Hi -- New here.

[Oneuli]

You can be brief and still get all the salient points in. So long drawn out explanations are unnecessary and a waste of time. That is my opinion.

When the topic is something like universal health insurance, the minimum needed to cover the topic decently would be a few hundred pages of treatise. Attempting to outline the basics in just a few short paragraphs, like I did, ends up over-simplifying to the point of absurdity. But since that's what this format demands, I'm happy to comply. I'm also happy to go with even shorter bullet points, if a few paragraphs would over-tax your attention span. But, as I mentioned, the natural outcome of that is that what I write will be dismissed not for being too long, but for lacking specifics. It's the Conservative Catch 22 at work.

 

[Oneuli]

No, it's a fact. Ever been in a corporate meeting? If you ramble on you lose your audience as they quit listening, plus the boss will thank you and tell you to sit down. It's basically the same here.

I spend my days in corporate meetings. We analysts know we need to get a feel for what kind of audience we're presenting to. If the audience is smart, they'll want a lot of detail, because they're capable of understanding the specifics and need to wrap their head around them to get comfortable with the advice. If the audience isn't smart, they'll want a few bullet points, because anything more will overwhelm them and their minds will wander.... and, besides, they wouldn't understand the specifics, anyway. So, it is basically the same in online forums -- a person has to get a feel for each individual forum member, to know what level to write at. But, keep in mind, I'm new here. It will take a while to calibrate.

 

[Oneuli]

It looks like we have a new rookie of the year winner here.

Huge number of replies is astounding.

I'd hold off on making the award. If you check, most of what I've inspired are just short personal snipes, rather than substantive contributions. But I'm working on it.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

You ask the impossible, for two reasons:

(1) Simply citing an economist who says we can afford it wouldn't be proof. It would be "argument from authority" which is a classic logical fallacy.

(2) If I were to cite an economist who took the position that we can afford it, that would be prima facie proof, in your mind, that the economist was biased.

Towards the second point, I could offer up the names of Jonathan Gruber, Lawrence Summers, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Paul Collier, Kenneth Arrow, etc., as prominent economists who believe universal health insurance is affordable for the US. That list includes many of the world's leading economic minds, including multiple winners of the Nobel Prize for economics. But since they all believe in universal health insurance, I suspect none of those names will work for you. If I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll happy to share examples of their writing. For example, Paul Krugman is arguably the most respected living economist among other economists, and won the Nobel Prize in the subject. If you'd accept him as an expert in economics, I can cite many examples of him arguing in favor of universal health insurance.



If you recall, I used your own source -- the Mercatus Center (I assume that was your source, anyway, since you cited their number and haven't denied it). Even using that source's figure for the ten-year cost (which we can assume to err on the high side for the reasons I enumerated), it would STILL be cheaper than our current system. If we can afford the current system, we can definitely afford Medicare for all, since it would be cheaper.



If we insisted on keeping our radically low taxes, while still affording universal health insurance, then the cost is much higher. The increased hit on the federal government would be as much as $1.6 trillion per year, average (using the net of the Mercatus number and the current spending it would displace), and it's hard to find $1.6 trillion in savings in our budget. The biggest area of discretionary spending is the military budget, which is around $717 billion. If we reduced that to a more reasonable $250 billion, that wouldn't even cover a third of the savings we'd need to find. Most other spending areas are already extremely lean by wealthy-nation standards, so we can't find many savings there without seriously diminishing returns. Basically, we'd be cutting already-emaciated budgets, greatly harming the people. Assuming you're not OK with breaking past promises (e.g., defaulting on debts or refusing to pay up on our promises for Social Security), we're not going to find the rest of that money in further cuts without wrecking the society. So, boosting our radically low taxes is the way to go.

As for how much we'd have to raise them, I already addressed that. Raising them from 26% of GDP to 34% of GDP would do it. That could be done by increasing all taxes by about 31% (a proportional increase of 31 percent, not adding 31 percentage points). So, if your current effective tax rate is 10%, it would go to 13.1%. Etc.

You ask the impossible, for two reasons:


Thank you for being honest. It is refreshing to see here. There is no way to prove one side or the other is correct. So on this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[TOP]

It looks like we have a new rookie of the year winner here.

Huge number of replies is astounding.

Between "projects"...it's such a blessing....Looking forward to more of "her" replies....

 

[SouthernUnkleRitchie]

Between "projects"...it's such a blessing....Looking forward to more of "her" replies....

Me too.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Oneuli,

I think a useful exercise is to make an honest effort to balance the budget oneself, using real numbers. You can do a decent "back of the napkin" calculation, using the real budget, plus income distribution tables, tax tables, etc. When you dig into that and try to do it with real numbers, it becomes quickly obvious how naive (or disingenuous) Republican talk on the topic of fiscal responsibility tends to be. If you're unwilling to raise taxes, and unwilling to default on the debt (or on entitlements people have already earned, like Medicare and Social Security), and unwilling to cut our largest area of discretionary spending (the military), it's pretty much impossible to balance the budget, without completely unworkable and counter-productive methods like ending all infrastructure spending. Fiscally serious people pretty much have to focus on raising taxes and/or cutting military spending, but those are the two areas Republicans won't even talk about. And that's why getting them to get specific about which changes they'd make is impossible, and why their sham fiscal conservatism is disposed of the moment a Republican gets into the White House.

I have done that calculation for myself, many times. I always get the same result. If we raise the top tier tax rate to around 50%, we could be paying down the debt right now. It's so easy. It makes so much sense to do it. The only thing I can see that is in the way of doing this to truly make America great again is propaganda.

Of course, now, we would have to raise corporate taxes back to where they were also, before the fools raided the piggy bank to make the rich richer while screwing everybody else.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I spend my days in corporate meetings. We analysts know we need to get a feel for what kind of audience we're presenting to. If the audience is smart, they'll want a lot of detail, because they're capable of understanding the specifics and need to wrap their head around them to get comfortable with the advice. If the audience isn't smart, they'll want a few bullet points, because anything more will overwhelm them and their minds will wander.... and, besides, they wouldn't understand the specifics, anyway. So, it is basically the same in online forums -- a person has to get a feel for each individual forum member, to know what level to write at. But, keep in mind, I'm new here. It will take a while to calibrate.

Intelligence has nothing to do with anything in fact I put it to you that the smarter people don't need long drawn out details to understand the subject. The only exception is something extremely technical such as a medical procedure.

 

[Jack]

Hello Oneuli,



I have done that calculation for myself, many times. I always get the same result. If we raise the top tier tax rate to around 50%, we could be paying down the debt right now. It's so easy. It makes so much sense to do it. The only thing I can see that is in the way of doing this to truly make America great again is propaganda.

Of course, now, we would have to raise corporate taxes back to where they were also, before the fools raided the piggy bank to make the rich richer while screwing everybody else.

May I point out the obvious?

1. Let's say you're a person (like a Rich Person). Would you rather GIVE your money to the Government ... OR ... would you rather LOAN your money to the Government?

Why would people (Rich People) want to 'raise taxes' to pay off the debt? When they can loan (Treasury Bonds/Bills) that same money to the Government and get a Return?

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, it's a fact. Ever been in a corporate meeting? If you ramble on you lose your audience as they quit listening, plus the boss will thank you and tell you to sit down. It's basically the same here.

Okay, okay...we get it.

You cannot read more than a short paragraph without losing your place.

Jeez...you guys sure are proud of your intellectual short-comings.

 

[Ross Dolan]

When the topic is something like universal health insurance, the minimum needed to cover the topic decently would be a few hundred pages of treatise. Attempting to outline the basics in just a few short paragraphs, like I did, ends up over-simplifying to the point of absurdity. But since that's what this format demands, I'm happy to comply. I'm also happy to go with even shorter bullet points, if a few paragraphs would over-tax your attention span. But, as I mentioned, the natural outcome of that is that what I write will be dismissed not for being too long, but for lacking specifics. It's the Conservative Catch 22 at work.

Precisely!

 

[Ross Dolan]

I spend my days in corporate meetings. We analysts know we need to get a feel for what kind of audience we're presenting to. If the audience is smart, they'll want a lot of detail, because they're capable of understanding the specifics and need to wrap their head around them to get comfortable with the advice. If the audience isn't smart, they'll want a few bullet points, because anything more will overwhelm them and their minds will wander.... and, besides, they wouldn't understand the specifics, anyway. So, it is basically the same in online forums -- a person has to get a feel for each individual forum member, to know what level to write at. But, keep in mind, I'm new here. It will take a while to calibrate.

Grumpy just wants points so that he can complain about a lack of specificity...and ask lots of pointless questions to deflect from the defeat he is suffering.

And like Donald Trump, his Dear Leader...he wants no more than 3 bullet points.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I spend my days in corporate meetings. We analysts know we need to get a feel for what kind of audience we're presenting to. If the audience is smart, they'll want a lot of detail, because they're capable of understanding the specifics and need to wrap their head around them to get comfortable with the advice. If the audience isn't smart, they'll want a few bullet points, because anything more will overwhelm them and their minds will wander.... and, besides, they wouldn't understand the specifics, anyway. So, it is basically the same in online forums -- a person has to get a feel for each individual forum member, to know what level to write at. But, keep in mind, I'm new here. It will take a while to calibrate.

Okay, okay...we get it.

You cannot read more than a short paragraph without losing your place.

Jeez...you guys sure are proud of your intellectual short-comings.

what is it with you lefties (yes I know you claim not to be a leftie) that you think long wordy posts make you look smarter or your material better? If you haven't grasped the concept of brevity you never will.

Did you try WGT?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello evince,

I have never banned anyone from anything on the entire internets


I have never even used the negative rep system ( I do give positive reps )


some cant handle all the sides of an issue


I even read the idiots posts just to see how well the Russians are programing bots ccurrently

You also spend way more time here than I care to devote to this place. I've said many times I find the use of the Ignore and Threadban features to be great time-savers.

I've just got so much going on in real life that I couldn't possibly devote the time to this place needed to go through all the trash-talk posts.

I post at my own pleasure when I want to take a break from my very full life. In my view it is only logical to use filters in the interest of quality posting experience for time spent.

