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

Incisor said:

Well, government funds come through taxation. If government is paying workers to build a road, those workers are still paying taxes on their government wages. Both the private and public sectors support each other, with the government supporting the private sector by way of infrastructure, business charters, and copyright protections, among other things. One really cannot exist without the other. The bargain is what services does the government provide that the private sector also provides at the best cost, and vice-versa. In some cases (health insurance), it makes more sense for the government to be the payor as multiple insurance payors do nothing to improve your care, but do much to increase cost.

Click to expand...

According to MMT we don't really need taxation. The government can just spend the money and run deficits and we won't even have to worry about the national debt because the national debt isn't real debt and if we have to pay it back, which MMT says we don't, we can always just print the money to pay it back.

Incisor said:

Right, but if the money is not circulating in the economy and increasing demand, how does that help anything?

Click to expand...

The US has the largest and greatest economy on the planet doing things exactly the way we have been doing them. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Incisor said:

Well, government funds come through taxation. If government is paying workers to build a road, those workers are still paying taxes on their government wages. Both the private and public sectors support each other, with the government supporting the private sector by way of infrastructure, business charters, and copyright protections, among other things. One really cannot exist without the other. The bargain is what services does the government provide that the private sector also provides at the best cost, and vice-versa. In some cases (health insurance), it makes more sense for the government to be the payor as multiple insurance payors do nothing to improve your care, but do much to increase cost.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't address my first point. Government does not exist without the tax payer. The tax payer can exist without the government. Not extremely well, but he can. It would be nice for some people to acknowledge that taxpayers fund government and wanting more government is just as much a matter of greed as taxpayers wanting to keep more of their own money.

I didn't feel like reading through all the pages. Did someone mention that the taxrates for the majority of middle-class workers is much higher than 25%? It's over 50%. Don't forget that there are a lot of other taxes that don't come directly from your paycheck.

Lord of Planar said:

I'm sure he has paid a considerable amount in state and federal taxes as well.

Now if you have proof to the contrary, then show us.

Are you really going to fall prey to the allegations from those who don't like him?

Your confirmation bias is showing.

You claimed he does not pay taxes. I assume you mean income taxes.

Put up or shut up please.

Click to expand...

Actually I am taking him at his word that he gave during the debates.

Moderate Right said:

According to MMT we don't really need taxation. The government can just spend the money and run deficits and we won't even have to worry about the national debt because the national debt isn't real debt and if we have to pay it back, which MMT says we don't, we can always just print the money to pay it back.

Click to expand...

The amount of federal debt has little to no effect on the economy.

Moderate Right said:

The US has the largest and greatest economy on the planet doing things exactly the way we have been doing them. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

And as we've learned the "stellar" economy doesn't really benefit everyone, just mostly those at the very top.

Incisor said:

And as we've learned the "stellar" economy doesn't really benefit everyone, just mostly those at the very top.

Click to expand...

But you're always saying how we could improve the economy when it is already the best in the world.

OpportunityCost said:

Which doesn't address my first point. Government does not exist without the tax payer. The tax payer can exist without the government.

Click to expand...

I suppose so...however without a government to do things like enforce copyright protections, the tax payer will get their intellectual property stolen (legally). Also, it would be mighty hard to get to your job without government building the infrastructure necessary to support the business, whether it's via airports and seaports, interstates, and the power grid.

It would be nice for some people to acknowledge that taxpayers fund government and wanting more government is just as much a matter of greed as taxpayers wanting to keep more of their own money.

Click to expand...

A matter of greed, how? Since the government represents all of us, how do you reconcile your argument? Is it greedy to want to spend less on health insurance via single payer than our current system?

Moderate Right said:

But you're always saying how we could improve the economy when it is already the best in the world.

Click to expand...

I've said we can improve who the economy works for. And yes, our economy can always be improved. I find it hard to argue for complacency in globalization.

Incisor said:

I've said we can improve who the economy works for. And yes, our economy can always be improved. I find it hard to argue for complacency in globalization.

Click to expand...

But you liberals are always, the economy this the economy that, the economy, the economy, the economy. If we give the poor more money it will help the economy. Why don't you just quit talking about the economy and be up front and honest and just admit that you want to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor and that you could really care less about the economy.

haymarket said:

Actually I am taking him at his word that he gave during the debates.

Click to expand...

And he said...

Lord of Planar said:

And he said...

Click to expand...

its right here

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

COOPER: Thank you. I want to give you — Mr. Trump, I want to give you the chance to respond. I just wanted to tell our viewers what she’s referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number-one issue on Facebook for the first time in the campaign. The New York Times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns. They show you claimed a $916 million loss, which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You’ve said you pay state taxes, employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered, though, a simple question. Did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?
TRUMP: Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write-offs.

Lord of Planar said:

It is not expensive to give basic care, and not pay for expensive life extending treatments.

Click to expand...

Basic health care has never been expensive. If all seniors needed were some routine wellness exams and the occasional lab work, Medicare would cost a tiny fraction of what it does. The problem is diabetes treatments, cancer treatments, heart disease treatment, joint replacements, dementia care and so on.

joG said:

It is a matter of the rules the society makes. There are really so many variations of the product/policy mixes available that that question makes no sense, implying as it does there were a simple solution. But that is the way socialist populism works. Propose simple solutions to complex problems.

Click to expand...

No the problem is that you can't provide unsubsidized health insurance at a rate that 99% of seniors could afford, because of the extremely high risk they are to insurers. If you are 25 years old and in good health an insurer knows that there is very little chance of you costing them more than a few hundred dollars a year in routine care for the next 15 years.

However, if you are 70 years old, an insurer knows that there is an extremely good chance that you will cost them a hundred thousand dollars or more in medical care over the next 10 to 15 years.

haymarket said:

its right here

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

COOPER: Thank you. I want to give you — Mr. Trump, I want to give you the chance to respond. I just wanted to tell our viewers what she’s referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number-one issue on Facebook for the first time in the campaign. The New York Times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns. They show you claimed a $916 million loss, which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You’ve said you pay state taxes, employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered, though, a simple question. Did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?
TRUMP: Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write-offs.

Click to expand...

He said he takes the write-offs allowed by law. He didn't confirm he didn't pay any taxes for all the years implied.

Did you watch the video?

There is a maximum time and amount per year that can be claimed.

If he made $500 million in that years, but lost the $916 million also, that is negative income, hence no taxes paid.

Why is that a problem?

As he pointed out. Hillary had a chance to try to change the law, but she didn't.

Moderate Right said:

But you liberals are always, the economy this the economy that, the economy, the economy, the economy. If we give the poor more money it will help the economy. Why don't you just quit talking about the economy and be up front and honest and just admit that you want to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor and that you could really care less about the economy.

Click to expand...

I've said we can improve who the economy works for. We're already giving money to the poor because the rich don't pay them enough. You guys have circular arguments; you complain that we give welfare to low income workers, but then say that wages are too high. It's hard to figure out what your position actually is.

Incisor said:

I suppose so...however without a government to do things like enforce copyright protections, the tax payer will get their intellectual property stolen (legally). Also, it would be mighty hard to get to your job without government building the infrastructure necessary to support the business, whether it's via airports and seaports, interstates, and the power grid.




A matter of greed, how? Since the government represents all of us, how do you reconcile your argument? Is it greedy to want to spend less on health insurance via single payer than our current system?

Click to expand...

Wanting government to do more because of ideology.

OpportunityCost said:

Wanting government to do more because of ideology.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't want government to do more because of ideology. I want government to do more (in the case of health insurance) because it's cheaper.

SouthernDemocrat said:

No the problem is that you can't provide unsubsidized health insurance at a rate that 99% of seniors could afford, because of the extremely high risk they are to insurers. If you are 25 years old and in good health an insurer knows that there is very little chance of you costing them more than a few hundred dollars a year in routine care for the next 15 years.

However, if you are 70 years old, an insurer knows that there is an extremely good chance that you will cost them a hundred thousand dollars or more in medical care over the next 10 to 15 years.

Click to expand...

That isn't quite true, as any health insurance professional will tell you. But, if you frit you money on other thing and not on sensible insurance from an early age, you will need subsidies to live, when you are old. And the fact that we have set ourselves up with Social Security and insurance for the elderly or free treatment in emergency rooms or for the poor.... well, we take a lot of the incentive out of responsible behavior.

joG said:

That isn't quite true, as any health insurance professional will tell you. But, if you frit you money on other thing and not on sensible insurance from an early age, you will need subsidies to live, when you are old. And the fact that we have set ourselves up with Social Security and insurance for the elderly or free treatment in emergency rooms or for the poor.... well, we take a lot of the incentive out of responsible behavior.

Click to expand...

So let's say you do away with the requirement that emergency rooms treat anyone needing lifesaving care. Are you going to hire nothing but sociopaths for admitting so they can turn away anyone uninsured that shows up with a heart attack or a traumatic injury? Seriously, who are you going to have in charge of admitting there in the ER that would say hey I know you are having a heart attack, but no care for you because you don't have health coverage.

You are living a dream world. The reason why people can get care in an emergency room even though they don't have insurance is because no one could sleep at night if they turned someone away needing critical care. The reason why seniors have to have some kind of public funded insurance or subsidies to buy insurance is because they are old, and a very high risk to insurers, thus their rates would be so high that few could afford it and that is if any insurers were willing to insure them in the first place.

SouthernDemocrat said:

So let's say you do away with the requirement that emergency rooms treat anyone needing lifesaving care. Are you going to hire nothing but sociopaths for admitting so they can turn away anyone uninsured that shows up with a heart attack or a traumatic injury? Seriously, who are you going to have in charge of admitting there in the ER that would say hey I know you are having a heart attack, but no care for you because you don't have health coverage.

You are living a dream world. The reason why people can get care in an emergency room even though they don't have insurance is because no one could sleep at night if they turned someone away needing critical care. The reason why seniors have to have some kind of public funded insurance or subsidies to buy insurance is because they are old, and a very high risk to insurers, thus their rates would be so high that few could afford it and that is if any insurers were willing to insure them in the first place.

Click to expand...

I see you don't like playing with ideas not in the initial box of tricks.
But there are many ways to tackle your objection. One would be to treat getting treatment without funding a crime like theft or fraud and making the person, her husband and her parents liable for payment. There are other property rights structures one could go through and calculate, which would be produce the most efficient frontier or highest general welfare. We can't do that here, but the arguments are very different than the emotional ones you are using. The types you are using are not very helpful and will tend to make a mess of policies and produce wasteful programs like it has here.

Incisor said:

I've said we can improve who the economy works for. We're already giving money to the poor because the rich don't pay them enough. You guys have circular arguments; you complain that we give welfare to low income workers, but then say that wages are too high. It's hard to figure out what your position actually is.

Click to expand...

Nobody has complained that we give welfare to low income workers or said that wages are too high. We have said that welfare should not be a long term commitment or that it should be generation after generation. It should be used as a tool to help the poorer improve their lives so that they won't need it long term, not as a never ending wage subsidy without addressing the root causes of why they are poor in the first place. How can you debate when you are not honest in the first place, including admitting that you want to improve who the economy works for by taking more from the rich and giving the poor more? You could care less about the actual economy itself, just as long as the poorer get more. So, you should quit talking about the economy and using it as a scapegoat for wealth redistribution.

TurtleDude said:

Life is regressive. Buying food is regressive, buying anything is regressive. BFD. why do you think all taxes should be progressive? there is no rational argument for that.

Click to expand...

The easiest arguments to beat are arguments with the proposition of 'none' or 'all'. Now an intelligent proposition might include the notion that you don't agree with the argument that we should have progressive taxation, but telling us there is NO rational argument is wrong and therefore irrational.

The argument for progressive taxation is that is more likely delivers equal pain to those taxed; an equitable distribution of the burden. Again, our income tax system taxes discretionary income (income after basic living expenses). The progressive system is lighter on those with the least discretionary income and taxes those with greater discretionary income at at a greater rate. The theory is that the "pain" of paying the tax is distributed equally.

Secondly, taxing those at the lower end of income spectrum at a relatively greater rate than those at the higher end is to tax those with a higher propensity to consume greater than those with a lower propensity. The significance of this is that taking money from people that drive demand (higher propensity to consume) tends to slow an economy when compared to taxing those that would otherwise save rather than consume. So, from an economic stimulus stand point, a regressive tax tends to slow the economy.

Now, those are my rational arguments, here are many others:

https://mic.com/articles/3150/three-simple-reasons-why-we-need-progressive-tax-rates#.j2dELzUZV
Economist's View: Why Tax Rates Should be Progressive
Reducing income inequality is in everyone?s interest; the argument for progressive taxes | Northwest Voices | Seattle Times


There is, indeed, many rational arguments in favor of progressive taxation. That fact you do not like the arguments or like the end proposition does not change that fact.

joG said:

I see you don't like playing with ideas not in the initial box of tricks.
But there are many ways to tackle your objection. One would be to treat getting treatment without funding a crime like theft or fraud and making the person, her husband and her parents liable for payment. There are other property rights structures one could go through and calculate, which would be produce the most efficient frontier or highest general welfare. We can't do that here, but the arguments are very different than the emotional ones you are using. The types you are using are not very helpful and will tend to make a mess of policies and produce wasteful programs like it has here.

Click to expand...

Hospitals already make the individual's spouse or parents (if they are a minor) liable for payment. They will even put a lean against any sort of settlement they have. The problem is you can't get water from a rock. If someone shows up at an emergency room needing critical care and racks up 50k or more in Medical bills, then chances are their spouse or parents don't have that kind of money and thus the hospital goes unpaid.