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)
 
Old 06-24-2017, 08:49 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,021 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13711

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metsfan53 View Post
it must just be the Dems in those red states on food stamps..everybody knows republicans are salt of the earth types who never take handouts....
It's not that they never take handouts. It's that they're outnumbered by 2 (or more) to 1 by Dems on the means-tested welfare rolls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2017, 08:49 AM
 
3,992 posts, read 2,458,665 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, but to have all of those things, we'd have to flatten the federal income tax brackets, as well. For example, in Scandinavian countries, their middle class (about $60,000/year) income is in the top tax bracket. Here in the US, one isn't in the top tax bracket until an income of $418,400.

How Scandinavian Countries Fund Their Government Spending

So, yes, we can have universal health care, free college tuition, and other benefits if we drop the top tax bracket (39.6%) down to an income of $60,000 and implement a 25% VAT tax. Is it a deal?
money is fungible so if the money I pay for healthcare and college savings goes to taxes instead and I get the same stuff back I'm net/net the same. Also if we perhaps look to curtail unreasonable military spending by things like increasing efficiencies and ceasing to use military contracts as jobs programs producing missile parts across 10 states we'd have money to spend on things like this....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 08:50 AM
 
Location: CT
3,440 posts, read 2,527,335 times
Reputation: 4639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two boys View Post
We have paid for our own medical plan for approximately 18 years, family coverage at an average of $2,000 a month. When Obamacare came about we thought this would be some kind of relief. Well we got instead worse coverage, high deductibles and co pays. We ended up paying more. We did not get any kind of credit towards our monthly premium. The middle class ended up struggling more to meet their monthly premiums. This certainly was not a relief for the middle class. We are all for helping those in TRUE need, however, there is so much waste and fraud that goes on it is sickening. People sacrificed in order to protect their family coverage and under Obamacare it made it worse for the middle class. They are pounded with higher premiums ....... yet those not being not always being truthful are getting subsidized premiums. Again the burden on the middle class. I am all for helping those in need who are trying to make progress and help themselves. Support for these people is a good thing, but I am so disheartened seeing the fraud and waste to these programs.
Do you think you'll be better off under the GOP plan? Isn't insurance just a way to distribute the expense of health care over a larger number? Nothing is being done to control or limit health care costs, insurance is just a way to pay those costs, it's all just moving the furniture around the same size room. So, what happens to the cost when young people opt out, but they still contract cancer, they will at that point be prevented from buying in. Of course they won't have access to the same level of care as a well insured patient, but who pays for the care they receive as they lay there waiting to die? Those costs will still be paid and passed on as business overhead through higher fees and ultimately insurance premiums, thus it will be upon those who pay. Doubtful you will do any better under this plan either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 08:54 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
NO..that's stupid..the reason Trump is President is because of what people thought MAGA really meant
Trump did NOT win. Hillary lost. Trump did not win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. People Hillary needed stayed home because their concerns had been ignored. Yes, Trump will also ignore them BUT they were not looking for Trump to address them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 08:55 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,021 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metsfan53 View Post
money is fungible so if the money I pay for healthcare and college savings goes to taxes instead and I get the same stuff back I'm net/net the same. Also if we perhaps look to curtail unreasonable military spending by things like increasing efficiencies and ceasing to use military contracts as jobs programs producing missile parts across 10 states we'd have money to spend on things like this....
So, you agree? Drop the top US tax bracket (39.6%) to an income of $60,000 and above from the $418,400+ it's at now, and implement a 25% VAT tax to pay for the government services/benefits you want?

It's a yes or no question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 08:57 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowtired14 View Post
Do you think you'll be better off under the GOP plan? Isn't insurance just a way to distribute the expense of health care over a larger number? Nothing is being done to control or limit health care costs, insurance is just a way to pay those costs, it's all just moving the furniture around the same size room. So, what happens to the cost when young people opt out, but they still contract cancer, they will at that point be prevented from buying in. Of course they won't have access to the same level of care as a well insured patient, but who pays for the care they receive as they lay there waiting to die? Those costs will still be paid and passed on as business overhead through higher fees and ultimately insurance premiums, thus it will be upon those who pay. Doubtful you will do any better under this plan either.
Either
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 09:00 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So, you agree? Drop the top US tax bracket (39.6%) to an income of $60,000 and above from the $418,400+ it's at now, and implement a 25% VAT tax to pay for the government services/benefits you want?

It's a yes or no question.
This is dishonest as are all your numbers as no one pays what their bracket is. Our tax structure has deduction after deduction so that no one is paying what their base tax rate is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 09:16 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,021 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13711
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
This is dishonest as are all your numbers as no one pays what their bracket is.
And that's true in Scandinavia, as well. For example, income below the top tax bracket cutoff amount is taxed at a lower rate just as it is here in the US. However, it IS true that their middle class is in the top tax bracket. So the question is... Should we drop the top US tax bracket (39.6%) to an income of $60,000 and above from the $418,400+ it's at now, and implement a 25% VAT tax to pay for the government services/benefits many are saying they want?

It's a yes or no question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 09:17 AM
 
487 posts, read 545,299 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowtired14 View Post
Do you think you'll be better off under the GOP plan? Isn't insurance just a way to distribute the expense of health care over a larger number? Nothing is being done to control or limit health care costs, insurance is just a way to pay those costs, it's all just moving the furniture around the same size room. So, what happens to the cost when young people opt out, but they still contract cancer, they will at that point be prevented from buying in. Of course they won't have access to the same level of care as a well insured patient, but who pays for the care they receive as they lay there waiting to die? Those costs will still be paid and passed on as business overhead through higher fees and ultimately insurance premiums, thus it will be upon those who pay. Doubtful you will do any better under this plan either.
I see your point. After paying for 18 years, I was fortunate to change jobs and now have a job supported healthcare plan for a quarter of the cost per month to us. After paying for our own for so long because we have a small business, we are very grateful and much appreciate our plan. I was venting because I see so much fraud and waste out there. I really hate when I see people abusing programs when they are in place for those truly in need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2017, 09:20 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
And that's true in Scandinavia, as well. For example, income below the top tax bracket cutoff amount is taxed at a lower rate just as it is here in the US. However, it IS true that their middle class is in the top tax bracket. So the question is... Should we drop the top US tax bracket (39.6%) to an income of $60,000 and above from the $418,400+ it's at now, and implement a 25% VAT tax to pay for the government services/benefits many are saying they want?

It's a yes or no question.
I've already address your question. It's dishonest. No country does everything the same.

Norway pays for many of their programs by owning their oil industry. Should we go there also?

Mine is NOT an argument against a VAT, but your dishonest numbers.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 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