Please Tax Us More, 19 U.S. Billionaires Plead In Letter To Presidential Candidates

  
Via:  tessylo  •  3 weeks ago  •  158 comments

Please Tax Us More, 19 U.S. Billionaires Plead In Letter To Presidential Candidates

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Politics

Please Tax Us More, 19 U.S. Billionaires Plead In Letter To Presidential Candidates



710c91c0-4b9c-11e7-8912-374be9390b1b_H-1 Mary Papenfuss,HuffPost 8 hours ago 





5d1191682400001120933a6b.jpg

Nineteen U.S. billionaires are calling for a new wealth tax on their holdings to battle income inequality in the nation and boost public revenue to make America a better place.

“America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more,” declared the billionaires in a letter Monday addressed to the “2020 Presidential Candidates.”

“Instituting a wealth tax is in the interest of our republic .... The next dollar of new tax revenue should come from the most financially fortunate, not from middle-income and lower-income Americans.”

Signers included liberal philanthropist and financier George Soros and his son Alexander Soros, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, heiress Abigail Disney and “Anonymous.”

They argue that the money raised — about $3 trillion over 10 years — could “substantially fund” investment in programs including clean energy, universal child care, infrastructure overhauls and tax relief for low-income families.

The letter calls proposals such as one floated by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) a “moderate” tax on a “minuscule number of Americans” -- including them. 

Warren has proposed a 2% marginal tax on assets beyond the first $50 million and a further 1% on assets worth more than $1 billion. She estimates that such a tax would affect just 75,000 families.

“Those of us signing this letter enjoy uncommon fortunes, but each of us wants to live in an America that solves the biggest challenges of our common future,” the letter notes. 

The billionaires call a wealth tax “fair” and “patriotic.” It’s also a “powerful tool for solving our climate change crisis,” will “make America healthier,” and is good for the economy and democracy, the letter argues.

“Those of us in the richest one-tenth of the richest 1%” — who hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90% — “should be proud to pay a bit more of our fortune forward to America’s future,” the letter concludes.

“We’ll be fine. Taking on this tax is the least we can do to strengthen the country we love.”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

Nineteen U.S. billionaires are calling for a new wealth tax on their holdings to battle income inequality in the nation and boost public revenue to make America a better place.

“America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more,” declared the billionaires in a letter Monday addressed to the “2020 Presidential Candidates.”

“Instituting a wealth tax is in the interest of our republic .... The next dollar of new tax revenue should come from the most financially fortunate, not from middle-income and lower-income Americans.”

Signers included liberal philanthropist and financier George Soros and his son Alexander Soros, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, heiress Abigail Disney and “Anonymous.”

They argue that the money raised — about $3 trillion over 10 years — could “substantially fund” investment in programs including clean energy, universal child care, infrastructure overhauls and tax relief for low-income families.

The letter calls proposals such as one floated by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) a “moderate” tax on a “minuscule number of Americans” -- including them. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 weeks ago

in 2017 there were over 570 billionaires in America yet only 19 want to pay more. That says the huge majority are not signing up for this nonsense.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

“Those of us in the richest one-tenth of the richest 1%” — who hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90% — “should be proud to pay a bit more of our fortune forward to America’s future,” the letter concludes.

“We’ll be fine. Taking on this tax is the least we can do to strengthen the country we love.”

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @2    3 weeks ago

Such wonderful people. They should donate until their liberal guilt is assuaged.

Great idea as long as it's voluntary.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  WallyW @2.1    3 weeks ago

They don't even need to donate money. 

Nothing says they have to take every tax break they are entitled. That would increase the amount they pay far more than increasing the tax rate, and leaving the loopholes they abuse in place. 

If they want to prove they are such great people they can release their tax returns each year proving that they are overpaying as an example to the other 1%.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I think we will get a wealth tax. It's going to take a while to get the public behind the idea though. Maybe it will be seriously discussed in the 2024 election. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
3.1  Cerenkov  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

Confiscation of assets is unconstitutional. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Cerenkov @3.1    3 weeks ago

We are not talking about confiscating assets.  WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Cerenkov @3.1    3 weeks ago

Confiscation of assets is unconstitutional. 

LOL-- you are really living in the past!

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution was passed way back in...1909!

I suggest you read it.

Unless, of course, you don't believe that the Constitution-- and that there's no merit to the rule of law...????

(I was going to post the parts relevant to your bizarre comment...but rather than embarress you publicly, I th9ink I'll let you wallow in your ignorance... )

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

We are not talking about confiscating assets.  WTF are you talking about?

Hard to know...I could be wrong, but my guess is that perhaps he's spending too much time watching Alex Jones?

 
 
 
Sparty On
4  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

Attention billionaires:

If you want to pay more in taxes no one is stopping you from doing it voluntarily.   No new taxes are needed.  

Sooth your consciences and like Nike sez ...... Just Do It!

Billionaires ..... there's your sign ....

 
 
 
lib50
4.1  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @4    3 weeks ago

Is there a particular reason you feel compelled to protect the billionaires who don't care about fairness and right and wrong?   Its interesting that the most privileged and powerful are the group conservatives are most concerned about. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1    3 weeks ago

Well, the next time your billionaire friends want to give extra money, no one is stopping them from VOLUNTARILY doing so.

Here is a link you can give to them so they will know exactly how to do so:

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  lib50 @4.1    3 weeks ago

After a billionaire pays the 3% wealth tax he will only have 970,000,000 dollars left.  It might break his spirit. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  lib50 @4.1    3 weeks ago

I feel a flat tax rate is the only fair tax rate. They are a minority and we should fight for their equality so they are not taxed at an unequal rate. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @4.1    3 weeks ago

I'm clearly not defending anyone.   It appears that you are defending these 19 billionaires.   Why?  

What i am saying, again very clearly, is that these 19 billionaires can put their money where there mouth is and donate the extra money voluntarily.  

Otherwise all this amounts to is a few rich people bloviating endlessly.

Its yawn worthy

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

You are incorrect.  

Then the poor and middle class get screwed whereas the wealthy do not get screwed.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
I feel a flat tax rate is the only fair tax rate.

Never happen.   Wanna know why?  

Because nearly 50% of America will actually have to start paying some Federal Income taxes.  

Which they don't right now.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.7  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

Yup, all Trump's rich buddies and Trump himself are non-taxpayers, past and or present.  Yet again, no problems with that.  You go straight to the ones at the bottom and rip into them.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1.7    3 weeks ago

All are non-taxpayers. You got any proof, or just the usual?

if they had no tax liabilities, what exactly do you want them to pay?

And PLEASE, don't come back with the trite "Their fair share"!

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

Gee, I remember the Bush tax cuts lowering rates for the poor and middle class. 

Gee, I remember Obama extending those tax cuts for the poor and middle class.

Tell us some more stories how the poor and middle class are getting screwed!

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

I was talking about the flat tax.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about nor do I care.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @4.1.7    3 weeks ago

No response to 4.1.4?   Noted and thanks for capitulating.

I know the facts are sometimes inconvenient to the narrative you like to push here but it is what it is.   The bottom 50% pays virtually no net Federal Incomes taxes.   Nada, zero, zilch.   But i understand.   You can't make that fact go away so you have to try obfuscate and rationalize it away.   Keep spinning ......

Everything comes back to Trump with you.   One would think you would've learned your lesson on taxes with Trump when Maddow got her ass handed to her on her accusations of Trump paying no taxes. 

Maddow tax gambit on Trump ends badly for Maddow 

But alas, the hatred runs too deep for some to use reason i guess.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
Never happen. Wanna know why?
Because nearly 50% of America will actually have to start paying some Federal Income taxes.
Which they don't right now.

Exactly right.

Seems the people with the LEAST "skin in the game" always want OTHERS to pay "their fair share" while claiming that their fair share is nothing.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.14  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
if they had no tax liabilities, what exactly do you want them to pay? And PLEASE, don't come back with the trite "Their fair share"!

Oh FFS!  The reason their 'fair share' is what it is is because they dictate the tax policies that give it to them! You think it was a god driven tax policy to give the richest the most tools to pay zero?  Why the hell do you think they've bought the gop for the last few decades?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.15  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax

Published: Feb 26, 2019 5:45 a.m. 

The Tax Policy Center estimates how many people paid no federal individual income taxes in 2018

quentinFottrellnewnew_100.jpg

By

QUENTIN FOTTRELL

PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR
  
MW-GB586_Income_20180111103344_ZH.jpg?uuJoe Raedle/Getty Images)

Tax-filing season has begun. Americans have until April 15 to file their income taxes. There’s been some good news for workers over the last year: Unemployment hovers at 3.9% and average hourly earnings rose by 3.2% on the year in December. And nearly half of Americans don’t owe a dime of federal income tax.

Approximately 76.4 million or 44.4% of Americans won’t pay any federal income tax in 2018, up from 72.6 million people or 43.2% in 2016 before President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center, a nonprofit joint venture by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, which are both Washington, D.C.-based think tanks. That’s below the 50% peak during the Great Recession. They still obviously pay sales tax, property taxes and other taxes.

