CSNbbs

(10-10-2014 01:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]One more thing Owl.
We definitely without a doubt should have that motto. Those who work have it better than those that don't. Neither party talks like that. We should have a baseline. A certain standard of living. Yes, it's socialism, but it rounds out the edges of capitalism. That's should be the title of the new thread. Fair ways of rounding out the edges of capitalism.

Here's what I'd do, and this is the Nth time of asking, but I'll put it out for comment again. It hasn't changed in at least 10 years. Others please comment with other ideas.

I would do either Milton Friedman's negative income tax (if I keep the income tax) or the Boortz-Linder probate/prefund (if I go to a consumption tax). Basically, everybody gets a check (or EFT or whatever) every month on the first. The homeless guy gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it, everybody in between gets it. For reasons that I will explain below, I would propose 30% of the poverty level income. Let's assume for a family of four the poverty level is $30,000 (pretty close) so the negative income tax/prefund/prebate amount would be $9,000/year or $750/month. Now we do French Bismarck health care. The basic "free" plan currently runs around $2700/year per person in France, let's take that amount for now. For four people that's $10,800/year. That puts our family at $19,800. Now let one of the adults get a minimum wage job. That brings in another $15,000, so they're at $34,800. Guess what, they're above the poverty line. You can run that for any size household and any combination of people in that household, and it works for all of them. And since none of these things ever go away, you don't have the "welfare trap" effect that our current means-tested cliff-vesting welfare system imposes.

What does it cost? French Bismarck health care at $2700/person would cost about $840 billion per year. Add 10% admin cost and you are looking at $925 billion. Where do we get that? One, we no longer need the now-redundant Medicaid, saving $350 billion at the federal level (and $125 billion more at the state level). Two, the $2700 basic care amount would offset against Medicare for its 50 million subscribers, saving $135 billion. Three, the negative income tax/prefund/prebate essentially eliminates the need for $350 billion of means-tested welfare programs. They can be transferred outright to the states, and with the reduction in number of qualifiers due to the negative income tax/prefund/prebate, the states can probably fund the remaining pieces for the $125 billion that we saved them on Medicaid above. At that point, we are spending about $100 billion more than we spend on legacy programs today, but think about what we have done. We have basically eliminated the need for all employers to provide basic health care to employees; they can still provide supplemental care if they want to, but we have saved them a ton of money. That alone is probably worth way more than $100 billion.

Now how to pay for it? I go with what I call 15-15-15. 15% consumption tax on ALL items, 15% payroll tax (like social security, but no income cap) and 15% tax on business and investment profits. No individual income tax. What does that get us? Giving up the individual income tax costs us $1.3 trillion, but the consumption tax gets us $1.98 billion, net gain $680 billion. The tax on all business and investment income yields about $400 billion more than we get today from corporate taxes. The negative income tax/prefund/prebate costs us $840 billion, based on 30%. I chose 30% because that is the sum of the payroll (15%) and consumption (15%) tax rates. The payroll tax is a minor increase from current social security. I would also increase gasoline taxes by ultimately $1/gallon, producing another $260 billion in annual revenues. That's a net gain in revenues of $500 billion. Less the $100 million net cost of French Bismarck health care, that's a net $400 billion to apply against the deficit.

That's my way. What's yours?

But Obamacare has solved all of our problems.

It is the finest piece of legislation since the New Deal.

If a man doesn't work,...he shouldn't eat. It's simple.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But here's the deal. I totally agree that Obamacare is an abomination. it combines the worst part of our old system (linking health insurance to employment) with the worst part of a socialized system (government bureaucrats replacing doctor-patient relationship). It's really quite amazing that anyone could conjure up a concept so flawed, much less sell it to anyone as a good idea.

But you can't just say no to Obamacare. You have to come up with something different and better. This is the republicans' problem, and it does hurt them at the ballot box.

That's what I'm trying to get going here. How would you do it.

(10-13-2014 02:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]That's what I'm trying to get going here. How would you do it.

I've been sold for years on what you're trying to get to. I may not be able to articulate it well to people that I argue with (at least the healthcare part), but the more interesting question is how do you get the idea advanced and implemented.

I think the negative income tax will be anathema to most Republicans, but could probably be advanced with tea party/libertarians and a decent sales job to most Democrats (the two obstacles are (1) establishment Democrats will resist it because it takes away the poor as a political constituency and their go-to issues of implementing new social programs inevitably destined to succeed in attracting votes and failure to achieve their stated goals, and (2) Republicans that reflexively resist the idea of giving away money, especially tax money, even though it would be equal or less than current giveaways and far more likely to achieve the stated goals). Advancing the negative income tax is a political problem that I think could be achieved. I will also note that I don't think Republican politicians would be undone by the kind of political influence that includes about 25-30 years where Republicans have had to pledge no new taxes or be politically ruined in the primaries and financing arenas (I think the Koch brothers are central in that). Given that whichever organization has been policing the no new taxes pledges have libertarian roots, I don't think that support or opposition to a negative income tax would be an existential issue for any politician, at least Republicans. Democrats can't really be up-front about why they would viscerally oppose the negative income tax, which is why you could probably get some Democratic support for it.

I don't see the Republicans adopting an alternative healthcare program, especially given that it is much more difficult to understand what it would do and how it would be better. How do you get political support for it, and how do you sell it to the public?

Quote:Basically, everybody gets a check (or EFT or whatever) every month on the first

WHY? So you just want the govt. to give out money? And where do they get this money.. and what did the man who does absolutely zero work do to deserve that money?

