[q
(04-16-2014 12:24 PM)Max Power Wrote: You're the one here defending the Ryan budget and acting surprised when tax cuts get brought into the discussion, apparently oblivious that it's part of the same Ryan budget, yet I'm the one lacking English skills.
I'm not defending the Ryan plan. I don't need to. It isn't law and isn't in place and hasn't remotely been vetted or negotiated.
I am instead attacking your limited understanding of economics and taxes. You hav applied the most rudimentary of analysis to a very complex issue in order to reach a patently false conclusion that SOUNDS convincing and gets votes... but the truth, while much harder to explain and understand is still the truth. That doesn't make Ryan's plan 'good'... It merely makes you analysis of his plan BAD.
the "english' lesson comes from your flawed interpretation of what i said... which obviously continues.
Virtually EVERY Republican running for President last time had some version of a 7/7/7, flat tax, fair tax as their cornerstone... and every single Democratic response (including yours here) showed a complete lack of understanding of how the rich react to tax policy.
The wealth gap under Obama has widened significantly... because MOST of you guys don't understand it.
Quote:Why do you make the bizarre assumption that "the left (me)" only wants to raise individual rate but not corporate rates?
We aren't even yet talking about corporations. We're talking about gains vs income... which is precisely what your article below talks about.
Quote:A study found the FairTax lowers your taxes if you're making under $15k or over $200k, but raises it on everyone in between. No thanks. The wealthy consume more but they also spend far less of what they earn. In the end they make off with lower effective rates.
A study funded by left-leaning people who don't understand it. Every single fair tax proposal has included some version of an exemption or what became the Boortz-Linder prefund which pays ALL of the taxes for people who make below some threshold... with the net rate changing based on where you set it.... which means that your comment is patently false/uninformed. You can't possibly be raising the taxes on someone who is exempt from paying them. If you give someone $200 to pay $200 in 'sales' taxes, you have arguably increased their taxes, but you didn't decrease their disposable income. If you consider the government giving someone money to pay their tax bill any different than not giving them a tax bill at all and a 'tax increase', then you are mincing words and not dealing in economic realities. On the other end, I've already demonstrated the fallacy of your over 200k issue... though I suspect it IS true that those making over 200k would pay less in taxes, but those making over $1mm (as I have demonstrated) would pay far far more. You can certainly change these numbers as you see fit, merely by picking a lower limit, below which you are completely exempt and an upper one above which you pay a premium/lose ALL exemptions. Simple.
Quote:Okay English professor, show me where Obama raised taxes on the middle class. He cut their payroll taxes and offered other tax breaks via the stimulus. Do you mean the penalty for not carrying health insurance? I thought the right (you) said you can just opt out of that? Even if you count that, the money saved via the other breaks probably outweighs it.
When did I (or anyone on the right) ever argue that you could opt out of Obamacare? If you could simply opt out, why would we be upset about it?
The Supreme Court said that it is a tax. As they are for all intents and purposes the highest authority in the land, I think I'll go with that. The upper middle class and wealthy already had insurance and the poor get it for free. Those who make enough to afford insurance (in other words, not poor) but chose not to (in other words, not rich) now are REQUIRED to pay this tax. What do we call not poor and not rich people? The middle class.
On top of that, while I can certainly find thousands of right leaning articles that claim far far far greater taxes thrust upon the middle class, you would simply shoot the messenger.
Here is an analysis of Obama's Budget by what most consider to be a center-left organization. While they certainly say that the wealthy bear most of the burden, they admit that Obama raises taxes on the middle class in his budget... which is ON TOP of Obamacare. He said NOT ONE DIME. Even many liberal leaners have identified NUMEROUS dimes of increased taxes on people making less than 250k.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22...33755.html
Quote:Will raising rates lead to tax avoidance or even evasion? Sure, but you're overstating the impact. Put those English skills of yours to use and see the studies cited here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3756
[quote]study performed by left-leaning groups
A perfect example of what I'm talking about.... and it is YOU who is arguing English. I'm arguing math/investments.
I'll make it simple for you.
The current top marginal tax bracket is 39.6%. As that bracket kicks in at about 250k, simple math argues that people making millions SHOULD have an average tax burden close to this rate... but they don't. Their average rate is below 20%... below many of those who make far less... and it seems the higher you go in income, the lower the rate. Add on top of this the hundreds of billions of dollars they hold in 'perpetual' assets on which they pay NO income taxes. In fact, numerous millionaires pay ZERO in taxes. For ANYONE to argue that the wealthy don't take every advantage to limit their tax liability shows them to be completely ignorant.
As I suggested a means of raising their average tax burden to 20% (from the current 17%) AND to widening the base, I am arguing for exactly the same thing as your article.
(04-16-2014 03:33 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [quote='Max Power' pid='10675042' dateline='1397670712']
There have been changes. Obamacare increased Medicaid eligibility. Unfortunately the changes proposed from the right tend to make the situation worse.
The "right" were not included in negotiations about ZeroCare. ZeroCare is all the left's solutions, you live with it, it is your sh!t sandwich to consume. Enjoy.
[/quote]
First we hear that the right has no ideas... then we hear that portions of Obamacare were modeled after ideas from the right... then we hear that all the right wants to do is repeal, and now we're told that they're trying to make changes.... Now we're hearing that these changes make things worse... but none of those changes, or how they make things worse have been articulated by anyone.
Just keep moving the goal posts and avoiding facts.
How about this.
Keep uncapped policies. This really costs next to nothing.
Expand Medicaid to cover more people by increasing the taxes on people with higher incomes... either through higher payroll taxes or higher income taxes... or God forbid, through reductions in spending without returning that money to the wealthy
Encourage/provide 'donut' coverage, ensuring catastrophic and preventative care... but discouraging (by making people pay more out of pocket for) poor choices that result in a need for medical care like poor diet, smoking, drugs and risky behavior... but still cover rehab.
PECs are covered with a higher/declining deductible for a year and then as normal after then... making up a PEC example... 10,000 for 90 days (its still better than they had before) 7,500 for the next 90... 5000 for the next then 2500... and then 1-2000 or whatever from then on. This encourages people with PECs to buy insurance today and discourages people from waiting until they are sick to buy insurance, but you can't be excluded and you can't go 'broke'.
The reason this is fair is because someone who is poor and has a PEC, though now they get a 'free' O-Care.. that only applies to the premiums... they will STILL have a 3,000 deductible and a 30% copay... meaning 100,000 in care still costs them $33,000... which by definition they don't have... so I'm not really changing anything, other than reshuffling the numbers to avoid the last minute sign-ups without taxing the middle class. I mean seriously, what difference does it make if a poor person accumulates (and it later gets written off) 10 or 12 times their annual income over a few years? The people you want to make PAY for their care are the wealthy (not the 'not quite poor') and those who run up bills because they make poor life choices.
I would also end the freeze on medicare funded fp residency programs which would increase the amount of primary care available and increase rather than decrease (as the ACA does) reimbursement for pcp's for the same purpose.
All of this assumes you actually want to do what Obamacare promised to do but fails miserably at doing... which is an entirely different question.