, with a $500K house and $125K mortgage... other income and expenses cut commensurate with income.

Result: All in taxes about 23% (29% in you want to believe employer FICA/med is your money)

View attachment 67211953
Click to expand...

Unfortunately your property taxes in that equation are too low. 500k house is going to give you $10k+ property taxes in NJ
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Agreed, so the question is, why is it impossible for you to go back and understand that I was not focused on manufacturing workers, I was focused on the broad-based wage gains FOR ALL during the 30 great years....as opposed to the shift wage gains going to the top quintiles after 1980. No, wage gains shifted to the top quintiles due to changes in labor laws and union influence, tax policy.Yer just spinning off on unsubstantiated claims, devoid of reality and ignoring what I was speaking to.
Click to expand...

Of course I was, you don't even know how to reply to what I'm driving at. You don't even have a coherent reply. Unions screwed themselves when they hooked up to just one side of the political fence, how did they think that was going to go?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Of course I was, you don't even know how to reply to what I'm driving at. You don't even have a coherent reply. Unions screwed themselves when they hooked up to just one side of the political fence, how did they think that was going to go?
Click to expand...
Again, you have no idea what my point was from the start and yer just continuing to blather on without end.
 
Critter7r said:
Yes. Just because they "think" they've been hurt by the ACA doesn't mean they really have been hurt.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you are allowing your judgment of the policy to override their personal experiences for political reasons.


Great example ... Did the premiums charged by their insurance company go up because of the ACA? Or did they just go up because they have gone up every year for the past 30 years and now there's something to blame it on, so they say "yes, I feel like the ACA has hurt me".
Click to expand...

Rates on the exchanges increased by around 100% for several states. I think the ACA holds sway on responsibility for their own exchanges.



Exactly.

Saying that one "feels like" the ACA has hurt them is not any sort of indication that the ACA has actually done so. Maybe it did, maybe it's just a misperception. Which is why I said he should just allow that some people SAY that they FEEL the ACA has hurt them when it really hasn't, instead of repeatedly responding with "but they feel like it has hurt them, so it has". Because, well, no sh!t they FEEL that way, but where's the proof that their feelings are based in reality?
Click to expand...

Why do you think people cant make their own judgment in how a law affects them? Why do you have such low expectations of people? Could it be political? I bet it could.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No, I have made a point you are refusing to address. Why is that?
Click to expand...
You made a point, it wasn't a counterpoint, I'm not obligated to address it when it tangential to my argument. Someday you might learn how debate works....after you learn basic English skills.
 
Incisor said:
Not sure where you're pulling that from, but OK I'll bite...how were they harmed? Because they can still get health insurance. If they choose not to, then that's not the fault of the ACA.
Click to expand...

Its from the Gallup poll that was conducted regarding the ACA and its been quoted on this site numerous times.

Increased premiums, increased up front costs and deductions, loss of Doctor network, loss of hospital or health care network, coverage that does not benefit them that they have to pay for, increased medical costs for tests, increased prosthesis costs, being dropped from employer health care, on and on.

All I ever see is how great it is, every time actual downsides are talked about, its anecdotal and its not as widespread or it would have happened anyway. Once you decide to make a law that impacts that many people, that law becomes a responsible factor in what goes WRONG as well as what goes right.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You made a point, it wasn't a counterpoint, I'm not obligated to address it when it tangential to my argument. Someday you might learn how debate works....after you learn basic English skills.
Click to expand...

It isn't tangential to your argument. That's been the point and why you don't want to address it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So your argument is all the drops in manufacturing are from automation? Just making certain before we go further.
Click to expand...

All the drops? What dropped? Are you even aware of U.S. manufacturing output in a historical sense?
 
joG said:
Medicare and Medicaid together with the emergency room rule define a very bad motivational system.It is perfectly rational to decide not to take out insurance, knowing you will get insurance or be saved, if there is a problem.
Click to expand...

Emergency room care for the uninsured doesn't provide insulin, metformin, dialysis, chemotherapy, physical therapy, etc.... If you break a limb, suffer a heart attack, or have a stroke, they can temporarily stabilize you. But what happens after?