 

[evince]

Hello Oneuli,



I have done that calculation for myself, many times. I always get the same result. If we raise the top tier tax rate to around 50%, we could be paying down the debt right now. It's so easy. It makes so much sense to do it. The only thing I can see that is in the way of doing this to truly make America great again is propaganda.

Of course, now, we would have to raise corporate taxes back to where they were also, before the fools raided the piggy bank to make the rich richer while screwing everybody else.

the time thes right wing minions are convinced they want to go BACK TO are the years when we taxed the shit out of corporations


we had great schools


the best infrastructure


and workers had good pay and benefits


and debt was NOT a problem



the post WWII era

 

[evince]

Hello evince,



You also spend way more time here than I care to devote to this place. I've said many times I find the use of the Ignore and Threadban features to be great time-savers.

I've just got so much going on in real life that I couldn't possibly devote the time to this place needed to go through all the trash-talk posts.

I post at my own pleasure when I want to take a break from my very full life. In my view it is only logical to use filters in the interest of quality posting experience for time spent.

I want the reality of the situation


not a filtered dream scape


I am often doing a few things while I post


and I am often not here.


not paying attention to details will get you the wrong impression of a situation


I pay attention to all the posters even if I don't read their every post


this is how I spotted the foreign influence in the posters here BEFORE it was news


go bac on the dates here and you will see me saying BEFORE the election that there were non Americns posting here and that they wished to tear this union asunder


I got it right because I refused to limit my own experience

 

[evince]

what is it with you lefties (yes I know you claim not to be a leftie) that you think long wordy posts make you look smarter or your material better? If you haven't grasped the concept of brevity you never will.

Did you try WGT?

facts sometimes come in very large quantities


it sometimes takes lots of words to delineate them


like all the evidence to prove what a pack of brainless dupes the republican party base currently is to ignore the mountain of facts that prove you are putty in Putins hands.

malleable, brainless, wanton dupes with short attention spans


was that too long for you?


oh and BTW


the Dutch have it on tape

 

[Ross Dolan]

what is it with you lefties (yes I know you claim not to be a leftie) that you think long wordy posts make you look smarter or your material better? If you haven't grasped the concept of brevity you never will.

I do not claim not to be a lefty. I claim NOT to be a Democrat...and NOT to be a liberal.

I do claim to favor a progressive agenda (anyone with a functioning brain should)...but I am closer to some conservative issues than lefties...just as I am closer to some liberal issues than righties.

Your problem is not with Oneiuli's "brevity" or lack of it...your problem is that she is kicking your ass major league.

Did you try WGT?

Not yet, Grump. Too busy with real golf.

I will give it a try at some point. Thanks.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

May I point out the obvious?

1. Let's say you're a person (like a Rich Person). Would you rather GIVE your money to the Government ... OR ... would you rather LOAN your money to the Government?

Why would people (Rich People) want to 'raise taxes' to pay off the debt? When they can loan (Treasury Bonds/Bills) that same money to the Government and get a Return?

I AM a rich person and I pay all my taxes willingly. I LOVE the USA. I want to do my part to support the USA. I can't do it alone. We need to raise taxes.

I am not looking to make money off my support for the country I love. That seems wrong.

Money is not the end-all be-all of life. Once you have enough to be comfortable, more of it does not make you any happier. It may actually add more stress to your life figuring out how to manage it all. The ones who obsess over money don't understand what's really important in life. Love. Love is the most important thing in life. Trump OBVIOUSLY doesn't get THAT. And neither do people who think like him.

Consider this question. It's Christmas Eve. (or any other special day when people gather) Would you rather be in a) a room full of people you love, and whom love you; or b) a room full of money?

I chose a). Because money can't buy love.

 

[Oneuli]

Hello Oneuli,



I have done that calculation for myself, many times. I always get the same result. If we raise the top tier tax rate to around 50%, we could be paying down the debt right now. It's so easy. It makes so much sense to do it. The only thing I can see that is in the way of doing this to truly make America great again is propaganda.

Of course, now, we would have to raise corporate taxes back to where they were also, before the fools raided the piggy bank to make the rich richer while screwing everybody else.

By my calculations, it would take more than just raising the top bracket. There'd need to be some increases below that, too. Here's a terrific resource for doing that math:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/hinc-06/2017/hinc06.xls

That makes it possible to do a rough calculation of the impact of a given change to individual income tax rates. Say, for example, the only change you make is to raise the tax on the top bracket from 37% to 50% and lower the threshold for that from $500k/$600k to just $250k. Right now there are 4.926 million households that earn over $250k, which earn an average of $413,853. So, they earn an average of $163,853 in the top bracket. Multiply by 4.926 million and you get around $807 billion in extra revenues.

Obviously, if we just raised that top bracket without lowering the threshold, the revenue boost would be a lot smaller than that. Only about 0.5% of households earn over $600k:

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator-2016/

So that top bracket only captures 631,120 households or so. We're not going to reach balance, from a starting point of a planned trillion dollar deficit, merely by raising the top bracket. Restoring corporate effective tax rates to reasonable levels would help, but I think it'll take more than that.