Why are you including:

Quote:The basic "free" plan currently runs around $2700/year per person in France, let's take that amount for now. For four people that's $10,800/year. That puts our family at $19,800. Now let one of the adults get a minimum wage job. That brings in another $15,000, so they're at $34,800.

Why are you putting "health care" as an income? HUH? No, you're still only getting $15000 in income, you're just not spending 2700 (or in the case of a family of 4, 10K)

Quote: 15% consumption tax on ALL items, 15% payroll tax (like social security, but no income cap) and 15% tax on business and investment profits.

Why are you not including the 15% on your original "free check"? So instead of giving them 750/month, you're only giving them $630...

Quote:I would also increase gasoline taxes by ultimately $1/gallon, producing another $260 billion in annual revenues

And put transportation out of business... or worse, add that money into the taxpayer spending. You do realize the size of the US and what you're tacking into the cost on the average consumer, right?

I'm absolutely getting slammed this week at work. I don't think I will be able to post much. Yes, this is a plan that neither party will pass, but it is a plan. You won't get the party of No to agree to anything along these lines though. We live in dysfunction.

(10-13-2014 09:38 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Basically, everybody gets a check (or EFT or whatever) every month on the first

WHY? So you just want the govt. to give out money? And where do they get this money.. and what did the man who does absolutely zero work do to deserve that money?

Basic reason--because it's cheaper to do that than it is to "means test" everyone. Not quite actually cheaper, but a heck of a lot closer than it should be. The key to a much more efficient and effective safety net is getting the administrative costs reduced. The current "means tested" programs often spend more on administration and gatekeeping than they do on benefits. This reduces those costs to their lowest level.

Quote:Why are you including:

Quote:The basic "free" plan currently runs around $2700/year per person in France, let's take that amount for now. For four people that's $10,800/year. That puts our family at $19,800. Now let one of the adults get a minimum wage job. That brings in another $15,000, so they're at $34,800.

Why are you putting "health care" as an income? HUH? No, you're still only getting $15000 in income, you're just not spending 2700 (or in the case of a family of 4, 10K)

Because that's the way income is measured in all of the studies of things like income inequality. You know the studies that the left likes to quote about how we have the most unequal "distribution" of income? The fact that we don't have universal health insurance accounts for just about all of the difference. And if they don't have insurance, they're either doing without health care or making the rest of us pay for it.

Quote:15% consumption tax on ALL items, 15% payroll tax (like social security, but no income cap) and 15% tax on business and investment profits.
Why are you not including the 15% on your original "free check"? So instead of giving them 750/month, you're only giving them $630...

Legitimate question This may well need to be tweaked some as we go forward. And remember, this is being supplemented because the states are now running the old welfare programs. If they want to. Each state would be able to opt in or out of any program. I would expect farm states, for example, to be really big on food stamps since that increases demand for farm products; or a state with a lot of retirees to be really big on programs for old folks. And those programs and their related costs will be going down because the prefund/prebate and health care will disqualify a lot of people currently receiving aid. Plus you will have churches and charitable organizations to fill in some of the gaps. But at least every gap starts with a much higher cash flow.

Quote:I would also increase gasoline taxes by ultimately $1/gallon, producing another $260 billion in annual revenues
And put transportation out of business... or worse, add that money into the taxpayer spending. You do realize the size of the US and what you're tacking into the cost on the average consumer, right?

The full plan would actually include a prefund/prebate against the gasoline tax, too. Figure 10,000 miles/year per car or driver, divided by the CAFE rate to give number of gallons, times the tax rate. Drive less or buy a more efficient car and you make money here.

Remember, this approach starts from the premise that we are seeking to balance the budget. This approach spits out $400 billion more to do that, which makes a huge difference. The rest on the deficit closing comes from the spending side.

(10-13-2014 09:17 AM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]I think the negative income tax will be anathema to most Republicans, but could probably be advanced with tea party/libertarians and a decent sales job to most Democrats (the two obstacles are (1) establishment Democrats will resist it because it takes away the poor as a political constituency and their go-to issues of implementing new social programs inevitably destined to succeed in attracting votes and failure to achieve their stated goals, and (2) Republicans that reflexively resist the idea of giving away money, especially tax money, even though it would be equal or less than current giveaways and far more likely to achieve the stated goals). Advancing the negative income tax is a political problem that I think could be achieved. I will also note that I don't think Republican politicians would be undone by the kind of political influence that includes about 25-30 years where Republicans have had to pledge no new taxes or be politically ruined in the primaries and financing arenas (I think the Koch brothers are central in that). Given that whichever organization has been policing the no new taxes pledges have libertarian roots, I don't think that support or opposition to a negative income tax would be an existential issue for any politician, at least Republicans. Democrats can't really be up-front about why they would viscerally oppose the negative income tax, which is why you could probably get some Democratic support for it.

I think if republicans committed to it, they could make it happen.

Quote:I don't see the Republicans adopting an alternative healthcare program, especially given that it is much more difficult to understand what it would do and how it would be better. How do you get political support for it, and how do you sell it to the public?

One, republicans already have proposed something very close, inasmuch as Germany's Bismarck plan was basically the model for Heritage in response to Hillarycare. And just to set the record straight, Heritage =/= Romneycare =/= Obamacare, despite the left's efforts to peddle that lie.

Two, it works. Bismarck systems consistently outperform all other approaches in worldwide comparisons. In the 2000 WHO study, for example, Bismarck France was #1, US was actually #1 among countries with over 130 million, and for countries over 60 million the US was 4th and the only countries ahead of us were all Bismarcks (Japan, Germany, France) Americans can understand. "We're number one," far more easily than following through to the Nth degree of detail.

I don't think the GOP wants an effective govt. Owl. They get more headway with a dysfunctional one.