IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@georgeob1,

That's one of the biggest problems Obama has created for himself by not making clear what the cost vs savings will be for the short-term and long-term of any universal health care.

One thing is for certain; Americans will continue to lose their health benefits sponsored by the company they work for as the cost becomes prohibitive, and private insurance will be out of reach for most Americans. For those who can continue to pay the higher cost of premium will be a small percentage of Americans, and many children will suffer from lack of health care. Our children are our future. Our health care compared to other developed countries is dismal when looked at by the total population.

From Wiki:

Quote:

The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[85] and 46th for highest total life expectancy.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

You fail to consider that the wealthiest were given massive tax cuts. Due to tax changes by the right, very few corporations even pay taxes. This is not to mention that taxes have not been increased despite two wars and other large spending. It is little wonder that deficits have exploded.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

MM, what substantial cuts in spending would you make? Cutting pork is great, but this would amount to only $30-40 billion, which is less than a drop in the bucket.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

mm loves to point out the trivia; his perspective about government issues is not worth the cyberspace wasted!

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

They look like The Beach Boys to me. Revolutionaries wear their hair long and don't wash so often.

how dare you talk about george washington and ben franklin that way!

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
We can always raise taxes somewhat to help combat the deficit.

Cycloptichorn

OR, lets try this for a change.

CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!

Dont spend what you dont have.

i'm not saying that's a bad idea. however, no matter what gets cut, there is going to be a bunch people that get ticked off about "their" needs or concerns being dropped in the dumper.

so, what would you propose the top 3 cuts be?

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Ladies fashions, DIY equipment and medical injections.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Reading from left to right in ascending order.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

You fail to consider that the wealthiest were given massive tax cuts. Due to tax changes by the right, very few corporations even pay taxes. This is not to mention that taxes have not been increased despite two wars and other large spending. It is little wonder that deficits have exploded.

It is not clear what are the "massive tax cuts" to which you refer . The Bush tax cuts reduced the top marginal tax rate for the highest bracket by about 5% , while at the same time employment tax credits (tax rebates) were instituted for lower income workers. The result is that almost all of our income taxes are paid by a rather small fraction of the population.

I don't know where you get your factoid about "very few corporations even pay taxes". That simply isn't true. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the modern world. It is true that there are special provisions for loss carryforwards and, in the case of a few industries, some special deductions - many intended to subsidize favored programs such as wind generated electrical power. However, nearly all countries have such things. The bottom line is the USA taxes corporate profits at far higher rates than other western countries -- my company pays a consistent actual average of 40% of its pre tax profits in federal and State income taxes. Dividends to stockholders taken from the remainder are taxed at 15% by the Federal government and as ordinary income (anywhere from 6% to 10.5%) by the respective states. That works out to a total tax of just under 50% on distributed profits.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

my company pays a consistent actual average of 40% of its pre tax profits in federal and State income taxes.

And most of the 60% remainder is spent on luxury goods with high taxation applications. And that's nowhere near an exhaustive analysis.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob wrote:

Quote:

The result is that almost all of our income taxes are paid by a rather small fraction of the population.

That's the nub of the problem we are facing; lower tax revenue while we were supporting two wars and the increasing national debt. Tax revenue is one of the lowest of any developed country as a percentage of GDP, and lower taxes will only increase the deficit for future generations to pay. As more people lose their jobs, the government doesn't have much choice but to extend unemployment benefits; it's as important as national defense. We can't have families in our country being pushed out into the streets with no money for food.

Even conservatives are being affected by this financial crisis; being self-reliant is nice rhetoric, but it's not realistic.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I've never heard of conservatives being self reliant before.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
my company pays a consistent actual average of 40% of its pre tax profits in federal and State income taxes.

And most of the 60% remainder is spent on luxury goods with high taxation applications. And that's nowhere near an exhaustive analysis.

Nonsense. Most of the rest is held as retained earnings to finance the growth of the company through hiring new people, added business development efforts and investment in new training and facilities for our employees.

Any dividends that we might issue to stockholders are subject to additional federal & state taxed (an extra 25% for me in California).

Having trouble engaging today ??

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Yes--engaging on the exhaustive analysis is a bit tricky at this time of night.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

i'm not saying that's a bad idea. however, no matter what gets cut, there is going to be a bunch people that get ticked off about "their" needs or concerns being dropped in the dumper.

so, what would you propose the top 3 cuts be?

First of all, I would eliminate about half of the federal employees in DC.
There are to many people whose only job seems to be to wander around and tell each other how important they are.
Lets eliminate everyone who doesnt do anything.
The people that are only there because someone created a job for them.

Then I would totally eliminate the Dept of Education.
It is not needed and education matters should be decided at a local level, not by the federal govt.

Lets eliminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
They were created to run and manage Indian Reservations.
They might have been needed 100 years ago, but they arent needed now.

Then I would eliminate every govt agency or commission that is redundant.
If there are 2 agencies regulating baby food, eliminate one of them.
If there are 2 committees studying fish in the San Luis Rey river, get rid of one of them.

Lets listen to the generals in the military, regarding what they need.
The Air Force has said they dont want or need the F-22 fighter (about $30million each), but congress still authorized 25 of them to be built.
I am not saying they get what is on their "wish list", but that a top to bottom review get them only what they need.

Every agency and Dept would have to submit to an outside, independent review of their finances, how they use the money, and how many employees they have.
That review would have the final authority to cut or eliminate any wasteful spending they came across, up to and including entire agencies or depts.

That committee would not be made up of anyone that has ever worked in DC, been a congressperson or senator, or ever worked for any govt agency in any capacity.
I am willing to bet that within 6 months that review would have identified and eliminated billions of wasted dollars from the budget.

1 Reply

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy would, unless modified somehow, cost over two trillion dollars over 10 years. That is big money. George mentions, and is apparently saddened by, the fact that the wealthy pay a disparate amount of income taxes. But consider the following.

"In America today, families are working harder to get by. Over the last 20 years, American incomes have grown apart: 40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top 1 percent. The top 300,000 individuals now make more than the bottom 150 million. Thirty-seven million Americans"including more than 9.3 million of working-age"live in poverty. The result is Two Americas, one struggling to get by and another that has everything it could want. [EPI, 2006; Saez, 2007; Census, 2006] "

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy would, unless modified somehow, cost over two trillion dollars over 10 years. That is big money. George mentions, and is apparently saddened by, the fact that the wealthy pay a disparate amount of income taxes. But consider the following.

"In America today, families are working harder to get by. Over the last 20 years, American incomes have grown apart: 40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top 1 percent. The top 300,000 individuals now make more than the bottom 150 million. Thirty-seven million Americans"including more than 9.3 million of working-age"live in poverty. The result is Two Americas, one struggling to get by and another that has everything it could want. [EPI, 2006; Saez, 2007; Census, 2006] "

Poor Advocate. He has learned nothing from history and constantly gets his "facts" wrong.

In the first place the projections for the "cost" of the Bush tax cuts are out of context; fail to take account of the economic side effects of higher marginal tax rates; and utterly irelevant now in today's economy with much reduced incomes and tax collections.

Poverty is everywhere in this world. The most effective way to limit it is through more economic development. Massive wealth redistribution by government and socialism are the proven most effective ways of spreading poverty and the loss of individual freedom.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Which does not mean that massive wealth redistribution by government and socialism is proven to be no good in the future.

The sort of proof George is citing comes from the good old days of old fashioned technology.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Which does not mean that massive wealth redistribution by government and socialism is proven to be no good in the future.

The sort of proof George is citing comes from the good old days of old fashioned technology.

True enough. The fact that pigs haven't been able to fly up until now, doesn't forestall their potential to develop that ability in the future.

Don't hold your breath.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Well, they already wear lipstick, so I won't be surprised about that "flying" part. LOL

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know