Pretty poor math, since that income bracket would not pay those taxes. I know it's difficult to follow.
The 2020 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Zeez
- Start date
- Status
Pretty poor math, since that income bracket would not pay those taxes. I know it's difficult to follow.
Pardon me if my reading skills are off but didn't you just make Cannavors point for him?
St. Phatty
Active member
You forgot an apostrophe.
Your bud shots are AWESOME !!!
So much frostiness you practically need sunglasses to look at them.
M
Mr D
https://www.indeed.com/q-Media-Buyer-jobs.html
Not going to bother with the Trump whataboutism.
Refuse to import their products.... Fuckin brilliant, you should try that with the drug makers in China.
You forgot an apostrophe.
Your bud shots are AWESOME !!!
So much frostiness you practically need sunglasses to look at them.
I do admit to finding 'except' in place of 'accept' confusing. And I'm not even a right wingnut.
White Beard
Active member
Fell off your stool? Hit your head?
52% rate is applied to dollars of income ABOVE TEN MILLION, and - simple math here, so watch your step - 31,200 is LESS THAN 10,000,000.
Therefore, the amount of that 31,000 taxed at 52% will be ZERO.
Still with me?
White Beard
Active member
Don’t let US stop you - your Dexit awaits...
i'm not advocating for that to happen nor is anyone else in politics. just pointing out that's what socialism is. the closest bernie gets to this position is to have 25% of the boards of companies be represented by the workers which i think most people could get behind that idea. it's already done in europe at far higher %'s than 25%.
but to answer your question, the point is for the workers to take over companies that flirt with these ideas of outsourcing before it happens. which is why actual socialism requires force or armed revolution... bosses aren't going to voluntarily give up their power and most workers wouldn't voluntarily give up their jobs and go along with outsourcing or sale of the company.
worker co-ops and worker ownership already exists in the US and many companies that do this have high productivity, worker happiness, social safety nets, etc. it's done a lot in the craft beer industry actually because of buyouts from budweiser and the big boys. worker ownership protects those jobs and also ensures the quality of their product (beer in this case) doesn't go down as you normally see when products become more commercialized.
https://www.salon.com/2020/02/22/mu...eaper-than-public-option-pushed-by-moderates/
Two new studies further showed that the Medicare for All plan is not only cheaper than the status quo but also costs less than the public option moderates have claimed is more fiscally sound.
A study published in The Lancet this month by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland estimated that Medicare for All would save $450 billion per year — about $2,400 in annual savings per family — and would prevent more than 68,000 unnecessary deaths each year.
"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americans—which includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Yale researcher Alison Galvani told Newsweek.
Medicare for All would allow the government to negotiate prices for care, as most Western nations with single-payer systems already do, and reduce overhead costs.
Biden and Buttigieg's proposals would actually increase costs, Galvani said.
"Without the savings to overhead, pharmaceutical costs, hospital/clinical fees, and fraud detection, 'Medicare for all who want it' could annually cost $175 billion dollars more than status quo," Galvani told Newsweek. "That's over $600 billion more than Medicare for all."
Another study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at Harvard University, Hunter College and the University of Ottawa similarly estimated that switching to a single-payer system like Medicare for All could save up to $600 billion per year on administrative costs alone.
The study found that the average American pays $2,597 per year on administrative costs — overhead for insurers and hospitals, salaries, huge executive compensation packages and growing profits — while Canadians pay $551 per year.
Though Canada had costs similar to the United States and worse health outcomes before it adopted its single-payer system in 1962, Canada now has better health outcomes than the United States and only spends 17% of its health care spending on administrative costs, compared to 34% in the U.S.
"Americans spend twice as much per person as Canadians on health care. But instead of buying better care, that extra spending buys us sky-high profits and useless paperwork," lead author Dr. David Himmelstein, who teaches at Harvard and Hunter College, said in a statement. "Before their single-payer reform, Canadians died younger than Americans, and their infant mortality rate was higher than ours. Now Canadians live three years longer and their infant mortality rate is 22% lower than ours. Under Medicare for All, Americans could cut out the red tape and afford a Rolls Royce version of Canada's system."
Himmelstein told Time that the savings in administrative costs alone would be enough to eliminate "all copayments and deductibles" and still "have money left over."
But while Medicare for All would reduce these costs by eliminating private profit-seeking insurers, the public option alternative would add costs while leaving the bloated administrative costs in place.
"Medicare for All could save more than $600 billion each year on bureaucracy, and repurpose that money to cover America's 30 million uninsured and eliminate copayments and deductibles for everyone," said researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, who also teaches at Harvard and Hunter. "Reforms like a public option that leave private insurers in place can't deliver big administrative savings. As a result, public option reform would cost much more and cover much less than Medicare for All."
Other studies have led to similar conclusions. A review of 22 single-payer studies published in PLOS Medicine found that 19 of them "predicted net savings ... in the first year of program operation and 20 ... predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans."
Two new studies further showed that the Medicare for All plan is not only cheaper than the status quo but also costs less than the public option moderates have claimed is more fiscally sound.
A study published in The Lancet this month by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland estimated that Medicare for All would save $450 billion per year — about $2,400 in annual savings per family — and would prevent more than 68,000 unnecessary deaths each year.
"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americans—which includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Yale researcher Alison Galvani told Newsweek.
Medicare for All would allow the government to negotiate prices for care, as most Western nations with single-payer systems already do, and reduce overhead costs.
Biden and Buttigieg's proposals would actually increase costs, Galvani said.
"Without the savings to overhead, pharmaceutical costs, hospital/clinical fees, and fraud detection, 'Medicare for all who want it' could annually cost $175 billion dollars more than status quo," Galvani told Newsweek. "That's over $600 billion more than Medicare for all."
Another study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at Harvard University, Hunter College and the University of Ottawa similarly estimated that switching to a single-payer system like Medicare for All could save up to $600 billion per year on administrative costs alone.
The study found that the average American pays $2,597 per year on administrative costs — overhead for insurers and hospitals, salaries, huge executive compensation packages and growing profits — while Canadians pay $551 per year.
Though Canada had costs similar to the United States and worse health outcomes before it adopted its single-payer system in 1962, Canada now has better health outcomes than the United States and only spends 17% of its health care spending on administrative costs, compared to 34% in the U.S.
"Americans spend twice as much per person as Canadians on health care. But instead of buying better care, that extra spending buys us sky-high profits and useless paperwork," lead author Dr. David Himmelstein, who teaches at Harvard and Hunter College, said in a statement. "Before their single-payer reform, Canadians died younger than Americans, and their infant mortality rate was higher than ours. Now Canadians live three years longer and their infant mortality rate is 22% lower than ours. Under Medicare for All, Americans could cut out the red tape and afford a Rolls Royce version of Canada's system."
Himmelstein told Time that the savings in administrative costs alone would be enough to eliminate "all copayments and deductibles" and still "have money left over."
But while Medicare for All would reduce these costs by eliminating private profit-seeking insurers, the public option alternative would add costs while leaving the bloated administrative costs in place.
"Medicare for All could save more than $600 billion each year on bureaucracy, and repurpose that money to cover America's 30 million uninsured and eliminate copayments and deductibles for everyone," said researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, who also teaches at Harvard and Hunter. "Reforms like a public option that leave private insurers in place can't deliver big administrative savings. As a result, public option reform would cost much more and cover much less than Medicare for All."
Other studies have led to similar conclusions. A review of 22 single-payer studies published in PLOS Medicine found that 19 of them "predicted net savings ... in the first year of program operation and 20 ... predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans."
M
Mr D
Could be, if US workers are allowed to take over companies in Mexico. Maybe I need to reread US trade agreements.
Employee ownership does not address the 800lbs. gorilla in the room ..... fiat slavery. Fed policies have a larger impact on wealth transfer to the 1%. At the end of the day Bernie's policies advocate for increased tax slavery which will compound debt slavery and ultimately fiat slavery. The underlying problem is the money itself, not the distribution. The lopsided distribution of money is a symptom of the disease, not the disease.
Nothing wrong with employee ownership. I'm not sure I'd sell it with visions of Bernie bros kicking CEO's to the curb.
Tell me something... If I create a piece of art that sells for $1billion on craigslist. Then pay $300 million in taxes on that $1 billion.
Considering that taxes are meant to fund public services and infrastructure that I use. What's the rationale for me being taxed at much higher rate on the remaining $700 million?
On top of what I have already paid in taxes it's fair to say that $300 million covered the lifetime of a few generations of my family and some. I didn't need any workers or additional use of services and infrastructure to make the $1 billion.
With so many open jobs maybe we could reduce government and make more effective use of current tax revenue. Do we really need 17 intelligence agencies, 100's of federal law enforcement agencies, DHS, and dozens of others?
Mr d. All I meant was Cannavor was differentiating the socialist company take over from the Sanders policies, however I will read over your statements and respond when at the computer.
If we had M4A under Bernie this is what you would pay on a billion$ income.
1000000000 - 52%=480m$
You wouldn't pay taxes twice.
But investors who buy artwork and hold on to the capital asset for more than one year before selling the art are subject to long-term capital gains tax on any profit.
1000000000 - 52%=480m$
You wouldn't pay taxes twice.
But investors who buy artwork and hold on to the capital asset for more than one year before selling the art are subject to long-term capital gains tax on any profit.
Mr. D
As you probably remember my thoughts on wealth distribution can happen through a fairly applied flat tax beginning at an established income level. Also a luxury tax and taxes on frequent fliers.
I also think worker ownership of companies is beneficial but certainly not imposed.
As you probably remember my thoughts on wealth distribution can happen through a fairly applied flat tax beginning at an established income level. Also a luxury tax and taxes on frequent fliers.
I also think worker ownership of companies is beneficial but certainly not imposed.
M
Mr D
If he can't create medicare for all with an executive order it's just a bunch of hot air sorry to say. Obamacare had a shit ton of studies showing the cost savings and benefits, how'd that work out?
It would be helpful if all those studies included one on the impact of increased doctor visits and demand for services from an industry that has a shortage of doctors and facilities.
M
Mr D
Bro you are hopeless. Try reading his tax plan before you post.
I'd pay 4% of a year additional tax.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/
, its pretty simple math dude. Badfishy1 is the lame brain that brought up 52%. I admit Cannavore is better at explaining Bernie's tax break down than I. Its not something any here would need to worry about. I'm pretty sure you've missed something. At least I can admit when mistakes are made. You few dummies will go to your gave before doing the same.
- Status
