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 Today, 01:47 PM
 
66,764 posts, read 30,489,232 times
Reputation: 8720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Lol. So you are 'fiscally concerned' about the Dems getting their "filthy paws" on other people's money? Meet Donald Trump.
Trump raised taxes on pensions and retirement accounts like Bernie, Harris, and other Dems can't wait to do? Please provide a link to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 01:51 PM
 
39,387 posts, read 20,462,495 times
Reputation: 12838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Lol. So you are 'fiscally concerned' about the Dems getting their "filthy paws" on other people's money? Meet Donald Trump.
Can you explain why you think this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:56 PM
 
66,764 posts, read 30,489,232 times
Reputation: 8720
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
Nice distraction.

I'm sorry you don't understand math.
I do. The bulk of the taxes to fund Medicare for All will have to come from those who earn the bulk of the income: the middle class.

It's basic math. There's not enough 1%-ers and they don't earn enough money to pay enough in taxes to fund health care for all 327 million people in the US. The middle class earns the bulk of the income, and therefore they'll have to pay the bulk of the tax revenue required to fund it.

Good book for you to read to understand the truth of that: Growing Public, written by a UC-Davis Econ Professor and prolific author of NBER publications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:00 PM
 
1,829 posts, read 1,001,363 times
Reputation: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
The startup cost for medicare for all is $30 trillion and it will go up to $56 trillion within 5 year of starting. That is all detailed in the study that all these politicians are waving at you regarding "medicare for all". The folks in the study even say that doubling all taxes will not cover medicare for all.

Which European country has a population of 330 million people where we can compare costs apples to apples ?

Well, you lost an order of magnitude somewhere, lol (the cost you cite is for 10 years). And even at 30 trillion, it is cheaper than now, and presumably everybody is covered.



Yep, the savings here should be greater if done properly, due to economies of scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:05 PM
 
1,829 posts, read 1,001,363 times
Reputation: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I do. The bulk of the taxes to fund Medicare for All will have to come from those who earn the bulk of the income: the middle class.

It's basic math. There's not enough 1%-ers and they don't earn enough money to pay enough in taxes to fund health care for all 327 million people in the US. The middle class earns the bulk of the income, and therefore they'll have to pay the bulk of the tax revenue required to fund it.

Good book for you to read to understand the truth of that: Growing Public, written by a UC-Davis Econ Professor and prolific author of NBER publications.

I'm sure you can repeat this 100s of times, not going to change anything. Math has been explained to you.
I'll wait on your explanation about the need for 8 trillion.





The middle class pays the bulk, that's the case currently. Health insurance for a middle class person costs exactly the same (if everything else is equal) as for a billionare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:14 PM
 
949 posts, read 204,447 times
Reputation: 1476
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
Well, you lost an order of magnitude somewhere, lol (the cost you cite is for 10 years). And even at 30 trillion, it is cheaper than now, and presumably everybody is covered.



Yep, the savings here should be greater if done properly, due to economies of scale.
We're both wrong. They are estimating costs climbing to near $30 trillion within 5 years..by 2026.
And all are assuming very steep provider costs.


https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-...icare-all-cost

Here is the initial study that everyone is basing their "medicare for all" plans on.
Note this study was done in 2016.

https://www.urban.org/research/publi...ew/full_report
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:17 PM
 
66,764 posts, read 30,489,232 times
Reputation: 8720
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
I'm sure you can repeat this 100s of times, not going to change anything. Math has been explained to you.
No, I've tried several times to explain the basic math to you. There's not enough 1%-ers and they don't earn enough money to pay enough in taxes to fund health care for all 327 million people in the US. The middle class earns the bulk of the income, and therefore they'll have to pay the bulk of the tax revenue required to fund it.

Quote:
The middle class pays the bulk, that's the case currently. Health insurance for a middle class person costs exactly the same (if everything else is equal) as for a billionare.
How is that the bulk? It's an equal per capita share. Everyone pays the same costs. Just like a middle class person and a billionaire going to the same store to buy, for example, a head of lettuce. Both pay the same price. And food is an even greater necessity of life than access to health care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:30 PM
 
1,829 posts, read 1,001,363 times
Reputation: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, I've tried several times to explain the basic math to you. There's not enough 1%-ers and they don't earn enough money to pay enough in taxes to fund health care for all 327 million people in the US. The middle class earns the bulk of the income, and therefore they'll have to pay the bulk of the tax revenue required to fund it.

How is that the bulk? It's an equal per capita share. Everyone pays the same costs. Just like a middle class person and a billionaire going to the same store to buy, for example, a head of lettuce. Both pay the same price. And food is an even greater necessity of life than access to health care.
Lol. Yes, it is the same per capita, so middle class pays the bulk of the grand total CURRENTLY, more middle class folks than billionaires. If you base it on percentage, the balance shifts. How much, depends on particular numbers. Percentages and cutoffs if any.

I really don't understand what's so hard to grasp. Take example of current Medicare tax, a billionaire pays much more per person because it is based on percentage ( and no upper income limit)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:40 PM
 
1,829 posts, read 1,001,363 times
Reputation: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
We're both wrong. They are estimating costs climbing to near $30 trillion within 5 years..by 2026.
And all are assuming very steep provider costs.


https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-...icare-all-cost

Here is the initial study that everyone is basing their "medicare for all" plans on.
Note this study was done in 2016.

https://www.urban.org/research/publi...ew/full_report



Yeah, except that the estimate in what you linked is 2016-2026...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:00 PM
 
66,764 posts, read 30,489,232 times
Reputation: 8720
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
Lol. Yes, it is the same per capita, so middle class pays the bulk of the grand total
No, they don't. Medicaid (public assistance health care for the poor) spending is $630 billion/year and climbing, and a highly disproportionate amount of that is paid for by the top 1%. How do we know? By comparing share of income to share of federal income tax revenue paid.

Top 1% households earned 19.72% of the income, but paid 37.32% of the federal income tax revenue.

Households with an income between $40,078 and $139,713 (and middle class goes well beyond a $140,000 income) earned 41.85% of the income, but only paid 27.49% of the federal income tax revenue.

So, the middle class isn't even close to paying their fair share, they're contributing LESS than they take in federal government benefits and services, while the top 1% is paying nearly TWICE their fair share.
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top