The "Tax The Rich" Delusion on the Left

[SheWolf]

That doesn't strike me as too indefensible a claim at all. Government can't love you, hold you, provide you with emotional or spiritual warmth, or sacrifice of itself for others. Only individuals can do this. Government can affect transfer payments, which might be institutionalized by people who were acting out of compassion, but the government itself is merely offering money on one end, and coercion on the other.



Whether or not someone is willing to give their own money is absolutely a more valid measurement of their compassion than whether or not they are willing to vote for government to take away someone else's money for the purpose of then giving it to a third party.

You're comments are getting so naive and outrageous, and it's to the point that I am feeling offended. You write as if the existence of government can only be transactional and monetary based. Do you seriously not comprehend that the government plays important roles that are not transactional?

I am not one to argue about compassion, but your point of view is absurd and naive to the fact that governments can do more harm to you than tax. Governments can and have starved, tortured, and murdered people.

I really don't find it useful to debate compassion in such context, but your comments are naive and suggest you don't see world governments as having any other use than taxing and spending.

I know right wingers who talk like the government should be moral and represent God through military action and policy. I have heard all kinds of postions, and I think most people want their government to be fair, moral, uncorrupt, recognize basic rights, and not make their lives more difficult, but I have never heard somebody talk like the government is just about monetary transactions and isolated from the human condition and sense of right or wrong.

 

[SheWolf]

We will soon see if the House demorat majority actually demands a tax increase on "the rich" or simply that their favorite increased federal spending gets included in the (bipartisan?) 'budget' deal.

Soon we will see what people will do once faced with their SSN and Medicare bankrupting

 

[SheWolf]

Actually I was pretty consistent on attacking Trump for being a big-spender since, oh, he started running in the Primary. Republicans should have pushed to reform our entitlements, not expanded our spending.



I like how you completely fail to address the point that the MASSIVE programs being proposed have no way of even being close to paid for....

....unless we massively hike taxes on the middle class.



That's deeply unfortunate - I'm sorry that the Affordable Care Act has turned out to be not so affordable for you .

So if we increased the payroll tax to ~50% (one of the options), or slapped an ~80% sales tax on everything you buy (another option), that would be easier on you than paying for your own health insurance?

If i paid 10,000 in taxes and got superb healthcare, instead of 20,000 a year and paying out the pocket over 100 for every doctor visit, then I would obviously benefit from such a system.

Our system is getting so much more expensive than the Canadian and European style system than it is. That yes, most people would save money. It would be a tax instead of a healthcare premium.... not a big deal imo

I was just talking to somebody last night. She is looking into getting out of her employer based health insurance, because paying the premium is more expensive than just going to the doctor with no insurance.

If the insurance mandate is lifted, the insurance industry could very well collapse. The system is not sustainable

 

[ttwtt78640]

Soon we will see what people will do once faced with their SSN and Medicare bankrupting

If (when?) we arrive at "Austerity Day" it will be too late to borrow our way to prosperity any longer. Why, exactly, do congress critters refuse to raise taxes during these good (best of?) economic times? I can think of only one explanation - we the sheeple re-elect them, at a rate of over 90%, for not doing so.

We have nobody to blame except ourselves for expecting future generations to pay our rapidly growing tab as we allow congress critters to whip out the national credit card to cover our current consumption.

 

[jet57]

And you don't think that the election of Trump isn't some sort of 'storming the Bastille' ?

No because of what was chosen as a solution is rotten meat.

 

[SheWolf]

If (when?) we arrive at "Austerity Day" it will be too late to borrow our way to prosperity any longer. Why, exactly, do congress critters refuse to raise taxes during these good (best of?) economic times? I can think of only one explanation - we the sheeple re-elect them, at a rate of over 90%, for not doing so.

We have nobody to blame except ourselves for expecting future generations to pay our rapidly growing tab as we allow congress critters to whip out the national credit card to cover our current consumption.

We elect them, but they actually represent the donors. Wealthy Saudi lobbyists recently paid off a bunch of Congress critters for voting the right way on something. That should be illegal. Anybody against Citizens United or getting a constitutional ademdement passed is worth listening to imo. That is what is wrong in America

 

[MTAtech]

telling a million people they will get say free healthcare and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the top 3% or so is buying votes. And if a STATE does that-what will happen=the takers will flock to that state and that state will have to keep raising taxes on the top 3%. And when it gets too parasitic, those being parasitized by politicians will leave the state. And then those politicians will have to figure a way to keep pandering to the public teat sucklers when those who paid for the milk are no longer under their jurisdiction. Left-wingers love the federal government doing this because its much harder to leave the USA than it is say california or NY

Your notion that taxing the top 1% (not 3%) top provide benefits to the vast number of Americans, is somehow antithetical to American ideals is completely at odds with our country’s actual history.

During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer — a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse. This type of redistribution is in reality as American as apple pie.

Just to reemphasize my original point: You think it is horrible for candidates to promise voters that they'll make their lives better but shrug at billionaires demanding that if Republicans want their donations, they have to hand over tax cuts.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We elect them, but they actually represent the donors. Wealthy Saudi lobbyists recently paid off a bunch of Congress critters for voting the right way on something. That should be illegal. Anybody against Citizens United or getting a constitutional ademdement passed is worth listening to imo. That is what is wrong in America

IMHO, it would be worse to allow ever more power to be handed to the MSM or to 'amend' the 1A to allow the government to further regulate "political" speech.

I am all for more disclosure of who is greasing the palms of our ruling elite but the sheeple are already aware of much (if not most) of it and simply don't care about matters other than whether a "D" or "R" is next to the candidate's name on the ballot.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ah. So, candidates promising to pass laws that make the lives of voters better, is buying votes? What do you call it when billionaire donors fund candidates who promise to lower taxes on billionaire donors?

A very wise business (investment?) decision.

What do you call the voters who elect these "close friends of the donors"? I call them partisan hacks.

 

[eohrnberger]

No because of what was chosen as a solution is rotten meat.

Can't separate the person and the agenda, it would appear.

 

[JustHanging]

From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.

Actually, it's the richest Americans who are getting all the tax breaks. Trump scammed you, him and his rich buddies are going to make out like bandits. While the middle class, by the time they pay for the tariffs on the "easy to win" trade war, are probably not getting a tax break at all, and are quite possibly paying more.

Trump will personally save up to $15m/year under tax bill, analysis finds
Jared Kushner will save up to $12m, while five other members of Trump’s inner circle will also see benefits worth millions of dollars

Why not quit giving the richest Americans, the people who need it least, these huge tax breaks? Trump's family looks like they could save over 30million this year. How much do you think you save?

 

[JustHanging]

A very wise business (investment?) decision.

What do you call the voters who elect these "close friends of the donors"? I call them partisan hacks.

Those are the people who elected Trump. {See post 136}

 

[JustHanging]

Your notion that taxing the top 1% (not 3%) top provide benefits to the vast number of Americans, is somehow antithetical to American ideals is completely at odds with our country’s actual history.

During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer — a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse. This type of redistribution is in reality as American as apple pie.

Just to reemphasize my original point: You think it is horrible for candidates to promise voters that they'll make their lives better but shrug at billionaires demanding that if Republicans want their donations, they have to hand over tax cuts.

What's hilarious is that during what many Conservatives consider "the good old days", the tax rate on the richest Americans was up to 80-90%.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually, it's the richest Americans who are getting all the tax breaks. Trump scammed you, him and his rich buddies are going to make out like bandits. While the middle class, by the time they pay for the tariffs on the "easy to win" trade war, are probably not getting a tax break at all, and are quite possibly paying more.

Trump will personally save up to $15m/year under tax bill, analysis finds
Jared Kushner will save up to $12m, while five other members of Trump’s inner circle will also see benefits worth millions of dollars

Why not quit giving the richest Americans, the people who need it least, these huge tax breaks? Trump's family looks like they could save over 30million this year. How much do you think you save?

The better question is: why should the federal government get more of your "crumbs"?

The lame argument that "the rich" got a bigger tax break (from a tax rate cut) is simply because "the rich" had a bigger tax bill.

 

[eohrnberger]

I love the leftwing trump card. If we don't agree to socialist welfare income redistribution, we don't CARE if people go hungry. If we don't agree to ban guns, we don't "Care" if "children are killed". IF we don't want the federal government taking over our health care, we "don't care if people die without medical care"

Posing a false binary choice.
Don't want people to go hungry? Give them a job, and they'll not be hungry anymore (and other alternative solutions that's always discarded by the left)
It's not about solving the problem, it's the left wanting government power to grow with the vision that they'll be the ones controlling the ever more powerful government to implement their flawed social and economic programs and agenda by use government force.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Those are the people who elected Trump. {See post 136}

OK, but didn't dear Hillary raise and spend far more than Trump did in 2016?

 

[cpwill]

Actually, it's the richest Americans who are getting all the tax breaks. Trump scammed you, him and his rich buddies are going to make out like bandits. While the middle class, by the time they pay for the tariffs on the "easy to win" trade war, are probably not getting a tax break at all, and are quite possibly paying more.

Trump will personally save up to $15m/year under tax bill, analysis finds
Jared Kushner will save up to $12m, while five other members of Trump’s inner circle will also see benefits worth millions of dollars

Why not quit giving the richest Americans, the people who need it least, these huge tax breaks? Trump's family looks like they could save over 30million this year. How much do you think you save?

I like how this doesn't really address the point that you cannot - mathematically - fund the programs the left side of the Democrat party is pushing for without large tax hikes on the middle class, helpfully demonstrating that, for so many, all they have is anger at those who have more than them and a refusal to drop out of the fantasy where everything can be paid for by taxing the rich.

 

[JustHanging]

You hawks are oddly silent when the military budget is increased by hundreds of billions over just a few years, you never ask how that could be paid for. When it comes to things like UHC which are CHEAPER than what we have now, you suddenly become fiscally conservative and ask stupid questions like "How ya gonna pay for that, comrade??"

You'll declare there's always, always enough money for guns, but never enough for butter. For you guys it's truly purely about priorities, not about feasibility.

It's kind of simple for many conservatives: More guns = safety. Treating everyone with cancer = taking from the "makers." (LOL, look what Trump has made: lawyers rich, and the middle class poor. $25 million settlement finalized in Trump University lawsuit )

 

[cpwill]

If i paid 10,000 in taxes and got superb healthcare, instead of 20,000 a year and paying out the pocket over 100 for every doctor visit, then I would obviously benefit from such a system.

Sure. That, however, is unfortunately, not an option, given the paucity of free lunches. Which is why I posted the OP.

Our system is getting so much more expensive than the Canadian and European style system than it is.

Free riding and rationing helps keep costs down, to be sure, just as our socialized pre-payment "insurance" model (and government offloading of costs onto the private sector) helps drive prices up.

That yes, most people would save money. It would be a tax instead of a healthcare premium.... not a big deal imo

If you are willing to have massive tax hikes, then yes, you can pay for it. But you have to accept the massive tax hikes on the middle class in order to get there.

I was just talking to somebody last night. She is looking into getting out of her employer based health insurance, because paying the premium is more expensive than just going to the doctor with no insurance.

Yup. I'm a huge fan of high deductible plans with an associated HSA for those kinds of folks (it's what we have).

If the insurance mandate is lifted, the insurance industry could very well collapse. The system is not sustainable

The system as structured is not sustainable because we keep trying to get something for nothing, and treat insurance as a pre-payment system and a way to fund niche "medical" providers who are willing to purchase (or, at least, rent) politicians, instead of insurance. High Deductible insurance which leaves you paying for regular maintenance with cash while covering actual catastrophe's would easily be as sustainable as auto insurance, if we would stop trying to mess it up. Though mine costs ~$11K per year for a family of five on that program, it's better than other options.

 

[cpwill]

It's kind of simple for many conservatives: More guns = safety. Treating everyone with cancer = taking from the "makers." (LOL, look what Trump has made: lawyers rich, and the middle class poor. $25 million settlement finalized in Trump University lawsuit )

If lawyers getting rich is so bad, why does the Democrat party regularly serve the interests of it's Tort-Lawyer donor pool by opposing caps on settlements that go to Lawyers? Bringing down the cost of insurance would go a long ways towards bringing down the cost of providing medical care.

 

[jet57]

Can't separate the person and the agenda, it would appear.

Sorry but that assumption is wrong. You're forgetting that Trump did not win the popular vote; some electors, two in California I think, flipped and voted for Trump, so that is not storming the Bastille. It has been proven time and time again, especially with information that is being released, that Trump has no care in the world for you or I, but only for his own wealth and welfare. He has capitulated to adversary international sabotage of our national elections over money he is investing in Moscow, the same way he has capitulated to his money in Saudi Arabia. This is all provable fact. So much so that the president of the United States of America has openly and intentionally committed two felonies aimed at obstructing justice by lying to federal authorities and dangling pardons for federal crimes only for those who will lie and obstruct justice along with him.

The man IS going to impeached, tried and convicted and thrown out of Washington DC along with his entire white trash cabal.

MY agenda is a safe and strong United States that brooks no traitors.

 

[SheWolf]

Sure. That, however, is unfortunately, not an option, given the paucity of free lunches. Which is why I posted the OP.



Free riding and rationing helps keep costs down, to be sure, just as our socialized pre-payment "insurance" model (and government offloading of costs onto the private sector) helps drive prices up.



If you are willing to have massive tax hikes, then yes, you can pay for it. But you have to accept the massive tax hikes on the middle class in order to get there.



Yup. I'm a huge fan of high deductible plans with an associated HSA for those kinds of folks (it's what we have).



The system as structured is not sustainable because we keep trying to get something for nothing, and treat insurance as a pre-payment system and a way to fund niche "medical" providers who are willing to purchase (or, at least, rent) politicians, instead of insurance. High Deductible insurance which leaves you paying for regular maintenance with cash while covering actual catastrophe's would easily be as sustainable as auto insurance, if we would stop trying to mess it up. Though mine costs ~$11K per year for a family of five on that program, it's better than other options.

You're a huge fan of high deductible plans? That sounds kind of crazy to me, cpwill... :lol:... Everybody I know has a high deductible plan with an HSA. That's what I have, and that's what my friend has who I was just talking about. A high deductible insurance plan isn't really solving anything. We are paying an astronomical premium for a health insurance plan that pays for nothing. Why are we paying thousands of dollars annually in American for literally NOTHING?

If the majority of households sat down and did the math, you would save money by not having health insurance and just paying everything out of pocket. You can get away with that until you have a real health issue.

The system we have is not built to last, and yet you are a big fan of it?

I am going to be honest with you cp. You're very much a philosophical conservative and by into all the theories, but in reality, you have bought so far into a philosophy that you can't realize the system is causing you more harm than good. That's why I am not buying into any political theology or philosophy, and I do consider myself an independent. I am not arguing for anything in particular, and I know there are different type of healthcare systems in Europe and Canada, but the fact is, America has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and our health outcomes are not the best in comparison to other countries. We are all at risk of going bankrupt if diagnosed with cancer or having a serious health issue, which anybody in America could face at any time. The system is not sustainable.

If the health insurance mandate is gone by the 2019 filing season, I see no logical reason why I should buy health insurance. It should bust, as far as I am concerned. The health care insurance market is a failure in America, and the free market is not providing us a reasonable alternative.

 

[MTAtech]

The better question is: why should the federal government get more of your "crumbs"?

The lame argument that "the rich" got a bigger tax break (from a tax rate cut) is simply because "the rich" had a bigger tax bill.

It's not just because the dollars are bigger. The proportion was bigger too.

 

[cpwill]

You're a huge fan of high deductible plans? That sounds kind of crazy to me, cpwill... :lol:... Everybody I know has a high deductible plan with an HSA. That's what I have, and that's what my friend has who I was just talking about. A high deductible insurance plan isn't really solving anything. We are paying an astronomical premium for a health insurance plan that pays for nothing. Why are we paying thousands of dollars annually in American for literally NOTHING?

You're not paying for nothing. You're paying for other people's plastic surgery, tort lawyers winnings, Medicaid underpays, and extra employees to try to wade through an incredibly unnecessarily dense bureaucratic system. My aunt, for example, lost her insurance when Obamacare took over because she, being a single woman with only one adult child, wasn't covered for pediatric dental. So, she had to go get a more expensive plan that did.... despite the fact that she did not require such coverage. But by golly, they were going to make sure she paid for it .

In my home-state of Alabama, for example, the market is so over-regulated that only one major provider - Blue Cross / Blue Shield - is able to operate in it. The state government has ensured that they have a captive customer body of an entire state. You think they care what premiums are? What competition are they worried about?

If the majority of households sat down and did the math, you would save money by not having health insurance and just paying everything out of pocket

Sure. Same thing for my Auto insurance, my Home Insurance, and my Life insurance....

...until something catastrophic happens. That's the point of insurance.

Your comment suggests that Insurance is supposed to reduce our regular expenses. That is not the role of Insurance at all. Insurance is a way of transferring risk. We are supposed to be transferring the risk of unpredictable catastrophic medical emergencies (Cancer. Shattered bones. etc.), not trying to find a way to get someone else to pay for our regular checkup, visit to the doc for some antibiotics, or a stitch or two because we cut a finger.

The system we have is not built to last, and yet you are a big fan of it?

Nope. I think the regulatory burdens on and how we pay for our current system is a complete muck-up - and the ACA doubled down on what was driving the problems, which is why the problem has continued to get worse. There are two industries where the government has been a major provider of funding and become increasingly involved as a result - education and healthcare - and they are also the two industries where costs continue to spiral well beyond inflation; in healthcare, it's equal parts stupidity and corruption. Doubling down on that by expanding the same government control that put us here isn't going to be helpful.

I would prefer a system that worked like auto insurance, or life insurance, instead of this incredibly dense, over-regulated, stupid system that inevitably forces prices ever higher, but wrote out and posted my proposed compromise on Universal Coverage here.

I in no way think what we have is a great system (at least, in how we pay for it). But that doesn't mean I want to make it worse.

If the health insurance mandate is gone by the 2019 filing season, I see no logical reason why I should buy health insurance.

:shrug: if that is your approach, then, frankly, given the small penalty, there was no logical reason for you to have it in 2018.

It should bust, as far as I am concerned. The health care insurance market is a failure in America, and the free market is not providing us a reasonable alternative.

:lol: You think what we have now in health insurance is a free market? We don't have anything close. Our problems are not the result of a free health insurance market, but of government interference in and attempts to run it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's not just because the dollars are bigger. The proportion was bigger too.

Not from what I have seen. A bracket rate change from 15% to 12% (my top bracket) is a 20% (rate) reduction, while the top bracket rate change from 39.6% to 37% is less than a 7% (rate) reduction. Of course, it is quite a bit more complicated than that since top bracket payers get breaks on their taxes on all ampunts up to that top bracket point as well and a lot of their income is (likely to be) in the form of capital gains.

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968