“The large percentage of people who don’t owe federal income tax is a feature, not a bug, of the revenue code,” according to the Tax Policy Center. “By design, the federal income tax always has excluded a significant fraction of households through a combination of personal exemptions, the standard deduction, zero bracket amounts, and more recently, tax credits.”

These workers who won’t owe any federal income tax include single people, married couples filing jointly and married individuals not filing jointly, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. For the most part, they don’t earn enough money. However, many people who work and who don’t owe any federal income taxes still give money to Uncle Sam, because money comes out of their paychecks for Social Security and Medicare, he said.

“Many low- and below-average-income families pay more in payroll taxes every year than they pay in federal income taxes,” Burtless said. “This means you have to be careful describing the federal tax liabilities of U.S. families. The U.S. individual income tax is quite progressive, with much heavier tax liabilities as we move up the income distribution and very low or even negative income tax liabilities at the bottom of the income distribution.”

“Either their taxable incomes are below the threshold at which the tax unit’s ’taxable income’ exceeds zero,” he said, “or the taxpayer qualifies for refundable tax credits — such as the Earned Income Credit and/or the Child Tax Credit — that are greater than the amount federal income tax owed, in which case the tax filer receives a tax refund or owes no federal income tax liability. Much more rarely, high-income taxpayers have adopted tax strategies that occasionally eliminate their federal income tax liability.”

All but the top 20% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to Treasury Department data, cited by the Pew Research Center. “After all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive, according to Pew. “The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates. That is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes.”

On the other hand, payroll taxes are mildly regressive, Burtless said. “Individual earners do not pay any additional Social Security payroll taxes on earnings above $127,200 per year (in 2018),” he said. “The implication is that federal taxes overall are progressive, but they are far less progressive than the federal individual income tax system viewed all by itself.”

“The tax reform will no doubt affect the number of people and families who pay no federal individual income taxes and who pay no net federal income and payroll taxes,” Burtless added. The Tax Policy Center estimates that roughly one-third of workers who pay no federal individual income taxes receive a net refundable credits that covers their payroll taxes, including their employer’s share.

“About 60% of those who pay no income tax will work and owe payroll taxes,” according to Roberton Williams, an associate at the Tax Policy Center. “Most of the other 40% are retirees whose income is too low to owe income tax ...Refundable credits make it possible for some low-income households with workers to avoid paying income and payroll taxes. Even so, nearly three-quarters of Americans will end up paying at least one of those taxes this year.”

(This story was republished on Feb. 15, 2019.)

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.16  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

See my answer to Texan.    IT COMES DOWN TO GOP POLICIES, DICTATED BY THE RICHEST, PASSING TAX BILLS THAT ALLOW THOSE PEOPLE TO GET THEIR TAXES DOWN TO ZERO!   If you give a fuck about the bottom paying nothing, try explaining why you don't for the top.  I know its inconvenient, but try having standards for everyone instead of just the downtrodden. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

Just gotta love it when people completely ignore the fact that Democrats have been in charge part of the time.

You damn sure don't complain when other tax brackets don't have tax liabilities.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1.16    3 weeks ago
If you give a fuck about the bottom paying nothing, try explaining why you don't for the top.

It is painfully OBVIOUS he gives a fuck and that is why he expressed his desire for a flat tax.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.19  JumpDrive  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
What i am saying, again very clearly, is that these 19 billionaires can put their money where there mouth is and donate the extra money voluntarily. 

This is a monumentally ignorant statement that appears often in these discussions. Last year, the Federal government spent over 4 trillion dollars. If Bezos gave his entire fortune, it would amounted to less than 4% of that for *one* year. Giving a billion a year would amount to a tiny fraction of a percent. In other words, individually they can have little to no effect. Predictable, ongoing revenue makes planning and long term program funding possible. Voluntary giving is an ineffective and silly response to calls for more progressive taxing.

People aren’t trying to assuage guilt, they’re simply pointing out that after a certain point, additional wealth has no effect on their quality of life, but can be used to have a dramatic effect on others. Republicans can borrow trillions for useless wars and tax breaks for the already wealthy. How about funding some useful programs like universal pre-K, education beyond high school, and healthcare for all citizens? How about acting like Christians?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
How about acting like Christians?

Funny how that comes up, but most of the time, people are bitching when people DO act like Christians.

You know, separation of church and state and all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
'This is a monumentally ignorant statement that appears often in these discussions.'

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.22  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
'This is a monumentally ignorant statement that appears often in these discussions. Last year, the Federal government spent over 4 trillion dollars. If Bezos gave his entire fortune, it would amounted to less than 4% of that for *one* year. Giving a billion a year would amount to a tiny fraction of a percent. In other words, individually they can have little to no effect. Predictable, ongoing revenue makes planning and long term program funding possible. Voluntary giving is an ineffective and silly response to calls for more progressive taxing. People aren’t trying to assuage guilt, they’re simply pointing out that after a certain point, additional wealth has no effect on their quality of life, but can be used to have a dramatic effect on others. Republicans can borrow trillions for useless wars and tax breaks for the already wealthy. How about funding some useful programs like universal pre-K, education beyond high school, and healthcare for all citizens? How about acting like Christians?'

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.17    3 weeks ago
ignore the fact that Democrats have been in charge part of the time.

They got two years without constant partisan obstruction. In that two years they got the ACA and several other important bills passed. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions and helping 22 million Americans get health insurance was well worth any of the downsides found in the ACA, most of which were inserted by Republicans (over 110 changes were made from Republican requests to get any of them on board) in an attempt to sabotage it.

Since then we've all been under Republican control and they chose to sit on their hands and let things fall apart as a self fulfilling prophecy since they had been elected by telling their constituents that government is broken and does nothing for them but take their money and give it to minorities. That's what built Trumps base, this moronic belief that government is useless and none of us should have to pay anything for a society some feel they don't fit in anyway.

Many of them are completely ignorant of how many things they constantly rely on that are paid by taxes, most often other people taxes because lets face it, it's not rural America that is paying a lot in income taxes, they'd have to have healthy steady incomes for that to happen. But they expect the police to show up when they call to complain about trespassers. They expect the ambulance to show up when they call 911. They expect the fire department to show up if there's a fire in their neighborhood so it can be put out quickly instead of the fire spreading to everyone's homes. They expect there to be well maintained roads and bitch and moan if they hit a pot hole and dent a rim. They expect the value of a dollar to stay fairly stable and expect our military to jump to their defense if a foreign government or other threat attacks or threatens us. They expect a justice system that enforces our laws so we don't have chaos and looting everywhere with no laws or punishments as deterrents for destructive behavior. They expect all this for free, because if you asked any of them what their "fair share" should be I have no doubt nearly every conservative would happily accept the "no taxes" option as many of these corporations now operate, which is why conservatives don't begrudge them their tax free status, they desire it for themselves without realizing what that kind of country would actually look like if no one paid income taxes.

And putting it all into sales tax or something like a use tax would be ridiculous since we'd have to roll into every product sold the cost of maintaining our roads and means of transporting goods, the military and every other government cost which would mean we pay no income tax but a loaf of bread would be $25.

I get that there are many bitter conservatives who have seen the waste and corruption of this government and have determined it broken, but that should motive a true patriot to fix it, not break it further. To be the shining city on the hill, to be a respite from the storm for immigrants and people of all faiths and cultures, we need a strong well functioning government that can create a stable environment where we can all prosper. Trump and what the Republican in the legislature have done is the exact opposite creating chaos and disruption that they intend to break and then remake in their own image at the expense of the American people. Trumps tax cut was one of those weapons used to chip away at the social programs Americans have relied on for nearly a century. These billionaires recognize that and feel everyone in their income bracket should be paying more, not less, in an effort to make this a more perfect union as our founders intended.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.24  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.17    3 weeks ago
You damn sure don't complain when other tax brackets don't have tax liabilities.

Guess I'm just one of those people who care about the folk at the bottom who don't have enough for the basics because the richest companies can't be bothered to pay living wages, the same ones that give hundreds of millions of salaries and bonuses to one person even if they fail at their jobs.  Funny how humanitarian concerns take precedence for some of us, and its not the ones who loudly try to force their own 'values' on everybody else.  Actions speak louder than words.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1.24    3 weeks ago
Guess I'm just one of those people who care about the folk at the bottom who don't have enough for the basics because the richest companies can't be bothered to pay living wages, the same ones that give hundreds of millions of salaries and bonuses to one person even if they fail at their jobs.

Gee, your 19 billionaire friends won't pay living wages and are screwing the poor? And I figured you loved them for their big talk about taxes!

Funny how humanitarian concerns take precedence for some of us, and its not the ones who loudly try to force their own 'values' on everybody else. Actions speak louder than words.

Gotta love it when people refuse to admit that they are doing exactly what they are criticizing others for.

carry on.......and on...…………...and on..

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
This is a monumentally ignorant statement that appears often in these discussions.

Not at all but no worries.   [delete]

My point was clearly stated.   They should stop talking about it, set an example and just do it.   Otherwise they are just blowing smoke out their asses.     I never claimed it would cover the entire budget.   That's your creation not mine.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.27  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.23    3 weeks ago

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -President Lyndon B. Johnson

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.15    3 weeks ago

Thanks for the backup data.   You're the best.

By the way.   Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes so that argument is the usual non-sequitur that i have come to expect from you.

https://taxfoundation.org/payroll-income-tax-burden/

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @4.1.16    3 weeks ago

Still haven't answered my question

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.29    3 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

It is fucking sad to see someone on this forum say we dont need to see billionaires pay more in taxes, we need to see poor and disabled and retired people pay more taxes. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.32  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.31    3 weeks ago
It is fucking sad to see someone on this forum say we dont need to see billionaires pay more in taxes, we need to see poor and disabled and retired people pay more taxes. 

I'm sure that is what you READ INTO what i said John but that is not what i said.   Not in the least.

 ..... more reason, less emotion please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.31    3 weeks ago
It is fucking sad to see someone on this forum say we dont need to see billionaires pay more in taxes, we need to see poor and disabled and retired people pay more taxes.

In the interests of honesty and accuracy, please provide that quote you claim exists.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago

I was all for the billionaires giving up their money voluntarily until you showed me it's a fruitless gesture.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.32    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.27    3 weeks ago
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -President Lyndon B. Johnson

Yeah, that old LBJ was sure an SOB, wasn't he?

Didn't he also say this: I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years"

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.37  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
I'm clearly not defending anyone.   It appears that you are defending these 19 billionaires.   Why?  

You clearly ARE defending those at the top who don't pay taxes.   You prefer the richest to pay voluntarily instead of changing to more fair tax breaks for the country as a whole (the Trump tax cuts are Exhibit 1 - all to the top and a few expiring crumbs to everybody else).     Of course, instead of actually commenting on why billionaires should get tax breaks to the point they pay zero to pittance, you just want to keep the tax policies that give them most of the gains in place and bitch about the rich that see the unfairness in our current tax codes.    We've seen that weave and dodge by Kellyanne enough times.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.38  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @4.1.37    3 weeks ago
You clearly ARE defending those at the top who don't pay taxes.

Not even close.   Please stop making shit up.

  You prefer the richest to pay voluntarily instead of changing to more fair tax breaks for the country as a whole (the Trump tax cuts are Exhibit 1 - all to the top and a few expiring crumbs to everybody else).

You don't have the slightest idea what i think so stop trying to put words in my mouth.   Much appreciated

So you don't have a cogent answer to my question.   Got it .....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.39  Jack_TX  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
This is a monumentally ignorant statement that appears often in these discussions.

No more ignorant than most.

Last year, the Federal government spent over 4 trillion dollars. If Bezos gave his entire fortune, it would amounted to less than 4% of that for *one* year. Giving a billion a year would amount to a tiny fraction of a percent. In other words, individually they can have little to no effect.

A tax targeted at 75,000 families will have little or no effect, either.  

Predictable, ongoing revenue makes planning and long term program funding possible. Voluntary giving is an ineffective and silly response to calls for more progressive taxing.

As is pretending that primary impact of tax increases is anything other than changing behavior toward reducing tax liability.  This is especially true for very wealth people who have high level tax advice at their disposal and who have huge amounts of money at stake.

People aren’t trying to assuage guilt,

Of course they are.  If they actually cared one sliver of an iota about inequality, they would be talking about increasing opportunities for and changing the behaviors of poor people.

they’re simply pointing out that after a certain point, additional wealth has no effect on their quality of life, but can be used to have a dramatic effect on others.

You'll forgive all of us who think "more government revenue" is not actually going to produce "dramatic effect".

Republicans can borrow trillions for useless wars and tax breaks for the already wealthy.

Tax cuts are not an expenditure, despite what DailyKos would like us all to think.

How about funding some useful programs like universal pre-K, education beyond high school, and healthcare for all citizens? How about acting like Christians?

Community college is already govt funded in almost every part of this country, through Pell Grants or AOTC.  You simply fill out the paperwork.  If you can't fill out paperwork....college may not actually be your thing.

The problem is not that they can't afford college.  The problem is that they didn't learn anything in high school.   

Our public education system is set up to babysit kids for 12 years and then rubber stamp them with a diploma without regard to what they actually know.  This is especially true in poor and minority schools, as evidenced by the vast discrepancy between minority kids and their anglo counterparts on college entrance exams.  

Until people start to talk about how we change poor people to give them the skills to become affluent or rich people, all of this is 100% utterly, completely "assuaging guilt".

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.40  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.38    3 weeks ago

I'm so sick and tired of the obfuscation on this site.    You are bitching about billionaires that think the tax code is unfair.  What exactly do you think that says?   It reminds me of the anti-choice people.  They defend taking rights from women, make excuses as to why abortion is different than any other health issue,  then they deny they are anti-choice and want to stop women from having abortions.   Make up your fucking minds.   Do you or do you not like the fact the richest people get the biggest and permanent breaks at our expense?   Otherwise, why the hell are you even here?   And wtf is your question?  Why do I defend 19 billionaires?  Because they are RIGHT.  Now why don't you have the balls to come out and stake a position instead of throwing shit out and pretending you didn't.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.41  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @4.1.40    3 weeks ago

I would say this if you pay a lot of taxes you get a bigger tax break it is math in combination with the tax code.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.42  JumpDrive  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.39    3 weeks ago
A tax targeted at 75,000 families will have little or no effect, either.

There are about 80,000 UHNW individuals ($30,000,000+). Warren’s 2% tax would raise $600K/year/UHNW, bringing in about $50B/year. Of course, many UHNWs are worth far more, and Warren predicts $200B. Let’s split the different; $125B. If you’re willing to borrow nearly $200B/year to fund the Trump tax cut which did virtually nothing for the middle class and below, that extra $125B plus an equivalent amount of borrowing would be a huge investment in people's futures. Also, until 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, and it was much higher in the 50s and 60s. I don't remember people fussing about that rate, but we sure did build a lot of infrastructure that we can't even maintain today.

You'll forgive all of us who think "more government revenue" is not actually going to produce "dramatic effect".

No I won't. E.g. Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid changed getting old from being a descent into poverty & disease for a majority of Americans into a decent retirement. The socialism of the GI Bill pretty much created the middle class conservatives love so much. Obamacare got 22 million working class Americans healthcare.

Tax cuts are not an expenditure,…

When you have to borrow more than $600B/year (GWB + Trump tax cuts), they’re an expenditure.

Community college is already govt funded in almost every part of this country…

And yet about 2 million have to drop out each year because of debt. Many are forced to join the workforce before they can consider a vocational or a college education because of family needs. Universal healthcare would be a big help. My brothers and the kids (oldest 23) are products of public education — quite good, probably because we live in suburban NJ. I moved west of where we got our educations, but interactions with high school kids at the gym don't show any evidence of your babysitting description. I guess it depends upon whether the parents care or not.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.43  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.20    3 weeks ago
How about acting like Christians?

Funny how that comes up, but most of the time, people are bitching when people DO act like Christians.

You know, separation of church and state and all.

Acting like a Christian means helping the poor, hungry, homeless, & sick, and treating everyone as an equal. Whenever Republicans have the power, they take healthcare away from the sick, money away from the poor, food away from the hungry, and shelter away from those who need it. They use bigoted laws & executive orders to discriminate against muslims, immigrants, & LGBT people. And, they rationalize these behaviors in a variety of ways, often semantic. I get a chuckle out of imagining them having a semantic argument with God during their judgement.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.44  JumpDrive  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.26    3 weeks ago
My point was clearly stated.   They should stop talking about it, set an example and just do it.   Otherwise they are just blowing smoke out their asses.     I never claimed it would cover the entire budget.   That's your creation not mine.

You've pointed me to this twice, so here's my response: Your point is that they should throw money away by doing something that would be symbolic, invisible, stupid, and ineffective. Let us ponder why a person who has made a billion might not do that.

I also never claimed it would cover the entire budget, in fact, I specifically stated that it would be largely ineffective.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.45  Jack_TX  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.42    3 weeks ago
There are about 80,000 UHNW individuals ($30,000,000+).

OK.  I got 75k from the article.

that extra $125B plus an equivalent amount of borrowing would be a huge investment in people's futures.

There is zero evidence to suggest anything of the sort.  People are not living in poverty today because the US Govt is short of money.  It can always print more.  

No I won't.

I was being polite.

The socialism of the GI Bill pretty much created the middle class conservatives love so much.

The middle class was created by a massive manufacturing sector created during WWII, combined with the decimation of the manufacturing sectors of almost every other industrialized nation during the same time period.   

Obamacare got 22 million working class Americans healthcare.

