• 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!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

mpg said:
Is the difference between their tax benefits and ours worth $10k/year? If so, please be specific.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, given that the average family health insurance policy in this country runs about $14k/yr.
 
mpg said:
Is the difference between their tax benefits and ours worth $10k/year? If so, please be specific.
Click to expand...

Your the one who brought the issue up. The burden is on you to show that the difference is not worth it
 
AdamT said:
Absolutely, given that the average family health insurance policy in this country runs about $14k/yr.
Click to expand...
that's what the average family is paying? or that's what the average family would have to pay if no one got insurance from their employers?
 
AdamT said:
Absolutely, given that the average family health insurance policy in this country runs about $14k/yr.
Click to expand...
Secondly, in case you didn't notice, that chart shows DISPOSABLE income.
 
mpg said:
that's what the average family is paying? or that's what the average family would have to pay if no one got insurance from their employers?
Click to expand...

That's what the average policy costs. And just because the employer is covering part of the premium doesn't mean that you aren't paying for it. You are, in terms of lower salary.

There was an interesting article (can't remember where) talking about the well documented flat wages for working people over the last decade. What the author pointed out was that wages in fact were not flat, but what should have been a 5-6% wage increase was all eaten up by rising health care costs.

[edit: similar article from Slate]

090602_Chatter_InsPremChart.gif


More on how medical inflation ate your pay raise. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
 
AdamT said:
That's what the average policy costs. And just because the employer is covering part of the premium doesn't mean that you aren't paying for it. You are, in terms of lower salary.
Click to expand...
but the chart in my post was about wages, HELLO

Here's something else to ponder.
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One of the main criteria that the UN uses in those rankings is infant mortality. That's because poorer countries tend to have higher infant mortality due to malnourished mothers. The infant mortality rate is high in the US because of a high incidence of illicit drug use. Unless you think that low taxes are the cause of the US's high incidence of illicit drug use, our ranking shouldn't be brought down by that and we might end up being #1 if that wasn't weighted so heavily. Either way, #3 is a high ranking.
 
AdamT said:
More on how medical inflation ate your pay raise - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...

slate?

LOL!

michael kinsley?

should i ask your conservative correspondents what NEWSMAX says?
 
The Prof said:
slate?

LOL!

michael kinsley?

should i ask your conservative correspondents what NEWSMAX says?
Click to expand...

Ad hominem? Logical fallacy? LOL
 
PzKfW IVe said:
The relevant test is to point out where the Constitution gives the government the power to create SS, SSI, Medicare, etc.
Click to expand...

Doesn't say some where in the Constitution that there shall be a Congress, and the Congress shall make laws, and the Prez has to sign the law before it can go into effect? Your turn, where does it say that SS, SSI, Medicare, are unconstitutional?
 
AdamT said:
Ad hominem?
Click to expand...

of course not

mr kinsley, bless his bleeding heart, is a gentleman, has been since the days he co hosted crossfire with first novak and later pat

that was 30 years ago...

he's been very ill now ten years---parkinsons

he's just about as partisan a source, however, as you're gonna find

more power to ya, of course

but, personally, i stay away from breitbarts and redstates

cuz i know what my opponents would do to me if i pasted em

link on, laddie, link liberally
 
The Prof said:
of course not

mr kinsley, bless his bleeding heart, is a gentleman, has been since the days he co hosted crossfire with first novak and later pat

that was 30 years ago...

he's been very ill now ten years---parkinsons

he's just about as partisan a source, however, as you're gonna find

more power to ya, of course

but, personally, i stay away from breitbarts and redstates

cuz i know what my opponents would do to me if i pasted em

link on, laddie, link liberally
Click to expand...

Of course both of your replies were, by definition, ad hominem attacks. You attacked (or attempted to) the messenger and failed to address the message. And the silliest part of it is that Kinsey didn't even write the piece. :lol:
 
apdst said:
Which ones are you referring to?

