Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:07 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,014 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13710

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
It would be paid for with taxes, premiums, co pays and deductibles.
That's already how it's paid for now, only people have to pay Medicare taxes for decades before they're eligible for benefits. Would that same requirement apply?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Austin
15,632 posts, read 10,390,278 times
Reputation: 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
Just increase the payroll tax on Millenials.

They voted for higher taxes, so they can afford it.
I don't think they voted for higher taxes. They voted for "free healthcare" for themselves, so they thought. Joke's on them! They will end up paying for their naivety....boy will they end up paying and paying and paying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 07:53 AM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,471,648 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's already how it's paid for now, only people have to pay Medicare taxes for decades before they're eligible for benefits. Would that same requirement apply?
It is for we the people to decide. How much the individual should bear in taxes, fees, premiums, co pays and deductibles. Versus how much new money/debt to create.

There is not enough money in existence today to pay for our HC needs 100 years from now. So some money will need to be created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:24 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,014 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
It is for we the people to decide. How much the individual should bear in taxes, fees, premiums, co pays and deductibles.
You suggested paying for a huge increase in Medicare participants via the way Medicare is already funded, but didn't explain how the newly enrolled would make up for the decades worth of Medicare taxes they didn't pay before eligibility for benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,418,303 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Who said anything about rich people, TrapperJohn?

This would mainly affect the rentier class.

it would affect poor people. Liberals ain't about to implement a regressive tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:37 AM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,471,648 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You suggested paying for a huge increase in Medicare participants via the way Medicare is already funded, but didn't explain how the newly enrolled would make up for the decades worth of Medicare taxes they didn't pay before eligibility for benefits.
I sure did.

We the people decide on premiums, fees, co pays and deductibles of each person. We the people decide how much in central supports for each person.

Central supports come from Federal taxes, fees and fines. Plus any new money creation.

Younger entrants won't have near the HC risks or costs as our seniors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:39 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,733,597 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
Just increase the payroll tax on Millenials.
There we go! That's the answer I was looking for.

The GOP solution. Tax the cohort with the least amount of wealth, in order to spare the cohort with the most amount of wealth.

That's why that party lost the past two elections, and it is why they will lose the upcoming election. They are the party of the rentier class. The "low tax party" that wants to increase taxes on wage-earners.

Last edited by le roi; 11-04-2015 at 08:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:41 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,733,597 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
it would affect poor people.
A change in the tax structure affects all people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Liberals ain't about to implement a regressive tax.

true, but irrelevant, since it would be highly progressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:45 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,733,597 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Oh, HELL no. I own two homes, both in high land value areas. On one, the assessed land value is 43% of the home's FMV, and on the other the assessed land value is 79% of the home's FMV. A 10% tax on private land would cost me over $110,000/year.

No, no, a million times NO!!!
Right, see you're the perfect candidate to be taxed higher.

If the structure value is less than the land value, then you own land that is not utilized as its best use. Increasing your tax rate would encourage more economically-productive use of the land, which is good for the economy.

You would be encouraged to sell it, someone more competent would buy it and tear down the shack you're living in, and put up a multi-unit structure. AND everyone in America gets healthcare. Everyone wins but you, it's perfect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 09:03 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 1,184,930 times
Reputation: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It would take a destructive tax scheme.
Only in the minds of those who can't conceive of a non-destructive tax scheme. .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Both rent and owner-equivalent rent are income. Taxes are allowed on income from whatever source derived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Watch the US go into a major recession, with Millions of permanent job losses.
LOL! All that would actually have to happen first before anyone could watch it. Meanwhile, Medicare has been around since 1965. It has been successful beyond the expectations of anyone at the time, and this while focusing on a population thought to experience higher than average health care costs. Considering the savings on the other side of the ledger, the thought of Medicare for all is hardly a far-fetched one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top