The majority of people who got health insurance from 2010 to now did so on employer based plans that have nothing to do with the ACA exchanges, subsidies or Medicaid expansion.  It was the Obama economy, not Obamacare.  The same Obama economy that saw income inequality double in 7 years, according to the people who wring their hands about such things.

When you have to borrow more than $600B/year (GWB + Trump tax cuts), they’re an expenditure.

No.  Not even then.

And yet about 2 million have to drop out each year because of debt.

If you can't manage to fill out the paperwork....

Many are forced to join the workforce before they can consider a vocational or a college education because of family needs.

Many of the richest people in America have a similar experience.  Learning on the job is not necessarily a bad thing.

Universal healthcare would be a big help.

Very much like the reduction in poverty, you will not get universal healthcare until you force behavioral changes among the poor.  Forty percent of the people who qualify for free govt healthcare don't sign up (according to the Census Bureau).

You still don't address the fact that big taxes serve only to cause people to change behavior to avoid the tax.  There is very little reason to suspect the tax will collect anywhere near even the low end of estimates.  People will simply take measures to avoid it, like they did back in 1979.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.46  Jack_TX  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.43    3 weeks ago
Acting like a Christian means helping the poor, hungry, homeless, & sick, and treating everyone as an equal.

Riiiight.  Jesus said we should seize other people's money and give it to the poor.....  I'm sure that's in the Bible somewhere.....

Whenever Republicans have the power, they take healthcare away from the sick, money away from the poor, food away from the hungry, and shelter away from those who need it.

Riiiight.  Except they don't actually do any of those things, any more than Democrats take everybody's guns away and persecute Christians. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.47  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
How about funding some useful programs like universal pre-K, education beyond high school, and healthcare for all citizens? How about acting like Christians?

How about taking responsibility for themselves. Pre-K?  Sure let's start the indoctrination camp even earlier. As if K through 12 has been so effective at accomplishing any meaningful level of financial literacy which based on your other remarks could use some serious improvement.

Health care for all.  We already have that.  Hell in CA the have invited the world to partake of its largesse.  So how do want to pay for it is the only question.  Ration it?  Slave doctors?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.48  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.47    3 weeks ago
'How about taking responsibility for themselves. Pre-K?  Sure let's start the indoctrination camp even earlier. As if K through 12 has been so effective at accomplishing any meaningful level of financial literacy which based on your other remarks could use some serious improvement.

Health care for all.  We already have that.  Hell in CA the have invited the world to partake of its largesse.  So how do want to pay for it is the only question.  Ration it?  Slave doctors?'

What nonsense.  

Is that all you got?

Nonsense?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.49  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.48    3 weeks ago

So you admit you don't know?

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.50  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @4.1.40    3 weeks ago
I'm so sick and tired of the obfuscation on this site.

You should be tired of it.   It's part and parcel for many in this thread.   E.g. you keep trying to put words in my mouth even though i've asked you respectfully not to.    Some kids just can't play nice i suppose.   An actively moderated site would be pulling many of those posts for that but since i prefer to not report posts of that nature (taunts and all) and leave them as indicators of the character of the poster in question, they remain up.   The way they should be within reason IMO.   Mine ..... not so much.   I have more than a couple fans here on the left that are very eager reporters.    I must admit though ..... its nice to have a following.   A readership if you will ......

So you finally decided to answer my question.   Finally ..... good for you.

That said i don't disagree with the 19 in concept.   I simply disagree with how they are going about it.   I've been very clear about that.   Had they volunteered the taxes they think they should be paying, up front and before they were required to do so, i would be impressed.   Short of that their bloviation on this are just that.   Just a bunch of hot air.   Put up or shut up little rich bitches.   Put up or shut up.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.51  Sparty On  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.44    3 weeks ago

You're still not getting it are you?

People of character do good works every day.   All without the expectation of a return.   Thats why its called a good deed.

If they were really serious they would pay it voluntarily.  I mean what do they care?   They have the money right?   If they really believed they weren't paying enough taxes anything they volunteered wouldn't be throwing money away.   It would be donating to what they believed in.    It would be setting an example to help get what they believe in.   Nah, these billionaires are just blowing sunshine up your ass and you appear to be drinking it all in.

Put up or shut up rich bitches.   Put up or shut up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.52  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.49    3 weeks ago

I do admit that all you have is nonsense.  

Indoctrination camp?

That's batshit crazy.  

Where did you obtain your degrees?  Rump U?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.53  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
You got any proof, or just the usual?

Will this do?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.54  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.39    3 weeks ago
Our public education system is set up to babysit kids for 12 years and then rubber stamp them with a diploma without regard to what they actually know.  This is especially true in poor and minority schools, as evidenced by the vast discrepancy between minority kids and their anglo counterparts on college entrance exams.  

Some days, Jack, I want to strangle you. Other days, I want to high five you. Today I want to high five. Tomorrow I will probably be back to wanting to strangle you.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.55  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.51    3 weeks ago
Nah, these billionaires are just blowing sunshine up your ass and you appear to be drinking it all in.

Meanwhile, this particular generous benefactor is blowing sunshine up your ass and you appear to be drinking it all in...

Here's where I park my smartassery at the door for a moment.  I've never read the entire link until today.  I've cherry-picked to prove personal points, and for that I am sorry.  But I read the whole thing before making this comment, and it made me sick to my stomach.  I sincerely hope you can find the time to read the whole thing and check out the links provided.  I know it will never change your mind about the character of the man leading our nation, but you will at least have a clearer picture.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.54    3 weeks ago
Some days, Jack, I want to strangle you. Other days, I want to high five you.

My wife feels the same way.  :)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.57  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.56    3 weeks ago

I bet that woman is a saint

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.58  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.57    3 weeks ago

Absolutely.  Probably in several different religions by now.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.59  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.55    3 weeks ago

I'm not sure which article you are talking about.   I've read the entire article in the link and did not notice Trump mentioned once.

That said, i'm on record more than once voicing my displeasure at the Bankruptcy system in the US.   You tend to get there when you get screwed numerous times by the same people who have been bankrupt more than once.   That said, its the law of the land and as distasteful as it is when it happens, it is the law.   You've never seen me defend Trumps bankruptcies but if you're hoping for a higher character than Trumps you better start looking everywhere across the board.   POTUS's like JFK for example, who are largely held in high regard these days, were open philanders of epic proportions.   It was serial with the Kennedy's in those days.    JFK made Bubba look like a Capushin monk in comparison.   And while that certainly isn't against the law per se either, it really speaks to the same type of character issues don't you think?  

Nah, much of what we see against Trump these days is still about the fact that he beat the lefts anointed one and the red-ass still hasn't calmed down.   Nothing more, nothing less.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.60  JumpDrive  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.45    3 weeks ago
Obamacare got 22 million working class Americans healthcare. The majority of people who got health insurance from 2010 to now did so on employer based plans that have nothing to do with the ACA exchanges, subsidies or Medicaid expansion.  It was the Obama economy, not Obamacare.

Obfuscation, the majority of people have always gotten their insurance through employers. As of January 2017, 18 million got coverage from ACA's Medicaid Expansion for the Working Poor and the Exchanges. ACA's provision allowing kids to remain on their parents policies longer added 2.3 million. Damage done by Republicans (refusing the Expansion, cancelling risk corridors, eliminating the lack of coverage fine, making crap policies available again,...) have denied 5 million coverage and increased costs to others.

When you have to borrow more than $600B/year (GWB + Trump tax cuts), they’re an expenditure.No. Not even then.

Expense: the cost required for something; the money spent on something. Republicans said the Trump Tax Cut would cost $1.5 Trillion. Pretty clear they were talking about an expense. But, I guess you could be from the GWB school of economics, where the wars were not included in the the deficit even though the debt was increased by them.

The socialism of the GI Bill pretty much created the middle class conservatives love so much. The middle class was created by a massive manufacturing sector created during WWII, combined with the decimation of the manufacturing sectors of almost every other industrialized nation during the same time period.

The manufacturing advantage only lasted into the early 50s because the Marshall Plan was incredibly effective. The prosperity went on for decades after that. My parents generation benefitted tremendously from the GI Bill. At least four uncles started businesses with the money. Others purchased homes. My father used the money to get a college degree; first in either family. The effect of his choice was to catapult my family much further up the ladder than the others.

And yet about 2 million have to drop out each year because of debt. If you can't manage to fill out the paperwork....

These are people who were getting subsidies, just not enough to pay for the education. Must be nice to have no empathy, makes it easy to dismiss their effort.

You still don't address the fact that big taxes serve only to cause people to change behavior to avoid the tax.

This is a nonsense comment; let's not do something because people will try to get around it. Anyway, UBI and a VAT address those problems nicely. Not allowing the rich to write the tax laws will also work. Beginning with Reagan, Republicans have done little but use the tax laws to transfer the wealth of the country to the already wealthy. I've always done well, I have first hand experience with their machinations. In fact, it was TRA86 that opened my eyes to the malignancy of Republicans, before that act, I was completely apolitical.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.61  JumpDrive  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.46    3 weeks ago
Whenever Republicans have the power, they take healthcare away from the sick, money away from the poor, food away from the hungry, and shelter away from those who need it.
Riiiight.  Except they don't actually do any of those things, any more than Democrats take everybody's guns away and persecute Christians. 

Actually, they do and try to do all those things. They are not completely successful because of Democrats.

With respect to healthcare: Denying the Medicaid Expansion for the working poor, cancelling risk corridors, eliminating the lack of coverage fine, making crap policies available again,... If not for McCain, it would be worse. 

Decreasing SNAP benefits during the Obama Presidency because they were "creating dependency" -- on eating I presume. House Republicans just passed H.R. 2 which would drastically cut SNAP benefits at a time when 18% of American kids don't have adequate food.

After blowing a $2T hole in the budget with another tax cut during a booming economy, their budget proposes to limit TANF to families that are a couple hundred percent *below* the poverty line. They also want to keep funding at 1996 levels, so no adjustment for inflation.

The latest Trump budget would decrease help with housing. It's already the case that a homeless family only has a 25% chance of getting housing, and then only after waiting a couple years. Too bad if your family is out on the street for a couple years.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
4.1.62  JumpDrive  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.46    3 weeks ago
Acting like a Christian means helping the poor, hungry, homeless, & sick, and treating everyone as an equal.
Riiiight.  Jesus said we should seize other people's money and give it to the poor.....  I'm sure that's in the Bible somewhere.....

It's a democracy, we vote for what we want. I didn't want my money spent on the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, but that's not how it works. I do want my money spent on raising everyone's living standards. "I'm sure that's in the Bible somewhere....." we have Matthew 19:21:

Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

But, as I previously stated, literally doing this is nonsensical in modernity. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.63  Sparty On  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.62    3 weeks ago
I do want my money spent on raising everyone's living standards.

And that is precisely where most of it already goes.   That is if you are paying any net Federal Income taxes.  

Nearly 50% of Americans don't so maybe you aren't

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.64  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.59    3 weeks ago
I've read the entire article in the link and did not notice Trump mentioned once.

Huh?  The entire thing was about Donald Trump and The Trump Foundation...and the sneaky-ass ways he found to make more tax-free money for himself while pretending to be such a generous and giving guy.  What he was doing with his 'foundation' was absolutely illegal.  He thought he could shut it down and avoid any kind of formal investigation in the early days of his administration.  Thank goodness that backfired.  The NY Atty. Gen. found a way to suspend foundation activities to preserve the evidence before it was destroyed.

Also mentioned is that he signed the Bill and Melinda Gates pledge to give away most of his fortune before he dies, or upon his death.  Of the billionaires who also signed the pledge, many have said publicly that they hoped Trump would follow through with his pledge, but they didn't expect it.  While I know it isn't a crime to renege on such a promise or pledge, it shines a light on how obvious his lack of character is to others.

     

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.65  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.64    3 weeks ago

My bad, missed that link in your post.

That said i can share links that show Trump has documented millions donated to charity over the years, you can share links like yours and the wheel will go around and around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/a-93-page-list-of-donald-trumps-charitable-contributions-from-the-last-five-years/2013/

If he had no "character" towards others why would he do that?   Perhaps he really does care or perhaps he's like many other people.   Donating to charity without altruism in mind at all but simply for the write off.   Either way, he wouldn't be the first politician with a shitty donations to charity history if that is what it is.   Many on both sides play that game to get elected.   Some don't even try and are still cheap bastards.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-returns-show-2020-democratic-candidates-donated-little-to-charity-2019-4

The front runner Biden being among the worst.

Such is life in DC i guess eh?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.66  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.65    3 weeks ago

Rump contributing to charitable foundations?  

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Same with his evil spawn.  Any monies from their 'charitable foundations' only benefit the Rumps.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.67  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.66    3 weeks ago

Who is Rump?

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.68  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.25    3 weeks ago

There were 570 billionaires in the US in 2017 yet only 19 signed this nonsense letter. They can pay whatever they want but the other 551 don't agree. 

Such a small minority does not change the tax code or laws.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5  Freedom Warrior    3 weeks ago

Question for our lefty friends.  Do you know why the ultra rich advocate for higher taxes?

 
 
 
lib50
5.1  lib50  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    3 weeks ago

Because they know in the end if they end up with everything the bottom will end up revolting. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lib50 @5.1    3 weeks ago

 That’s a myth but  it doesn’t surprise me that you would think that.

 When was the last time you saw the breakout for the tax burden paid by the various income brackets?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    3 weeks ago
Do you know why the ultra rich advocate for higher taxes?

To pay for Donald Trump's billion-dollar bankruptcies? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

People who advocate for wealth taxes don't seem to have a clue. Sure, they only want to tax the very wealthy NOW, but what about in 1 or 20 years from now after politicians have gotten used to having all that money to blow and it starts to dry up? Then the standard of who is "very wealthy" will change. Eventually, they will want to tax everyone with a few dollars in the bank.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6    3 weeks ago

It's the very wealthy who are advocating for the wealth tax.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    3 weeks ago
It's the very wealthy who are advocating for the wealth tax.

You're drawing this conclusion based on 19 signatures out of 75,000 affected families.  

That's ridiculous, even by "liberal math" standards.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Hey, math is hard.

Maybe because some have been taught that budget increases are budget cuts?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
Maybe because some have been taught that budget increases are budget cuts?

And tax cuts are "expenditures". 

The examples are legion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Those poor, poor, 75,000 affected families.

How will they survive?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

Not a thing in the world stopping them from giving their money away.

if they are truly serious about this, why do they feel that they need to be FORCED by law to do it?

Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

Time for them to put their fucking money where their mouths are.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
6.1.6  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    3 weeks ago
Not a thing in the world stopping them from giving their money away. if they are truly serious about this, why do they feel that they need to be FORCED by law to do it?

Because giving their money away would have little, probably no effect immediately ,and certainly no long term effect; their numbers are too small to affect the problems we have. See my post 4.1.19.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JumpDrive @6.1.6    3 weeks ago

I'm sure she saw it, but like anything else, chooses to ignore the facts.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.7    3 weeks ago

Yeah, I saw it, read it, dismissed it as unworthy of comment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

I've noticed you're dismissive of facts.  Got it.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  JumpDrive @6.1.6    3 weeks ago

Asked and answered.   See post 4.1.26

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.9    3 weeks ago
I've noticed you're dismissive of facts. Got it.

Facts? FACTS??

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

I understand that's a foreign concept to some.  

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.13  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.12    3 weeks ago

Funny how the ones who support Trump and his legion of lies want to define facts to the rest of us.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.14  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.14    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7  Jack_TX    3 weeks ago

This is the best current example of the emotional meth addict mentality of some emotionally driven liberals.

This tax would do absolutely zero toward addressing inequality.  Inequality will continue to worsen at exactly the same rate it has been for the last several decades.  The only thing this would do is make liberals "feel better" about "doing something" to address a problem that only exists in their "feelings" anyway.   

That's right....inequality is not the problem.  Poverty is the problem, and they couldn't fix poverty with unlimited money because doing so requires actions for which they lack the spine.

The bleeding hearts among the left won't notice that inequality continues to expand, because they will continue to do appallingly terrible math.

But they don't give a shit about any of that, they don't care about the poor, and they certainly don't care about people they can't feel sorry for.  They are completely consumed by their "feelings", they need a fix, and reality be damned.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @7    3 weeks ago

The liberal Democratic "War on Poverty" been waged for 50 years now, and poverty has kicked their ass.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    3 weeks ago
The liberal Democratic "War on Poverty" been waged for 50 years now, and poverty has kicked their ass.

To be fair, the conservative "war on drugs" hasn't gone any better, but for different reasons and that's a different topic.

You cannot end poverty or reduce inequality until you actually change the capabilities of the people in question.  But that's hard.  And it takes work.  And you have to abandon the bigotry of low expectation and the "feelings" it produces.  Most of all, you need enough spine to stop making excuses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
To be fair, the conservative "war on drugs" hasn't gone any better, but for different reasons and that's a different topic.

True enough, Personally, I favor pot legalization.

You cannot end poverty or reduce inequality until you actually change the capabilities of the people in question. But that's hard. And it takes work. And you have to abandon the bigotry of low expectation and the "feelings" it produces. Most of all, you need enough spine to stop making excuses.

Doubtful we will ever see an end to pandering and excuse-making why people aren't as successful as others.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
'Most of all, you need enough spine to stop making excuses.'

So that's what the working poor are up to?

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    3 weeks ago
So that's what the working poor are up to?

Safe to say he was referring to politicians and governmental policies which encourage the bigotry of low expectations. Governmental policies shouldn't be designed to make people "feel" better.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
True enough, Personally, I favor pot legalization.

Well that's you, me, and Beto.  By liberal math, that's a movement.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    3 weeks ago
So that's what the working poor are up to?

No, that's what the white liberal guilt crowd is up to.  You know..."bigotry of low expecation". 

Kindly do follow along.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
Governmental policies shouldn't be designed to make people "feel" better.

Not unless "feeling better" is the result of "being better".

In educational psychology, they call it "self-actualization".  Self actualization starts with refusal to accept that the person you are is all you'll ever be.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.8    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

It is convenient how you admit your points were invalid with a simple smiley.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @7.1.9    3 weeks ago

I did nothing of the kind.  My points weren't invalid.  Yours were.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.10    3 weeks ago
I did nothing of the kind.  My points weren't invalid. 

So valid you can't find the words to support them?  The absolute best support you can manage for your totally not invalid point is a smiley.    Riiiiiiiight.  

removed for context

I respond in kind.  If people are pleasant, I'm pleasant in return, even if I disagree with their ideas.  deleted

If you want a civil discussion, discuss things with civility.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

I think Jack has no problems speaking for himself - [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8    3 weeks ago
[delete]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9  livefreeordie    3 weeks ago

Let me help them so they can pay more today

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States."

This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs.

These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Funds Management Branch

P.O. Box 1328

Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @9    3 weeks ago

Go for it [deleted]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @9.1    3 weeks ago

I’m not one of those billionaires making that complaint.   Nor would I. But my income as an old man is less than 50k so I hardly fall into that bracket.

but what’s truly noticeable from your response is a lack of agreement that they could make voluntary tax payments if they were actually sincere about this

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

Whatever dude

 
 
 
Krishna
10  Krishna    3 weeks ago

When I first saw this article, it was presented as "nerws"-- a new idea. And perhaps the details are new. 

But it been proposed before (in 2010)-- and in fact its begun to be implemented. Its called "The Giving Pledge":

The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage wealthy people to contribute a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. As of May 2019, the pledge has 204 signatories, either individuals or couples, from 22 countries, though some of the signers have died since signing.[1] Most of the signatories of the pledge are billionaires, and their pledges total over $500 billion.

The organization's stated goal is to inspire the wealthy people of the world to give at least half of their net worth to philanthropy, either during their lifetime or upon their death. The pledge claims to be a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract.[2] On The Giving Pledge's website, each individual or couple writes a letter explaining why they chose to give.

In June 2010, the Giving Pledge campaign was formally announced and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett began recruiting members.[3] As of August 2010, the aggregate wealth of the first 40 pledgers was $125 billion.[4] As of April 2011, 69 billionaires had joined the campaign and given a pledge,[5] and by the following year, The Huffington Post reported that a total of 81 billionaires had committed.[6] By May 2017, 158 individuals and/or couples were listed as pledgers.[7][8] By May 2019, 204 individuals and/or couples were listed as pledgers.[9]

(READ IT ALL)

 
 
 
Krishna
10.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @10    3 weeks ago

Here's the Giving Pledge site-- you can click on each  individual's picture  and see what each person has to say about it.

___________________________________

For example, here Warren Buffet (as far as I can remember, he's always been in the top 3 or 4 wealthiest people in the entire world):

320

“Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks (Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates) on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others.”

[...]

My Philanthropic Pledge

In 2006, I made a commitment to gradually give all of my Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic foundations. I couldn’t be happier with that decision.

Now, Bill and Melinda Gates and I are asking hundreds of rich Americans to pledge at least 50% of their wealth to charity. So I think it is fitting that I reiterate my intentions and explain the thinking that lies behind them.

First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.

Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge....(Cont'd HERE)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11  XDm9mm    3 weeks ago

Well, to the following people,

Louise J. Bowditch

Robert S. Bowditch

Abigail Disney

Sean Eldridge

Stephen R. English

Agnes Gund

Catherine Gund

Nick Hanauer

Arnold Hiatt

Chris Hughes

Molly Munger

Regan Pritzker

Justin Rosenstein

Stephen M.Silberstein

Ian T. Simmons

Liesel Pritzker Simmons

Alexander Soros

George Soros

and Anonymous

Here's the address for your collective edification.  Don't hold back now, make those donations and write those check that actually hurt.  Be generous with your won money.  Just keep your hands out of my pocket.  See how easy that is?

How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States."

This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs.

These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328
 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @11    3 weeks ago

That's been supplied already.  

No need to be redundant.  

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
12  TᵢG    3 weeks ago
They argue that the money raised — about $3 trillion over 10 years — could “substantially fund” investment in programs including clean energy, universal child care, infrastructure overhauls and tax relief for low-income families.

And it could be wasted.    If there was a way to actually ensure these funds would be put to good use and not wasted due to corruption and incompetence,  I can see value here.   I just do not see how this can be accomplished with the current state of our federal and to a lesser degree state governments.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.1  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @12    3 weeks ago
They argue that the money raised — about $3 trillion over 10 years — could “substantially fund” investment in programs including clean energy, universal child care, infrastructure overhauls and tax relief for low-income families.

They do.  All of that is nonsense, but you are correct, supporters of the tax argue those things.

It won't raise $3 trillion.  It won't begin to cover those programs, and it is impossible to have tax relief for people who don't pay taxes anyway.

And it could be wasted.    If there was a way to actually ensure these funds would be put to good use and not wasted due to corruption and incompetence,  I can see value here.   I just do not see how this can be accomplished with the current state of our federal and to a lesser degree state governments.

Exactly.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
12.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @12    3 weeks ago
And it could be wasted.    If there was a way to actually ensure these funds would be put to good use and not wasted due to corruption and incompetence,  I can see value here.

One of the main reasons for a wealth tax is to lower the wealth gap, not only provide funds for programs.  A society has every right to assure that the people with the money do not control too great a portion of the wealth and that their wealth dos not provide them with too much political power. People on the right may not like it, but the society has the right to control how much wealth individuals have. 

No one wants to make billionaires poor. The proposed rate of 3% is a pittance on that sort of fortune. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2    3 weeks ago
One of the main reasons for a wealth tax is to lower the wealth gap, not only provide funds for programs.

True.   Of course the core reason is to look into why reducing the wealth gap (in moderation) is healthy for society.

A society has every right to assure that the people with the money do not control too great a portion of the wealth and that their wealth dos not provide them with too much political power. 

Agreed.

No one wants to make billionaires poor. 

One would expect this to be true.


How does any of this relate to what I wrote?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12.2.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2    3 weeks ago

We already overtax everyone but the very poor.

who are you to decide how much someone is allowed to earn or accumulate?  What gives you or anyone else that right?

 
 
 
Krishna
12.2.3  Krishna  replied to  livefreeordie @12.2.2    3 weeks ago
who are you to decide how much someone is allowed to earn or accumulate?  What gives you or anyone else that right?

And who are you to decide?

Its called "democracy". Citizens vote for representatives that take actions they wapprove of-- and if they don't, the representatives don't get elected.

(Democracy has been called "the worst system of government in the world-- except for all the others").

basically that's the choice-- the citizens decide via democratic means (electing representatives)-- or a dictator mak.es the decisions.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2    3 weeks ago
One of the main reasons for a wealth tax is to lower the wealth gap,

No.  It isn't. 

Because:

The proposed rate of 3% is a pittance on that sort of fortune.

It's all about making certain people "feel better" without actually doing anything.

People on the right may not like it, but the society has the right to control how much wealth individuals have. 

Not a free society. 

And you're right, once people have lived in a free society, they don't like trading freedoms for "feelings".

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.2.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.4    3 weeks ago

You keep talking about feelings and for the life of me I just don't get it.

Maybe I am dense but I just don't understand 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12.2.6  livefreeordie  replied to  Krishna @12.2.3    3 weeks ago

No one in a society that values individual liberty has a right to control or limit what others earn or accumulate.

your “democracy” explanation is just authoritarianism

As Jefferson explained

"what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

Thomas Jefferson inaugural address March 4,1801

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.5    3 weeks ago
You keep talking about feelings and for the life of me I just don't get it. Maybe I am dense but I just don't understand 

No, not dense at all.  Certainly a fair question and probably the perfect situation to demonstrate it.  It's not often somebody supports an idea and admits it worthless in the same post, but we kinda got lucky with John here.

John is telling us in very clear terms that he already knows this plan let the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.  He even uses the word "pittance" about the rich and the poor are not mentioned anywhere, indicating they're a complete afterthought.

So what would be the point of this great "equality" plan? ....which even supporter John admits is not going to accomplish anything we can measure with a number.  What problem does it actually solve?

My answer is... John and lots of other left-leaners will "feel" better and think things are more "fair". 

It strikes them as terribly unfair that some people have so much money while other people have so little.  They're also a little pissed that ultra rich people are flying around in private jets while they have to worry about overspending the grocery budget. 

All that makes them unhappy, but they don't actually have a good idea about how to fix it.  So when somebody suggests an idea, they see an opportunity to remove that unhappiness, and they jump on it without regard to whether it's a good idea or not.  That's because the real problem they want to solve has nothing to do with the poor...or the rich.  It's all about their own unhappiness.  aka "feelings".

Make no mistake....they things absolutely will not be any more fair than they are now, but John and buddies will be able to pretend they are and they will feel less unhappy.

Personally, I see this all the time from both sides.  Everything from "build a wall" to "Green New Deal" are all about the emotions of the people supporting the ideas.

The best example may the Affordable Care Act, where both the law itself and the attempts to repeal it are 95% about how people "feel" rather than what the thing they support actually does.  Almost no ardent supporters or opponents can tell you more than 2% of the law, but that doesn't stop them shouting about it.

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.8  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.7    3 weeks ago

Sorry Jack, but our position on the ACA, clean air,  wages that keep up with inflation have to do with LIVING, not feelings.   Probably not a good idea to 'feel' like you know what motivates others.  Deal with the issues and positions and what makes you happy and feeling good or bad.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.9  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.2.8    3 weeks ago
Sorry Jack, but our position on the ACA, clean air,  wages that keep up with inflation have to do with LIVING, not feelings.

I realize you won't want to admit that, and I'm sure you will guard your perception ferociously.

And if you'll notice, it is not the positions I criticize.

The "feelings" take over when otherwise reasonable adults identify problems, but then emphatically and often angrily support programs or ideas that will very obviously not begin to solve those problems. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.2.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @12.2.8    3 weeks ago
'Sorry Jack, but our position on the ACA, clean air,  wages that keep up with inflation have to do with LIVING, not feelings.   Probably not a good idea to 'feel' like you know what motivates others.' 

That's what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words.  Thanks!

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.11  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.9    3 weeks ago

Best look inward, Jack.  Your 'feelings' are clouding your perception.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.2.11    3 weeks ago

Unfortunately for me, I'm a numbers person.  My degree is in mathematics and I make my living analyzing various numbers for clients.

It would be much easier if I were able to ignore inconvenient things like "math" and pretend shit will work if Republicans weren't so mean, but reality keeps getting in the way.....

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.13  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.12    3 weeks ago

We can be both actually.  I've got a business degree and liked math.  Except geometry.  And I know feelings.    But if you are following republican math, I won't be following you down that path.  All those trickle down policies don't work, but we keep getting pushed down that rabbit hole anyway.   And your analysis of the ACA is incorrect, but a different seed, I'll just say almost everything the right says about the ACA and its numbers are wrong.  And they seem to have a problem with full analysis, always skipping that deficit or putting costs on budget when it suits them.   Their assholiness is just more on the shit sandwich.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.2.13    3 weeks ago
But if you are following republican math, I won't be following you down that path.

Meh.  Depends on the Republican.  

  All those trickle down policies don't work, but we keep getting pushed down that rabbit hole anyway.

Popular ideology sets Reagan up as the architect of "trickle down".  But Reagan's actions were almost as Keynesian as FDR.  He used massive government spending to stimulate the economy and then later raised taxes.  You may remember Stephen Colbert pointing that out to Ted Cruz.

The true king of trickle down was none other than Barack Obama, whose economic stimulus was all filtered through huge banks and massive corporations.  You'll notice the inequality explosion of the last 10 years.

The thing that no partisan will ever admit is.... both programs actually worked. 

And your analysis of the ACA is incorrect, but a different seed, I'll just say almost everything the right says about the ACA and its numbers are wrong.

Almost everything both sets of partisans say about the ACA is wrong.  It's a very poorly written law, but it's not the worst law in history or anything.  That doesn't mean it actually has any chance of actually doing what it's supporters hoped it would do.  Not that they care.  They got to "feel good" about something, which I guess was really the point anyway.

  And they seem to have a problem with full analysis, always skipping that deficit or putting costs on budget when it suits them.   Their assholiness is just more on the shit sandwich.

If only they were alone in either of those things......

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.15  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.14    3 weeks ago

The ACA was not just feel good.  It did improve things.  And cut costs.  And Trump and the gop are making it worse for Americans health wise and money wise.  This is too important to believe the lies the gop and Trump tell.

https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-costs/

Even before the Affordable Care Act became law, about 90 percent of the conversation and criticism of it was about coverage. Little has been said about its ability to control costs.

March 23, the ninth anniversary of the ACA’s passage, presents a good opportunity to examine its legacy on cost control — a legacy that deserves to be in the foreground, not relegated to the background behind the exchanges, Medicaid expansion, and work requirements.

One month after the ACA had passed, the Office of the Actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services projected its financial impact in a report entitled “Estimated Financial Effects of the ‘Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act’, as Amended.” The government’s official record-keeper estimated that health care costs under the ACA would reach $4.14 trillion per year in 2017 and constitute 20.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Fast forward to December 2018, when that same office released the official tabulation of health care spending in 2017. The bottom line: cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

In 2017 alone, health expenditures were $650 billion lower than projected, and kept health care spending under 18 percent of GDP — basically a tad over where it was in 2010 when the ACA was passed. It did all of this while expanding health coverage to more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans.

Compared to the 2010 projections, the government’s Medicare bill in 2017 was 10 percent ($70 billion) less, and spending for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program was a whopping $250 billion below expectations (partially — but only partially — due to the failure of some states to expand the program). The actuary had predicted in 2010 that employer-sponsored insurance would cost $1.21 trillion in 2017, but it came in at $1.04 trillion, a difference of $170 billion for that year.

Put another way, health care spending in 2017 was $2,000 less per person than it was projected to be. And for the 176 million Americans who have private employer-sponsored insurance, their lower premiums averaged just under $1,000 per person.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/may/effect-affordable-care-act-health-care-access

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247287.php

 
 
 
MUVA
12.2.16  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @12.2.15    3 weeks ago

The only people that save money with the ACA receive subsidies my health care went from about 18 thousand a year to almost 22 thousand a year since the ACA. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.17  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.2.15    3 weeks ago
The ACA was not just feel good.

No, it was mostly feel good.  Or feel bad, depending on which brand of emotional person we're talking about.

  It did improve things.

But it also made a lot of things worse, and it didn't need to.  It also left mountains of problems that would have been very easy to fix if the people drafting the law had any clue they existed.

Most blind defenders of the law can point to three or four things it does.....out of hundreds of provisions and hundreds of thousands of pages of supporting regulation.

Most blind opponents of the law can't even tell you that.

Both sets will always get more wrong about the law than they get right.

  And cut costs.

Not at all.  It simply transferred them.  Millions of people pay MUCH more for insurance than they did in 2013 because of the actuarial effects of the ACA.  

  And Trump and the gop are making it worse for Americans health wise and money wise.  This is too important to believe the lies the gop and Trump tell.

Are you able to understand that your choices are not limited to believing the propaganda of the left or believing the propaganda of the right?  There is this whole massive thing out here called "the middle ground".  It's the place where we're smart enough to realize that just because one set of wingnuts is full of shit, that does not mean the other set isn't full of shit also.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.18  Jack_TX  replied to  MUVA @12.2.16    3 weeks ago
The only people that save money with the ACA receive subsidies my health care went from about 18 thousand a year to almost 22 thousand a year since the ACA. 

Count yourself fortunate.  Many, many people saw larger increases than that on the first day.

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.19  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.17    3 weeks ago

I've put links in and I can put lots more to prove my points.  Why don't you and MUVA try it.   Then we can talk specific points.  But you are both wrong about the ACA.   I've never said it was perfect, by the way,  but it sure the hell was better than nothing and now that Trumpers are trying to decimate it, the damage is getting worse.  The ACA DID cut costs, it DID increase the number of insured Americans and it DID provide protections for the most vulnerable, protecting those with pre-conditions.   And now things are reversing.  Deal with the facts, not the bullshit.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.20  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.2.19    3 weeks ago
I've put links in and I can put lots more to prove my points

You've put up links to prove points I'm not actually arguing.  In doing so you're illustrating my point exceedingly well.

You've also used one link from a terribly biased source and another that is basically an elementary school primer, only lacking pictures of Dick and Jane.  I'm not interested in kindergarten level references or rigged studies by political hack groups.  If you want real information, go to real sources.  Start with CMS, HHS, and Kaiser.

But you are both wrong about the ACA. 

Please understand, I consult on ACA compliance (among several other things) for a living.  The likelihood of me being the one of us who is wrong is infinitesimally small.  

The law did a few very, very good things, and those have been well recited by every touchy-feely Obama supporter for 5 years now.

But it also did a LOT of bad things, which adamantly deny like an Iraqi general in front of the Baghdad airport. 

It was an actuarial disaster, which is why huge numbers of places only have one option for health insurance now.  https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/insurer-participation-on-aca-marketplaces-2014-2019/

It's also why many of the options available have very few provider options.  Many of these plans are simply Medicaid managed care plans those companies are making available on the exchanges, so provider access is exceedingly limited.

The ACA completely ignored actuarial standards, mandating artificially adjusted rates that penalized young men...and then people stare at each other in amazement that young men aren't actually signing up.  

The law forced the cancellation of policies purchased between it's signing in 2010 and the advent of "metallic" plans in 2014 (referred to as "non-grandfathered")  Those people were able to buy the new metallic plans, but at a massively higher price than they were paying before.  If they qualified for a subsidy, they didn't mind too much.  If they didn't qualify for a subsidy, they got fucked pretty hard.  Not that Obama supporters gave a shit.  Democrats getting their way filled them with "feelings" of hope and change.   Yaaaaay team Blue State!

How about the "Obamacare Glitch"?  You can read this NPR story so it won't burn your eyes.

How about Title VIII?  Get back to me after you've Googled it.

How about the MLR?  Because tripling insurer profits is a key element of "keeping them honest" in "Feelingsland".

How about the abolition of risk pools, and letting insurers get opt out of helping with high risk claimants?

I can literally go on for days. 

I've never said it was perfect, by the way,  but it sure the hell was better than nothing and now that Trumpers are trying to decimate it, the damage is getting worse.

Something really pretty pathetic and inept was done, and you're attempting to defend it as though the ONLY other option in the universe was "doing nothing".  That's illogical.  Do you understand how we're in the realm of "feelings"?

The Trump Administration couldn't decimate a sand castle, BTW.

The ACA DID cut costs

Really?  HHS doesn't think so.  https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2017/05/23/hhs-report-average-health-insurance-premiums-doubled-2013.html

Do you realize that somebody else paying for stuff does not...in fact...make that stuff cheaper?  

Deal with the facts, not the bullshit.

How about you deal with the facts and not your "feelings".

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.21  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.20    3 weeks ago

Fuck your feelings infatuation, the only thing I'm feeling right now is tired of dealing with vague bullshit with no links.  Learn how insurance works.  Learn how other countries do it.   Learn how to provide specifics.  Then tell me why you think we were better off before it was passed, and if all you have is gop lies, don't bother.   The ACA was pathetic because the dems tried to bring in the gop.  Not explaining that one either, but the improvements were instantly stress reducing.  Everything gop has done since it was passed has damaged it and harmed Americans. 

 
 
 
MUVA
12.2.22  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @12.2.19    3 weeks ago

Are you saying I don't know how much my insurance cost that I pay for?It is not better than nothing and it didn't cut cost for people that actually pay for their insurance without a subsidy. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.23  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @12.2.21    3 weeks ago
Then tell me why you think we were better off before it was passed, and if all you have is gop lies, don't bother.

How about premium rate increases accelerating since ACA was adopted?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/#5088ec7611d2

 It’s that good for you?

 
 
 
lib50
12.2.24  lib50  replied to  MUVA @12.2.22    3 weeks ago

I'm not talking about one personal experience, I'm talking about the overall state of healthcare and reform.  I don't think most people understand insurance and how it works, otherwise they wouldn't allow people not to pay for it until they need it, because WE ALL PAY when that happens.  It impacts all insurance markets, including employer.  When people support worthless policies that don't cover anything I know they don't understand what it means to have a catastrophic medical event.  It happens in the blink of an eye, can't be planned for and you can't save enough for it.  And we all pay.  Another thing is the rate of premium increases prior to the ACA.  They were going up far more before.  And what is supposed to happen when so many can't afford coverage without subsidies?  I ask again, how was it better before reform?  If money is your only metric, then deal with the fact that the ACA began to lower the costs of US healthcare, it was almost 20% of our GDP and growing, and other countries are half that.   And our outcomes are worse, our mortality rates are worse, and more people don't get healthcare.  When healthy people are allowed to 'opt out', that is the total opposite of how insurance works, which is to spread the risk.  So the people with insurance pay more, and then when the uninsured have a disaster, we pay again, even more, for their 'freedom' to not pay into the system.   You don't see it because I'm talking about the big picture not you personally.  The overall impact of policies on the country.

https://www.thebalance.com/the-truth-about-obamacare-3306075

Myth 1: Health care costs are rising thanks to Obamacare.

Truth: Health care costs have been rising, but at a slower pace since the ACA was launched. Since 2010, health care costs have increased between 3.5 percent to 5.8 percent a year. In the 10 years prior to that, they rose between 4.0 percent to 9.6 percent. That's according to the annual "National Health Expenditures Summary," published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Myth 2: Under Obamacare, you are forced to pay higher premiums for services you don’t need, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity care.

Truth: In any health insurance plan, someone is paying for services they know they'll never need. A marathoner will never need diabetes care, women will never need prostate testing, etc. Obamacare requires childbirth coverage to lower overall health care costs. That's because Medicaid pays for 50 percent of all childbirths. It costs the taxpayer less to make sure those women receive prenatal care. That is cheaper than the emergency room treatment that results from botched home deliveries.

Myth 3: Obamacare is socialized medicine, like in Canada or the United Kingdom.

Truth: Not really. In the UK, doctors are employees of the federal government. In Canada, the government pays most medical bills. That's similar to America's Medicare and Medicaid. The ACA does expand Medicaid to middle-income families, but most of the expansion is in the private insurance market.

Why do more than half (57 percent) of Americans think the ACA is socialized medicine? President Obama’s initial proposal included universal health care. That included Congress, which rejected his proposal. Ironically, Obamacare now forces Congress onto the private exchanges, just like everyone else. So, in that particular case, the ACA reduced socialized medicine. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.2.25  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lib50 @12.2.24    3 weeks ago
I don't think most people understand insurance and how it works,

sure we do... bankers get rich and we pay more no matter how ya slice it.

call the hospital and ask for the "stop-loss dept

I made my hospital lower my bill from 8700 to 1800. 

told them there was no way in hell id pay the bloated insurance rates. (not one penny)

told them send me a bill for only services rendered at cost and I pay cash today

cash today is always king - so they re-did my bill and my balance is paid in full :)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.26  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.2.21    3 weeks ago
Fuck your feelings infatuation, the only thing I'm feeling right now is tired of dealing with vague bullshit with no links.

By which you mean "my feelings cannot accept the facts within your four (4) links".

Count them....four....links. 

Four. 

4. 

IV.

One more than 3.

Square root of 16.  

Learn how to provide specifics.

Yes....because referring to specific sections of the law is not "specific" in any way.....

The ACA was pathetic

Congratulations.  The first step of rehabilitation is admitting there is a problem.

Then tell me why you think we were better off before it was passed, and if all you have is gop lies, don't bother. 

Are you, in fact, capable of understanding that life is not binary?   There were actually other options besides "doing nothing" or "passing a crap law".   If you knew anything at all about this topic, you would understand that immediately.

Everything gop has done since it was passed has damaged it and harmed Americans. 

Is there any issue where your view is not mired in your political tribalism?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12.2.27  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @12.2.24    3 weeks ago
I'm not talking about one personal experience, I'm talking about the overall state of healthcare and reform.

Not only his experience, but mine as well, and everyone else that I know saw premiums increase dramatically after the ACA passed.   Of course there are many that are elated with their coverage, those that are essentially getting it for nothing with the expansion of Medicaid.

And I will agree that premiums were going up very high immediately prior to passage of the ACA.  The insurance industry recognized what was coming and what they would be required to do, cover more including preexisting conditions and they know it costs money to cover those and increased costs accordingly.

Now, the Democrat Presidential hopefuls want to give "health care" to any and all, including illegal alien invaders.  What not one has indicated is exactly how it would be paid for and by whom it would be paid.  And those 'gold plated' union health care plans which were part of collective bargaining?  Well they're essentially telling the unions that support them that it's just tough shit.....   they'll have to give those up, for the common good of course.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.2.28  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.23    3 weeks ago
It’s that good for you?

I think we have established that any fact that proves inconvenient to the leftist hard line that "the ACA is fantastic" will be deemed a "GOP lie", regardless of the amount or veracity of the citations.

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.29  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.28    3 weeks ago

Their specialty is taking links that prove what they are asking for, twisting and obfuscating them in attempt to make it look untrue.  

I’m actually waiting for that to happen on this one.

 
 
 
Krishna
12.3  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @12    3 weeks ago
They argue that the money raised — about $3 trillion over 10 years — could “substantially fund” investment in programs including clean energy, universal child care, infrastructure overhauls and tax relief for low-income families.
And it could be wasted.    If there was a way to actually ensure these funds would be put to good use and not wasted due to corruption and incompetence,  I can see value here.   I just do not see how this can be accomplished with the current state of our federal and to a lesser degree state governments.

The key word there is "could".

Additional monies to the federal government "could" be put to good use. But if past performance is any indication of future actions...

I am not wealthy. However, if I was, I would contribute lots of money to worthy causes. However, I would feel much more confidcent that that money would be put to good use if I myself choose some worthy charities to donate it to-- and then voluntarily did that.

I would not want it to be given to the federal government-- which has been shown to be corrupt, politically motivated, and just plain inefficient.

(And to all you conservative fans of state government-- the state governments are no better than the feds).

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
13  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago

It is because they are smart enough to read the writing on the walls. They know what happens when a select few own everything and the general masses are struggling to eat.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
13.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13    3 weeks ago
They know what happens when a select few own everything and the general masses are struggling to eat.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Tessylo
Freedom Warrior
Bob Nelson
1stwarrior
cjcold


45 visitors