Please, be specific, don't give us the usual, lame ass, "oil company subsidies", line of crapola.
Click to expand...

Read this article Oil Companies Reap Billions From Subsidies - NYTimes.com

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before
Click to expand...
.
 
TBone said:
Doesn't say some where in the Constitution that there shall be a Congress, and the Congress shall make laws, and the Prez has to sign the law before it can go into effect?
Click to expand...
Article I Sec 8 has 18 clauses that define the powers of Congress and the extent to which it may pass laws.
Which of those 18 powers specifially relates to providing for the retirement, disability of or health care for/to the people?
If you cannot find one, the power does not exist; absent a power to that effect, any such legislation violates the Constitution as it exceeds the powers granted to Congress.
:shrug:
 
PzKfW IVe said:
This is just plain silly.
The INCREASE in entitlement spending from FY2008 to FY2009 exceeds the full cost of the war in Iraq, thus far.
Click to expand...

I value our seniors, I don't value the unnecessary optional GOP war in Iraq. The GOP wanted it, now let them pay for it by giving up their precious tax cuts.

As I said we have different priorities. :sun
 
PzKfW IVe said:
This doesnt address a thing I said.


This response indicate a great ignorance of how SS works.
FICA funds go directly to SS outlays; repayment of the SSTF bonds must come from the general fund, or borrowing.
FICA revenues cannot be used to repay the SSTF bonds because the revenue represented by the SSTF bunds went into the general fund.

So, my statement stands:
The $2.6T SS "surplus" doesn't exist; the SSTF is full of IOUs that will be repaid thru borrowing - thus running up the deficits and adding to the debt.
Click to expand...


Congress can increase the FICA cap and lock the funds from general fund use. No need to increase the deficit whatsoever. :sun
 
Catawba said:
I value our seniors, I don't value the unnecessary optional GOP war in Iraq. The GOP wanted it, now let them pay for it by giving up their precious tax cuts.

As I said we have different priorities. :sun
Click to expand...

Maybe the EPA should stop spending billions on job training for jobs that don't exist?
 
apdst said:
Tell us--specifically--what subsidies the oil companies get from the government. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Did you read the article he referenced?
 
Middleground said:
I found this article in The Globe and Mail and had to share. I admit I smirk when I hear Americans complain about tax rates as I knew they pay less than most developed countries. In fact, tax rates in the US today are comparable to those of 1965! Having said that, there's no graph that shows which country gets more bang for their taxed bucks, but that is another point altogether.

I'm interested in hearing feedback and whether this surprises you or not.
Click to expand...

I hate half-assed analysis in newspapers that is published in order to foster an agenda.

There is a relationship between tax rates and economic growth that is completely ignored by this G&M article.

Let's look at the whole picture and let's begin the comparison in 1981 when Reagan took the US on a different course from the rest of the major Western economies.

In 1981, the GDP per capita of the US was $26,005
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Canada was $23,708
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Germany was $21,243
In 1981, the GDP per capita of France was $20,325
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Italy was $18,973

Let's normalize the numbers with the US set to 100.

In 1981, the GDP per capita of the US was normalized to 100
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Canada was 91.17
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Germany was 81.69
In 1981, the GDP per capita of France was 78.16
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Italy was 72.96

In 2008, the GDP per capita of the US was $43,250 (normalize to 100)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Canada was $36,123 (83.52)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Germany was $33,663 (77.83)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of France was $30,624 (70.81)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Italy was $28,245 (65.31)

So, to put the numbers into perspective.

If the US had instituted Canadian policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Canada implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $39,622, an 8.5% reduction in income.

If the US had instituted German policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Germany implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $41,209, an 4.75% reduction in income.

If the US had instituted French policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that France implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $39,182, a 9.4% reduction in income.

If the US had instituted Italian policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Italy implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $38,713, a 10.5% reduction in income.

Look at how far each of those countries has slipped over the last generation, especially Canada, which had a 1981 per capita income that was 91.17% of the US level and in 2008 it had slipped to an income level that was only 83.52% of American levels.

TAX RATES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH.

The US and Mexico, back in colonial days had nearly identical GDP per capita figures. We were equally wealthy. Over the ensuing two hundred and fifty years the US simply grew its economy a half percent or so faster than Mexico and look at the result today. We started off with equal levels of wealth and today the
 
Tigger said:
What the Euro-trash fail to realize is that the United States was never intended to be a Socialist Utopia like Europe wants to be. We as Americans do not turn to the Government to fix all of our problems; or at least we're not supposed to. Ours was intended to be a LIMITED Government, not an all-encompassing one, like they have chosen to submit to in Europe. Therefore, we are much less interested in paying into a government that we don't feel we're getting anything out of, and don't want anything from.
Click to expand...

Yep, we are more than happy having the 10th best standard of living in the world (and falling), trailing 8 european-style socialist countries.

Norway at top of prosperity index - CNN
 
RiverDad said:
TAX RATES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH.

The US and Mexico, back in colonial days had nearly identical GDP per capita figures. We were equally wealthy. Over the ensuing two hundred and fifty years the US simply grew its economy a half percent or so faster than Mexico and look at the result today. We started off with equal levels of wealth and today the
Click to expand...

Truth, and I think that is something that is under-appreciated when people talk blithely of giving up a certain percentage of growth in order to meet some policy goal.


In 1850 sub-Saharan Africa had about the same GDP per capita as America. The difference between America’s average standard of living today and that of Burundi is a mere 0.9 percent of extra growth a year. If Presidents Lincoln through Reagan had put in place policies, taxes, or regulations that slowed economic growth a mere 1 percent of what it actually was, 99 percent of us would now be living in soul-crushing poverty....

If the economy continues growing at its current annual rate, U.S. GDP will double in 90 years. If we cannot do any better than last quarter’s 0.4 percent, however, it will take almost two centuries to double. But if we added a mere 1 percent to our current annual growth rate we would double the size of the nation’s economy in 40 years. Of course, even that pales when compared to what will happen if we achieve higher growth rates. If we could realize just the normal post-recession growth and maintain it, we would more than double the size of the economy by the end of the decade.

As that may be too much to hope for, let’s cut that torrid pace in half and shoot for what we achieved during the Reagan years. Such a relatively modest rate of growth would double the size of the economy every 16 years. That would mean that when today’s newborn finishes high school our GDP would be $30 trillion. When his or her first child starts school the economy would be a whopping $60 trillion. Consider how much easier it becomes to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a host of other government goodies if there is a $60 trillion pot to draw from, compared to approximately $15 trillion today.

Forgoing a mere 1 percent growth through needless regulations wipes out close to $150 billion in potential growth in a year. That is more than all the “tax the rich” proposals the administration has put forward during the debt crisis. Through compounding, that annual loss of 1 percent would cost the economy almost $2 trillion in forgone growth by the end of the decade. Even in Washington $2 trillion still counts as a lot of money. It is, for instance, enough to pay the average salary of 8 million unemployed Americans for the next half-dozen years...
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, we are more than happy having the 10th best standard of living in the world (and falling), trailing 8 european-style socialist countries.

Norway at top of prosperity index - CNN
Click to expand...

From your article:

"Norway leads the 2010 list ranking the prosperity of 110 of the world's nations by the London analytical center Legatum Institute.

Norway also topped the 2009 rankings.

"The Prosperity Index seeks to understand how economic fundamentals, health, freedom, governance, safety, education, entrepreneurial opportunity, and social capital influence a country's economic growth and the happiness of its citizens," the group says.

Europe dominates the Top 10, taking six of the spots. The United States and Canada represent North America, while Australia and New Zealand check in from the Pacific-Asia nations."

Sure is fortunate we had Canada around to pull our ranking up! :sun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom