Do You Believe MFA Would Not Cost Middle Class Taxpayers One Penny?

Nap said:

I'm sure there are some employers that will pass on some of those savings to their employees, however I'm not going to gamble on something like that when I have a job i love with great benefits. Worst case scenario I end up paying 5k more in taxes with likely worse coverage/care and in the best case I get roughly the same care with little or no change financially so the risk is too great for something that is likely to effect me negatively even in the better scenarios.

Click to expand...

I don't think any of the other cuts employers get are passed along unless they have to pass them along for some reason.

I think the Cato study found that the overall level of expenses for the country would go down a sizable amount. I forget how many billions.

So, for you the issue would how the expenses were apportioned among the relevant parties?

Ikari said:

I don't necessarily believe that the Democrats are all that competent.

Click to expand...

They're so damn Stockholmed because of the weapons grade tsunami of Republican propaganda that they're actually afraid to open their mouths and put two coherent sentences together.

Waddy said:

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2018 Update

Those "rich" corporations and individuals paid for most of that infrastructure. They pay for most everything else besides. The lower 50% don't pay a dime in federal income tax; in fact, lots of them get money handed out to them at tax time. Once again, I'll remind you that businesses don't pay taxes; they pass them on to the end user, namely the consumer. If they don't, they go out of business fairly quickly.

BTW; those "rich" tax breaks are available to everyone, except most people don't make enough money to use them. My home is paid off, so I don't get a mortgage deduction. The darling of the left, Warren Buffet, pays less in tax than his secretary. He often brags on that. The reason he pays almost zero is his company, Berkshire Hathaway, doesn't pay dividends, which are taxable at the stockholders personal rate. But if no dividends, no tax. He also routinely buys a $1 million dollar life insurance policy, which costs him about $187K. He donates that policy to charity, and can then deduct the full $1 million. Nice deal if you can work it.

Want to eliminate charitable deductions? Go for it.

Click to expand...

We won't go any further until you back up your comment that most Americans don't pay taxes but instead get money back from the fed as a tax return.at tax time.

Ikari said:

I don't necessarily believe that the Democrats are all that competent.

Click to expand...

Funny from a group that put scum bag in office. The conversation kind of just stops at that point.Good try though, Kind of pitiful but at least you are trying '

Simon W. Moon said:

I don't think any of the other cuts employers get are passed along unless they have to pass them along for some reason.

I think the Cato study found that the overall level of expenses for the country would go down a sizable amount. I forget how many billions.

So, for you the issue would how the expenses were apportioned among the relevant parties?

Click to expand...

Ideally, I think a free market is the optimal solution but some have this strange idea that more government is needed to fix a problem that more government created.

As far as how the expenses are apportioned, I find it both ironic and amusing that the same people that hate corporations and are allegedly champions of the working class support Medicare for All when ultimately the big winners should that be put in place are the corporations they hate.

Waddy said:

Most bonus' are performance based. You want the people who bring in the business to be taxed at 90%? What then is their incentive to grow the business, or do a better job than the next guy? Besides, they are already taxed at the maximum personal rate. You want to "massively" increase corporate taxes overall. You know ALL business taxes end up in the cost of the product. So you, as a consumer, will be paying those taxes.

While I was teaching school I also ran a small construction company. I had usually around six guys working for me. They stuck with me because I kept them busy year 'round. And if they brought a job in early and below budget I always paid out a bonus. Some years I made more money in construction than I did teaching. That was my bonus. Do you see any problems with that system? It seemed to work out well for all concerned. Scale that up and it's called a corporation. BTW; when my costs went up so did my cost estimate for the job. The customer paid ALL my taxes; it was included in the estimate. I don't work for free. That's how you go out of business.

Click to expand...

You see in terms of who I should care about , I really don't give a **** at all about your CEO's of American corporations. Ya jacking them around as far as income and wages and bonuses are concerned sounds like fun to me. Have you ever wondered how American CEO's get 10 times as much in Income wages and bonuses of any other country in the world.. Did you know that in The rights/Bushes' almost total collapse of our economy and country. through Bush and Obama, Goldman Sachs got 10 billion to keep them on sound ground. That year they handed out 10 billion in bonuses. It worked out to $175,000.00 per person who worked for Goldman Sachs..Did you know that united healthcare gave there criminally minded CEO a golden parachute of 1.2 billion dollars. when he left the company.
Lets put this into a historic perspective, This countries first economists was Adam Smith. He helped define the word capitalist and what he said, is there are times when the market doesn't set prices that business does and it has to be addressed . Why because that's not capitalism. Nor are 1.2 billion dollar bonuses.

Nap said:

I'm sure there are some employers that will pass on some of those savings to their employees, however I'm not going to gamble on something like that when I have a job i love with great benefits. Worst case scenario I end up paying 5k more in taxes with likely worse coverage/care and in the best case I get roughly the same care with little or no change financially so the risk is too great for something that is likely to effect me negatively even in the better scenarios.

Click to expand...

Laws are made to make good citizens , there are ways to make business distribute the heath insurance cost to wages . So we can take care of that real easy.

Simon W. Moon said:

Nice.
My employer pays just over half of my health care coverage.
But, mine runs closer to $500 a month.

Am I correct in understanding that you are dubious about your employer passing any of their savings on to you if their coverage burden significantly decreased?

Click to expand...

Force the ones that are ass holes about it. No problem.

iguanaman said:

So employers will need to pay for M4A too. They will not be off the hook for their share. This is Sanders plan....




https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be as kind as Sanders is proposing , I say make them pay 100% of what they are spending on healthcare plans for their employees. When we switch to Medicare for all.

Nap said:

The issue is that for the majority of middle class workers, employers pay the majority of their healthcare costs so they end up with just the tax hike. For instance, I pay roughly $500 annually for my healthcare coverage so we are talking about a dramatic increase to my cost of living which means any politician that so much as hints at M4A is going to drive me to vote for pretty much ANYONE else.

Click to expand...

Tell me how there is going to be a tax hike. Start with the fact that last year 3.65 trillion was spent on healthcare in the US , point being you start at anything over 3.65 trillion which is already in the system and paid for. The CBO says that the next decade will cost 34 trillion to pay for healthcare in the US. Ok we already have 36.5 trillion in the pot. In actuality its even way sweeter then that, We will pay 34 trillion with medicare for all or with the expected cost increases taken into account with our medicare for all we will be spending 52 million. Tell me which one looks better, paying 54 trillion for the decade through personally paying for it , insurance paying for it and government paying for it. Or pay out the 34 trillion which we already have paid for for medicare for all. Go out get your numbers they are easily available. Come back with a supported argument but Not with the answer "no your wrong just because I say so, That isn't a answer.

Simon W. Moon said:

Healthcare already costs us money.
So, it's not really about getting anything for free.
It's about whether there is a way to get more bang for the buck.

Will the folks trying to squeeze profit from non-optional treatments take a bigger chunk of the pie than the inefficiencies of govt involvement?

IIrc, the exceptionally liberal Cato institute did a study and decided the US would save money overall.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you were joking but your talking to a group that are to lean on the brain cells to recognize that it is a joke. Cato Institute is a very conservative source. For me anyway , it is generally considered middle right.

RetiredUSN said:

LOL


I wonder where we heard this before. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Do you realize how stupid a person looks who comes in here and says to a fact filled comment that no you are wrong because I say so. First there is not one reason under god's blue sky why anyone would just take your word for anything, , you seem like quite a bull ****ter to me actually. Your a dying breed here, the last of the people who will support your **** dog leader. Scraping the bottom.
Many of us have noticed that the right wingers that had something to say , are just not here defending the pile of **** anymore , now we deal with just the dregs.

Waddy said:

That's how gambling works.

Click to expand...

And now you know why, to the average working American, Wall Street really is only about as important as a local casino, because it IS a casino.

jbander said:

We won't go any further until you back up your comment that most Americans don't pay taxes but instead get money back from the fed as a tax return.at tax time.

Click to expand...

Funny, wants tax cuts for Americans, gets mad when it's discovered that almost half do not make enough to sustain federal tax liability, wants to blame low paid Americans and call them freeloaders, still thinks all taxation is theft, though.

I. Just. Can't. :lamo

jbander said:

Tell me how there is going to be a tax hike. Start with the fact that last year 3.65 trillion was spent on healthcare in the US , point being you start at anything over 3.65 trillion which is already in the system and paid for. The CBO says that the next decade will cost 34 trillion to pay for healthcare in the US. Ok we already have 36.5 trillion in the pot. In actuality its even way sweeter then that, We will pay 34 trillion with medicare for all or with the expected cost increases taken into account with our medicare for all we will be spending 52 million. Tell me which one looks better, paying 54 trillion for the decade through personally paying for it , insurance paying for it and government paying for it. Or pay out the 34 trillion which we already have paid for for medicare for all. Go out get your numbers they are easily available. Come back with a supported argument but Not with the answer "no your wrong just because I say so, That isn't a answer.

Click to expand...

Even if we assume those numbers are correct, what you fail to account for is who is currently paying that price and who will be paying for it under the new system. Currently the bulk of healthcare costs are the burdens of corporations and large businesses, switching to M4A will transfer the bulk of those costs from the corporations onto the middle class. It is funny to see so many on the Left buying into "Trickle down economics" as the biggest winners from Medicare for All will be the corporations who are trying everything to get out of paying for healthcare.

jbander said:

Laws are made to make good citizens , there are ways to make business distribute the heath insurance cost to wages . So we can take care of that real easy.

Click to expand...

How liberal of you to make good citizens by government force........

Edit: Also, Laws only make criminals good citizens are made through community and culture.

jbander said:

We won't go any further until you back up your comment that most Americans don't pay taxes but instead get money back from the fed as a tax return.at tax time.

Click to expand...

I said about half pay no federal income tax. I stand by that. And many not only do not pay any federal income tax, they actually get a check back from the government; you know, money from actual taxpayers.

Almost half of Americans won’t pay federal income tax

Click to expand...

Almost half of Americans won’t pay federal income tax

So yeah, those upper 50% of individuals who are actually paying taxes, and corporations built most of that infrastructure you complain about. Maybe send them a thank you card?

jbander said:

You see in terms of who I should care about , I really don't give a **** at all about your CEO's of American corporations. Ya jacking them around as far as income and wages and bonuses are concerned sounds like fun to me. Have you ever wondered how American CEO's get 10 times as much in Income wages and bonuses of any other country in the world.. Did you know that in The rights/Bushes' almost total collapse of our economy and country. through Bush and Obama, Goldman Sachs got 10 billion to keep them on sound ground. That year they handed out 10 billion in bonuses. It worked out to $175,000.00 per person who worked for Goldman Sachs..Did you know that united healthcare gave there criminally minded CEO a golden parachute of 1.2 billion dollars. when he left the company.
Lets put this into a historic perspective, This countries first economists was Adam Smith. He helped define the word capitalist and what he said, is there are times when the market doesn't set prices that business does and it has to be addressed . Why because that's not capitalism. Nor are 1.2 billion dollar bonuses.

Click to expand...

Well, you'll miss all those companies when they're gone...which will be the case if such stupid laws are ever enacted.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

And now you know why, to the average working American, Wall Street really is only about as important as a local casino, because it IS a casino.

View attachment 67268041

Click to expand...

Capitalism is a casino. Has always been a casino. And it has brought more people out of poverty worldwide than any other economic system before or since. The best gamblers make a lot of money, the rest fold their hands and lose all their chips. The American worker should care; his/her retirement depends on that stock market. But you're right, Americans generally don't care....they sit back fat, dumb and happy and then panic when the stocks crash and they lose that retirement. What happened?... I dunno... maybe should have been paying attention?????

Back in 2008 I watched as friends lost half the value of their 401's. It meant some could never retire. My wife handles our money. She had most of it invested in Chinese related stocks, so we didn't get burned in that crash. She's always been smart with money. Our ROTH is one of our main sources of income. She follows the market closely, which means I don't have to. Often she's glued to that market app on her laptop and/or IPad. She says no one will watch your money as close as you will. I guess she's not an "average working American".

Most reasonable people realize Capitalism must be well regulated, especially to keep the playing field level. But if you don't like Capitalism, what system do you think is better? Right now we do have some problems to work out with Capitalism; we are in the midst of a technology revolution, and technology usually favors capital over labor. We see this globally. But we need to be very careful what policies we adopt; we might not like the consequences. Especially the unintended consequences.

jbander said:

Funny from a group that put scum bag in office. The conversation kind of just stops at that point.Good try though, Kind of pitiful but at least you are trying '

Click to expand...

What do you mean "from a group that put scum bag in office"? I'm not Republican nor did I vote for Trump.

Nice try though, kind of pitiful, but at least you're deflecting like a partisan.

Deuce said:

Honestly, it's the other way around. Right wingers are arguing semantics. Technically the taxes go up, but if my taxes go up 5000 dollars and insurance premiums go down by 6000 dollars, why the **** do I care about the taxes I'm paying? My cost of living just dropped by a thousand dollars.

Click to expand...

I get that it's a gotcha question, but by sighing and saying "ok, I promise your taxes won't go up," she's feeding into it.

Nap said:

Ideally, I think a free market is the optimal solution but some have this strange idea that more government is needed to fix a problem that more government created.
As far as how the expenses are apportioned, I find it both ironic and amusing that the same people that hate corporations and are allegedly champions of the working class support Medicare for All when ultimately the big winners should that be put in place are the corporations they hate.

Click to expand...

Currently, hospitals won't/can't give you a realistic estimate of expected costs.
Also healthcare is not something you can do w/o indefinitely.
So, this is not a free market to start.

The govt has nothing to do with the fact that we will require healthcare at some point.

So the question isn't really free market or not.
There's not actually a free market when consumers are forced to purchase.

The question is more simple than that.
How can we get better bang for our buck when it comes to healthcare expenses?

We are the only developed country in the world without universal health care

we spend twice as much money per capita on health care as the rest of the developed world with universal health care

We certainly don't rank near the top in health care compared with the rest of the developed world with universal health care

Like most things in america it is all about the money. Profits for the insurance companies, big pharma and HMO's. We have the best health care in the world if you can afford it. If you can't then you are in trouble.

Waddy said:

Capitalism is a casino. Has always been a casino. And it has brought more people out of poverty worldwide than any other economic system before or since. The best gamblers make a lot of money, the rest fold their hands and lose all their chips. The American worker should care; his/her retirement depends on that stock market. But you're right, Americans generally don't care....they sit back fat, dumb and happy and then panic when the stocks crash and they lose that retirement. What happened?... I dunno... maybe should have been paying attention?????

Back in 2008 I watched as friends lost half the value of their 401's. It meant some could never retire. My wife handles our money. She had most of it invested in Chinese related stocks, so we didn't get burned in that crash. She's always been smart with money. Our ROTH is one of our main sources of income. She follows the market closely, which means I don't have to. Often she's glued to that market app on her laptop and/or IPad. She says no one will watch your money as close as you will. I guess she's not an "average working American".

Most reasonable people realize Capitalism must be well regulated, especially to keep the playing field level. But if you don't like Capitalism, what system do you think is better? Right now we do have some problems to work out with Capitalism; we are in the midst of a technology revolution, and technology usually favors capital over labor. We see this globally. But we need to be very careful what policies we adopt; we might not like the consequences. Especially the unintended consequences.

Click to expand...

Why are you attempting to turn me into a hater of capitalism when you know better?
First, I said that Wall Street is a pure casino.
That doesn't mean that I think that the concept of a capitalist stock market is bad, it means that I think it needs to be run a lot better than the average casino, and in this day and age it is a Trump casino, and that does not bode well at all if past history is any indicator.

And even the casinos have better regulations than Wall Street.
To paraphrase Meatloaf, if money truly is LOVE, then what I am attempting to say is, there needs to be a point at which it's right to say

"I'll do anything for "LOVE", but I won't do that."

(And money isn't love, but for Donald Trump, it is. Just an aside...He literally WILL do ANYTHING for money.)

The best gamblers make a lot of money and the rest fold their hands and lose their chips?
Sorry, but there's a whole lot more to running an economy than just throwing our hands up in the air and saying "Welp, them's the breaks, tough luck" because while Wall Street may be big on gambling, for millions of working families and small business owners (and I mean actual SMALL businesses, not WSJ definition, which includes Apple, Inc.) this is not a gamble, and those people NEED PROTECTION from the more rapacious aspects of the great big casino.

If you're 100% dyed in the wool anarcho-capitalist, then unfortunately that's a gap I can't cross.
We have fire regulations for a reason. Capitalism is a lot like fire, and while fire is a very useful tool, at times it can be hazardous to tangle with, thus we have those fire safety regulations.
So while you may (if you're anarcho) see nothing wrong with smoking around the gas pump and lighting matches to check the fuel level in the tank, or while you might say "them's the breaks", I see a need for some common sense regulation and ethics.

And by the way, make no mistake about it, the technology revolution that you speak of is going to eventually make a vast swath of human labor, even skilled labor, irrelevant and obsolete. There's your unintended consequences.
So while you're talking about how great your ROTH is, that's wonderful for you but it's an awfully narrow way to look at how the rest of our society is forced to make do.

A Roth IRA, yeah sure...lots of Americans have that, and even more do not.
And it's not because "most Americans are lazy" or "made poor choices"...our economy has been making poor choices ever since we threw the middle class overboard forty-something years ago in favor of catering to the CEO class.
And for the average working American family, that forty year Wolf of Wall Street wet dream has translated into a lower quality of life despite productivity increases that boggle the mind.
And that's why most Americans don't care.
It's not because they are "fat, dumb and happy" as you say, but because they are not a part of that economic class and see no way forward for them to ever BE part of it.

Hey, we're all glad your retirement is all figured out but the "I got mine, screw you" approach not only isn't working, it's starting to piss off the birds on the bottom rung, who are sick and tired of being crapped on.

Moderate Right said:

Remember, if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Now Elizabeth Warren is saying that MFA would not cost middle class taxpayers one penny. Do you believe her?


UPDATE 6-Democrat Warren: Medicare for All would not raise U.S. middle-class taxes '''one penny'''

Click to expand...

There is no way we can have MFA without the middle class footing some or most of the costs, either in the form of taxes or very high deductibles. The question is in what ways will healthcare change when government is the ONLY (or by and large) payer of this portion of the economy. As single payer government will have complete power over that industry and will be able to control it as it deems necessary. It is very unlikely that we will see a reduction in costs and an improvement in care. Also how much would a President Warren increase immigration? If President Warren = massive influx of impoverished migrants from all over the world then that will absolutely impact both the costs and quality of care for many Americans.