The high costs of health care later in life is why the elderly should get insurance before they are elderly. My parents took out my first personal insurance, when I was 16. I have kept it ever since. It is structured so that the premium as you grow older remains the same as that of younger persons.
Click to expand...

That's not how health insurance works.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sigh. Employment.
Click to expand...

U.S. manufacturing output is at it's historic high... 85% more manufacturing since 1987 with 5 million fewer people employed in manufacturing.

fredgraph.png


:lol:

I look forward to wherever you are going with this.
 
Kushinator said:
U.S. manufacturing output is at it's historic high... 85% more manufacturing since 1987 with 5 million fewer people employed in manufacturing.

fredgraph.png


:lol:

I look forward to wherever you are going with this.
Click to expand...

Its the employment issue that bothers me and we lost a lot more employment before 1988.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its the employment issue that bothers me and we lost a lot more employment before 1988.
Click to expand...

Yep, we also produced a lot less manufactured products before 1987. So tell me, why are you against automation as you type from a device that is 1000 times more powerful than what was available in 1987 at 1/5 the price?
 
Kushinator said:
U.S. manufacturing output is at it's historic high... 85% more manufacturing since 1987 with 5 million fewer people employed in manufacturing.

fredgraph.png


:lol:

I look forward to wherever you are going with this.
Click to expand...
Looks like manufacturing per capita went down by 7.2% from 2008 to 2016, since an extrapolation of the 2000 and 2010 census has the population increasing by 7.7%.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Looks like manufacturing per capita went down by 7.2% from 2008 to 2016, since an extrapolation of the 2000 and 2010 census has the population increasing by 7.7%.
Click to expand...

Sure. That was because of the great recession. But from 2010 to 2016, manufacturing output per capita has increased throughout the expansion. What about manufacturing output per hour?

fredgraph.png
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, manufacturing employment in the US did not "drop"....until @ the year 2000.

So again, yer attributing it to the 30 great years timeline....is off by 20 years.
Click to expand...

You should be tired of being wrong.

https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/serie...tm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=Alfred

Peak employment for manufacturing was 79 or 80. Look at it from another perspective and manufacturing as a percentage of total employment has cratered in a big way over 60 years.
 
Kushinator said:
Sure. That was because of the great recession. But from 2010 to 2016, manufacturing output per capita has increased throughout the expansion. What about manufacturing output per employee hour?

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Do you ever get tired of deflecting with statistics and graphs that don't address what I'm speaking about?
 
For reference:

fredgraph.png
 
OpportunityCost said:
Or maybe you are allowing your judgment of the policy to override their personal experiences for political reasons.
Click to expand...

maybe. But instead of offering proof that those people are correct in their assessment of the effects of the ACA on their situations (i.e. that they were somehow "hurt" by it), Jaeger just keeps offering up the same response as proof that the response is correct.

Rates on the exchanges increased by around 100% for several states. I think the ACA holds sway on responsibility for their own exchanges.
Click to expand...

Without context, this means nothing. If one previously didn't have insurance, then a 100% increase would be expected when one buys insurance.

Context matters. One can prove both that Obama increased the debt more than Bush, and that Bush increased the debt more than Obama, depending on the context.

Why do you think people cant make their own judgment in how a law affects them? Why do you have such low expectations of people? Could it be political? I bet it could.
Click to expand...

Because I deal with the public everyday and I see firsthand examples of misperception.
 
Critter7r said:
maybe. But instead of offering proof that those people are correct in their assessment of the effects of the ACA on their situations (i.e. that they were somehow "hurt" by it), Jaeger just keeps offering up the same response as proof that the response is correct.



Without context, this means nothing. If one previously didn't have insurance, then a 100% increase would be expected when one buys insurance.

Context matters. One can prove both that Obama increased the debt more than Bush, and that Bush increased the debt more than Obama, depending on the context.



Because I deal with the public everyday and I see firsthand examples of misperception.
Click to expand...

OMG. The cost of the policies on the exchanges went up 100% or more. Try just reading what's there not trying to rationalize it for political cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom