Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: Elizabeth Warrens - Tax and Spend Plan for Medicare for all

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Republic of Korea
    Posts
    1,252
    Archived
    1,216
    Total Posts
    2,468
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?
    Yeah, exactly ! And I' m not bing sarcastic. I'm sick of the tax cut that will come out of the roads, infrastructure and social security that I plan on using in 30 years going instead to old farts who don't think they will be alive in 30 years. I know that gives Trumpsuckers a hard on but it makes me sick.

    Republicans are so generous with the money grifted from the young and unenfranchised. Stealing candy from babies.
    Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?
    No. Trausti thinks that tax cuts with trillion dollar deficits isn't being generous with other people's money. I disagree. I think that taxcuts ARE taking money from other people. Namely, Future Me, and anyone else who plans to live more than 30 more years. The babies in the idiom I used above are literal babies.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    9,095
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,750
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?
    Yeah, exactly ! And I' m not bing sarcastic. I'm sick of the tax cut that will come out of the roads, infrastructure and social security that I plan on using in 30 years going instead to old farts who don't think they will be alive in 30 years. I know that gives Trumpsuckers a hard on but it makes me sick.

    Republicans are so generous with the money grifted from the young and unenfranchised. Stealing candy from babies.
    I'm not sure what you mean about money grifted from the young and unenfranchised or stealing candy from babies.

    Here's a link that breaks down how much different age groups pay in taxes:

    https://taxfoundation.org/which-age-...re-tax-burden/


    able 1 below shows the distribution of tax filers by age and how much of the nation's adjusted gross income they account for. Out of the roughly 142 million filers, people under the age of 35 account for 35 percent of all returns but just 17 percent of total AGI. By far, the largest number of filers are between the ages of 35 and 55, and they account for nearly half of total AGI. Meanwhile, only 14 percent of filers are between the ages of 55 and 65 yet they account for 20 percent of AGI. Seniors comprise 14 percent of filers and account for 15 percent of AGI.
    Actually, older folks tend to pay more in taxes, as one would expect as for most people, they are earning considerably more in their 50's than they were in their 20's and 30's. Not only that but they have been paying for much longer simply because they've been alive longer.

    I'm older myself, although not yet Medicare eligible. I don't expect to necessarily still be here 30 years from now but I do expect that my savings plus the small pension and small amount I'll get from SS will take care of me in my old age. Rather than robbing from younger people, I'm pretty certain that I'm paying a lot more in taxes than most of the Gen Xers, Gen Yers or Millennials.

    If you're complaining that the younger generations are not being handed over a new planet in pristine shape with all the infrastructure you could ask for: welcome to the club. Should my generation have done better? Of course. We all should. If you are complaining that the cost of higher education is far too much and is an unfair burden on your generation, you'll find a lot of support among us boomers, bunches of us who were stunned at how much it cost us to send our own kids to college. It's a travesty. One huge part of this issue is that states are no longer paying as large a portion of the funding for higher education as they used to do. A whole lot of people my age fought really hard against this with people your grandparents' ages who were desperate to save more money for their golden years.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post

    Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?
    No. Trausti thinks that tax cuts with trillion dollar deficits isn't being generous with other people's money. I disagree. I think that taxcuts ARE taking money from other people. Namely, Future Me, and anyone else who plans to live more than 30 more years. The babies in the idiom I used above are literal babies.
    I'm sorry, but I'm not getting it. Clearly reducing taxes will lead to higher deficits if spending isn't reduced. But how are tax cuts taking money from someone else?

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Republic of Korea
    Posts
    1,252
    Archived
    1,216
    Total Posts
    2,468
    Rep Power
    66
    Debt will eventually need to be paid. Borrowing from future generations to give out extra wads of cash to old folks today is taking money from those future generations. What is there not to understand? Future generations will be forced to pay this debt, perhaps through some austerity by cutting back on benefits and infrastructure that present humans are enjoying right now.

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    9,095
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,750
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post

    Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?
    No. Trausti thinks that tax cuts with trillion dollar deficits isn't being generous with other people's money. I disagree. I think that taxcuts ARE taking money from other people. Namely, Future Me, and anyone else who plans to live more than 30 more years. The babies in the idiom I used above are literal babies.
    Ah, I get you. I posted as you wrote this before.

    I agree that taxes should be levied and utilized to provide infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, protect and restore the environment and other needed services (especially education and health care) for future generations.

  6. Top | #26
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,739
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,491
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by scombrid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Stinks.

    It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

    In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.
    Costs me 15k to Anthem to cover a $35k/yr employee with family coverage. Warren type reform reduces that cost if it is done right.
    Which is in no way a rebuttal to what I said.

    I was talking specifically about how she wants to fund it.

  7. Top | #27
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,739
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,491
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post
    Imo, the most sensible thing to do at first, would be to work at bringing down the cost of drugs. Sure, there are many affordable generics, but some life saving drugs like Insulin, pulmonary inhalers, and cancer drugs, to name a few, are insanely priced. If that can't be fixed, why would anyone be gullible enough to believe that we can change the entire mess that we currently have into the type of coverage that Warren or Sanders support. If you think Warren would make a good president, but don't like her idealistic goals, don't worry. She can't get anything done without the cooperation of Congress, and more than half of the Democrats are moderates, plus Republicans aren't going away.
    We always talk about negotiating drug prices but that's an exercise in cost-shifting that has lead to a decent part of the problem. instead, lets ban all forms of drug price negotiation--instead, drug companies are required to sell at the same price to all customers. This will end most abuse. Since I first proposed this we have seen the new problem of sole-source suppliers jacking the price through the roof, knowing the cost of entry will allow them to rake it in. I'm not as sure what to do about this one but I think the drug price negotiation plays a role here--prices were driven too low, resulting in all but one player leaving the field. I'm not sure how practical it would be but I'm inclined to think that requiring all large entities to purchase no more than 50% of their supply from one company unless there was only one player would go a long way towards preventing this--it would pretty much ensure there would be at least two players.

    And, something that nobody has even mentioned, is the enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the current Medicare system. It would take an enormous amount of effort to drastically limit that problem. It can be very easy to order unnecessary tests, procedures, and over utilize care in the current system. That's just abuse, but outright fraud has also been a big problem. Quite a few doctors have been caught this year bilking Medicare for millions. Think about all the ones who haven't been caught, not to mention hospitals, and other types of providers of care. How do you change that? I'd like to see realistic plans for these problems before we pretend that we can radically overhaul our entire health care system. Just stating some of my concerns.
    The left loves to pretend the fraud and abuse level is very low when in practice all that's low is the enforcement. There's a reason the medicare advantage programs can offer lots of perks above standard medicare for the same cost--they're better at controlling the nonsense.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,697
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,086
    Rep Power
    58
    Mental health isn't covered.


  9. Top | #29
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,208
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    67,681
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Stinks.

    It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

    In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.
    Ummm... outsourcing / temping became very popular about 10 years ago.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,697
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,086
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Stinks.

    It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

    In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.
    Ummm... outsourcing / temping became very popular about 10 years ago.
    What's the point of a universal system if it provides an easy way for employers to avoid funding it? If health care is a human right, and contractors are human beings, then they should get the same health care as everyone else. Why is this so controversial?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •