Affordable Care Act - how much did your healthcare go up?
Forums › General Discussion › Affordable Care Act - how much did your healthcare go up?-
@ Ragnar
How would you complete this statement:
The founding principles of America are most influenced by ____ism/ity (insert religion here)
If you expand out to the standard top ten founders that adds Thomas Paine bringing the deist count to 50%, making me technically incorrect. Then again, who ever heard of Gouverneur Morris? (also in the top ten) What you seem to be ignoring is the context of my statement which was that Deism, not Christianity, is the religion which most influenced America's founding principles. I appreciate you calling me on it and I'll cop to a technicality, but I fail to see how it alters in any way my assertion that the founding of America was most influenced spiritually by Deism. It is still a factual statement that the majority of the most influential founders were Deists.
-
Excuse me? Twisting your factual statement? That statement was far from factual. I didn't parade my religion around, I made the simple statement that I was a catholic after you called me a 'pretend pro lifer'. Thus explaining my positition about abortion. After that you continually attacked me and mocked my faith.
-
Wyster wrote:
Excuse me? Twisting your factual statement? That statement was far from factual. I didn't parade my religion around, I made the simple statement that I was a catholic after you called me a 'pretend pro lifer'. Thus explaining my positition about abortion. After that you continually attacked me and mocked my faith.
Me: "Many car crashes are accidental." (factual statement)
You: "Ah, but you knew that driving a car could lead to a car crash. It was your choice to drive the car which makes no car crash an accident." (bizarre reasoning)
Your religion obviously clouds your ability to reason. It makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Outlaw ALL abortion? No exceptions?
-
fnord, I don't disagree with everything you say. But you are in fact an ass no matter what it is you argue. You avoid points you can't answer by incessantly claiming you don't understand the point, or ignoring it completely. You assume loaded logic to avoid giving in to a point. You press your particular IDEOLOGY as truth, when by definition it can't possibly be. You ask for reason and logic, but don't provide anything but your own cherry picked facts as "proof" of your belief system.
I'm basically an atheist. I don't even believe morality or love exists as more than a chemical byproduct of organic chains copying each other. But still, you manage to resist any of my points, despite our common religion. If you don't believe in individual rights, why do you care so much more about collective sharing, which is just the next abstraction up? What is the basis of your morality?
-
Hmmm... You might need clarification on that last question...
What makes your opinion "right"?
By what authority do you insist that the collective good doesn't frequently infringe on individual rights, legally defined by our founding documents?
Thomas Paine wasn't a Christian? Who cares? Did you read what he wrote?
-
Let's walk through one of my previous points.
Immanent domain. This is the taking of private land for the benefit of the community. It's very controversial.
The government can take your home or other property in exchange for fair market value when it deems the property can be put to better community use.
This is an example of individual rights being trampled upon for the collective good. How would you feel if it was your own home that you have put love into for decades? Even though you are compensated at fair market value, it's a tragedy. A necessary evil. Fortunately it is used sparingly.
Now. How is that different from confiscating private property from only the successful citizens, in order to build a park in Montana? With NO compensation?
ALL taxation is the same concept. It is a necessary evil. Government itself is a necessary evil. It must be used sparingly.
Will you at least concede this one point?
-
ΞͣΛͩSͩTWͦOͧOͬD wrote:
60% here too!!!!!!!Jim Dirt (Add A1) wrote:
Affordable? I feel you.Mine is 60% higher now. That's hurts over a family of four.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote: ✂️
I don't recall stating or implying that any of my personal opinions were "right". That would be silly.What makes your opinion "right"?
✂️you insist that the collective good doesn't frequently infringe on individual rights, ✂️
Thomas Paine wasn't a Christian?
I never insisted that the collective good doesn't frequently infringe on individual rights. Again, that would be silly. Read what I wrote. Your assertion is that there is a strong adversarial relationship between individual freedoms and the common good, correct? My assertion is that this relationship between the individual and society is instead symbiotic in nature, one cannot thrive, let alone survive without the other. Your central tenant leads you down one road, mine down another. I'd actually like to elaborate on this if you're game.
I've read Paine and I do know him as much much more than simply a non-Christian, I assure you. -
You never specifically mentioned immanent domain. You mentioned the confiscation of private property. It was your use of the somewhat loaded term 'redistribution', which implies taking from one private entity to give to another, that led me to think you might be talking about the morality of taxation and 'wealth redistribution'. I honestly wasn't sure exactly what you were asking so I asked for a clarification. This is obviously nothing more than a misunderstanding. Of course I would be super pissed if the government took my house, but on the flip side I fully realize that we cannot have a fully functioning government without the option to use this practice when absolutely necessary. There was a deal in Connecticut I believe where blighted property was confiscated by the state and immediately handed over to developers. This bring to mind the term 'redistribution' and is a disgusting abuse of government power in my opinion. I'd like to elaborate on this topic as well.
-
In the early days of my state, the railroad companies built through the farmers' land. They called it progress, but this really hurt the community. Trains often killed cattle and charged the farmer for damage to the train. The coal companies also do this. They displace residents to build coal mines in the name of progress. The people in the community embrace these places because they provide jobs; however, these places poison the water supply with deadly carcinogens. The only people who truly benefit from most "progress" are the rich land stealing assholes. Imminent domain sucks ass.
-
@Brown,
I'm an ass, fair enough. Thanks for the heads up.
I would be happy to answer any question that is posed in good faith for the purpose of seeking an answer. Most of your questions were statements of your ideology cleverly disguised as questions, or framed in a way that an honest answer cannot be given, or a series of questions which supposedly lead to your preconceived conclusion. If you were truly seeking my opinion and not just condescendingly looking for a 'gotcha' answer these games would be unnecessary.
You have the impression that I believe my opinions are fact. Of course this isn't true, I try to question my own beliefs as rigorously as I do others'. For this same reason I tend to express myself with confidence. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It's your job to convince me instead of pretending that insulting me is an adequate substitute for a well-reasoned argument. Ask me any HONEST question and I'll do my best to answer it. -
Unless the taxes are going directly to fund the operation of the federal government, isn't that redistribution?
I feel that taking from the poor to give to the rich in New London is not fundamentally different than taking from the rich to give to the poor.
I am not totally against the ACA, and I'm mildly curious how far we can push our concept of a right to private property before it all goes south. (A slippery slope is a real thing. Look at those in CA with houses under the mud.) Maybe someday our healthcare will be provided entirely by tax dollars. What is that world like? Fascinating.
We have many, many rights that we as a society recognize. Included in those rights is health care. But there is no responsibility for anyone to provide it at a cost that everyone can afford.
None of our rights work that way. The government doesn't regulate the sale of printing presses so that you can afford one. Nor does it insist that firearms be available to those that can't afford them.
-
What I think would be awesome is not having taxes taken out of our paychecks.
We should have to write a check to the federal government on our own. And, it should be like sales tax. 25%. That way we would all know exactly what government costs us. (No, that's not a "flat" tax. A "flat" tax would be the same dollar amount from everyone.)
When we buy gas, it should be $2.45 per gallon plus tax.
It's easy to forget that many of us buy a new car for the feds EVERY YEAR. I buy them a nice one, too. Not a Ford. ;)
What do they do with that $35k a year I give them? If they can't pay my health care with that already, something smells fishy.
That's why I say: Let's make some radical changes to our spending habits. We've maxed out our credit card. There are more important things to do than messing with the piddly little problems of our world-class health care system so that our costs can actually go up for a lower quality of care.
-
@Brown,
You've laid out a lot of thoughtful topics there. The one item that really grabs my attention is ending the progressive income tax and changing to a straight 25% tax for everyone. I think it's a solution worthy of some serious consideration for fiscal reason alone. To be clear, we are talking about a straight 25% tax on individual income including capital gains as well as corporate income, while ending all loopholes, deductions, and tax credits, correct? I did some rough calculations based mostly on 2009-2012 CBO revenue and budget numbers and let me say they are very encouraging:
Average effective corporate tax rate 2012 - 12.6% $357,500,000 revenue
Result of 25% tax - $356,000,000 revenue increaseAverage effective individual income tax rate 2009 - 11.06% $2,092,000,000 revenue
Result of 25% tax - $2,417,000,000 revenue increase...
-
...
Capital gains rate 2010 15% $107,800,000 revenue
Result of 25% tax - $64,680,000 revenue increaseTotal estimated revenue increase resulting from 25% tax - $2,838,000,000
Total federal spending FY 2012
$3,600,000,0002012 Deficit - $1,100,000,000
A 25% tax in 2012 would have resulted in a budget surplus of $1,738,000,000!
This would allow us to completely pay off the federal debt in less than 10 years!
The only downside I see is that most people making less than $1,000,000 a year would see an effective tax increase, leaving both the consumers and investors with much less disposable income. Social safety net programs would undoubtably need to expand dramatically to make up for new shortfalls among the poor and working class. That extra revenue would definitely be put to good use. Maybe we'd pay off the debt in 20-30 years instead. Still a great idea though, I'm impressed!👍
-
I just realized you probably figured for rolling FICA taxes into the 25% tax to the tune of $845,000,000 in 2012. That would leave an annual budget surplus of around $900,000,000. Still not too shabby. It also occurred to me that you may have been talking about a 25% federal consumption tax although I figured you'd have said 'fair tax' if that was the case. For shits and gigs though, a 25% tax on roughly $15,600,000,000 in sales in the US in 2012 would have resulted in $3,900,000,000 of revenue.
*edited*
*I left the budget deficit out of my figures regarding a 25% federal consumption tax.
Proposed effect on federal budget likely more or less neutral pending further research.* -
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Unless the taxes are going directly to fund the operation of the federal government, isn't that redistribution?
I promised to answer any honest question so here goes...
That's a really tough question. If you run the numbers you'll find that your share of the cost of running this country, if divided equally among every working schlub, would come to about $25,000. You look at that balance sheet and realize you only got $25,000 of value for your $35,000. Much less if you start thinking about all those broke single mothers living high on the hog on your dime. (Actually you can only resent maybe 1 or 2 of them before you venture into some other working stiff's emotional outlet). The folly in this reasoning is the expectation that your taxes should directly benefit you in some tangible way in a timely manner. Nobody has any patience anymore. You are not paying into the system just to get your value back immediately,
... -
that's no way to run a country. You are paying for what can only be described as comprehensive prosperity insurance. You're paying for ongoing stability in the markets, protection of your life and property, protection of your rights and enforcement of your contracts. Not just today or this year, but for as long as you and your progeny live. All these protections exist because people that came before you invested in a future and will hopefully continue to do so long after you're gone. What happened to the wealth they invested? They couldn't take it with them. It was redistributed to you the day you were born. Even this is a distraction from the ultimate truth, though. The true wealth if this country can't be measured in dollar signs or market indexes or even roads or schools or bridges. Our wealth is in our people, that's what we're investing in. It's very strange to me that some see this investment as the ultimate waste, I see this as the very best investment money can (or can't) buy.
-
Wait, wait, wait... You aren't addressing what I would call reality.
You list state and local functions as federal responsibilities.
I never said I expect a return on my investment. I said something along the lines of we should be paying what it costs the government to run at a bare minimum. You know... Standing army. Treaties. The salaries of congress persons. Things they are supposed to be doing.
Throw in interstate commerce and some intelligence agencies as part of the standing army.
Interstate highways, not a bad idea.
State and local governments typically run health and welfare programs.
Let's congeal Energy, NOAA, NASA, NIH, EPA, etc... Into the department of science things that universities can't figure out. DOSTTUCFO. Education? WTF? Maybe college loans, but the states own public education.
...
-
Corporate taxes? No. Capital gains, yes. Individual incomes only. Hell, even personal income tax is relatively new.
I thought lefties hated the idea that corporations were people.
I think you skirted around my question, or you are assuming something I'm not.
I'll try a slightly different question. Why is it good to redistribute wealth among citizens at a federal level? It was clearly not the original intent. And that includes job creation. Job creation is redistribution. The federal government loves to make up new jobs for people. Millions of them. Plus contractors. Why is a massive federal government good for us?
-
Corporations are people now -- it doesn't matter who hates it it's the law of the land, so they need to be treated as such until/if it's appealed and not just in benefit like they are now.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Wait just a sec, he addressed your suggested tax rate. Let's not skip over the implications of that. Everyone wants to see you address your 25% flat tax. And if it wast a realistic suggestion then why did you suggest it?Wait, wait, wait... You aren't addressing what I would call reality.
-
@Brown
I could get on board with no corporate taxes if we ended the $125,000,000 in yearly corporate subsidies and ended the practice of not taxing executive compensation disguised as stock options in addition to closing all tax loopholes that corporate executives currently enjoy. We would likely see wild fluctuations in the commodities and futures markets without the stabilizing effect of government subsidies. Should we continue to enforce corporate contracts and protect their overseas assets? Should we abolish all corporate regulations at the same time? Wouldn't it be simpler to just abolish the government invention that is the corporate entity and return to a country of free individuals interacting in an unfettered free market without all the complications and pitfalls of government backstopping and granting of limited liability? If your goal is a smaller federal government this seems like the obvious and most straightforward solution. Just my initial thoughts, I'll try to get to the rest later.
-
Oops. Should have read $125,000,000,000 in annual corporate subsidies, not $125,000,000...
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
The honest question he was answering had nothing to do with tax rates. It was about redistribution.Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Wait just a sec, he addressed your suggested tax rate. Let's not skip over the implications of that. Everyone wants to see you address your 25% flat tax. And if it wast a realistic suggestion then why did you suggest it?Wait, wait, wait... You aren't addressing what I would call reality.
-
I'm not playing politics and I'm not negotiating.
What should the federal government do, and how should we pay for it?
My simple answer: The bare minimum, and equitably.
When I say bare minimum, I mean as plainly defined in the constitution. If that's too much or too little, amend it.
We borrowed over 16 trillion even with over taxation. It's because the federal government seems to have a tendency to grow to it's limit. It demands more taxes and continues to grow. It needs to shrink drastically. I don't believe it will do much real harm, since most of it is waste anyway.
Every dollar taken from private citizens is a necessary evil. Let's keep it to a minimum. That's all I'm really saying.
-
Gotcha back pedaling now that someone did the math on your proposal.
Brown, most logical people want to get rid of waste. Some of us just disagree on which waste should go first - mostly because most people have no clue waste exist outside of "poor entitlements" because only a non profit pbs is talking about it on TV. My first hit would be get rid of waste to the monied interests. Those with the most amongst us or with less to lose and obviously to get money out of politics. Everyone knows the bottom line comes first in the corporate world, the interest of the individual is way down the list. So that poses the question, why would you want the private sector making decisions for you when public interest isn't their first priority?
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
No, actually you never did say anything about shrinking the government to it's bare functions or what those functions should be. I'm not sure how I was supposed to extrapolate that from talk of 'the credit card' and 'spending habits' (both terrible analogies for how government budgets work, BTW.) You did however imply that you were disappointed in your lack of return on your $35,000. This buckshot argument approach is getting a bit tedious.Wait, wait, wait... You aren't addressing what I would call reality.
✂️I never said I expect a return on my investment. I said something along the lines of we should be paying what it costs the government to run at a bare minimum.
You can't just say I'm not addressing reality without actually explaining how or why. Everything I mentioned is at least in part a function of the federal government. Besides, states themselves could not exist without heavy federal investment.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Why is wealth redistribution good? I dunno, because it's the grease that keeps the wheels of civilization moving. Wealth redistribution is the primary function of government. It redistributes wealth from the past into the present and the present into the future. It facilitates wealth transfer from consumers to merchants and back again. It redistributes wealth to soldiers and sailors and politicians, and yes, even to those that don't 'deserve' it. It is one collossal wealth redistributing machine with the sole purpose of upholding the values laid out in our constitution and preserving the republic. This is what it was founded as and I challenge you to show me otherwise. Be specific.I'll try a slightly different question. Why is it good to redistribute wealth among citizens at a federal level? It was clearly not the original intent. And that includes job creation. Job creation is redistribution. ✂️
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
✂️Every dollar taken from private citizens is a necessary evil. Let's keep it to a minimum. That's all I'm really saying.
Then why was your only real solution tantamount to the largest middle class tax hike in the history of the world?
I get that you're concerned, I'm concerned too but we've been through much worse than this. Our debt to GDP ratio was much higher after WWII and Eisenhower paid it off in less than a decade through BOTH government investment in jobs and a 90% top marginal tax rate. 13 short years ago we had a budget surplus as far as the eye could see and then someone decided that was 'not the government's money to keep' and wrote us all checks. He then went straight back to deficit spending while blowing a $1,000,000,000 hole in the debt with tax cuts for the rich. Now the budget deficit is falling again and effective tax rates are the lowest they've been in a decades. But yeah left...right...whatever.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC