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.
Your post doesn't make sense or you didn't do a good job and left out a lot of different scenarios. There is different types of income so yes, there is a special tax code per se. Punch a time clock and you got W2 income, there is dividend income, there is long term and short term cap gains and losses.
I explained that the plan administrator separates taxable and nontaxable dividends for each investor, NOT the financial institution that performs the investment trade (typically referred to as a clearing house). As far as investment trades? The clearing house charges both seller and buyer a transaction fee regardless of whether it's a wealth investment account or a pension/retirement plan. The financial transaction tax on both buying and selling is just another cost that will be deducted from everyone's pensions/retirement accounts.
(Much like buying or selling a home, the title company or closing agent charges both seller and buyer a service fee for the transaction.)
Quote:
What about the people who invest as individuals not through funds? You do know that plan administrators will just pass on the expense (tax) to the investor right?
Of course, they will. It's those advocating for the financial transaction tax that are clueless. Completely clueless. The FTT will hit most Americans. And it's a flat tax, at that. The way it will come down is that buying an investment will cost more, and selling an investment will yield less liquidity.
Not going to happen. Americans expect better access to health care (e.g., no waiting for months on end to see a specialist or be scheduled for surgery, the ability to see the MD of your choice, etc.).
No, you didn't. You added state and local taxes to your US total when neither were counted in the EU-28 total. As EU-28 national health care and Medicare for All in the US are/would both be funded by national/federal tax revenue, I compared only national/federal taxes in my EU-28 to US comparison in the other thread.
I'm sorry you're so blind to the truth.
Nice distraction.
I'm sorry you don't understand math.
No, I added just property taxes, that are essentially non-existent in EU, while huge here because they fund schools. Not going to go over this again.
You added VAT, which is not income based, so I added sales tax, there are no "sale taxes" in EU.
Second, there is no analog of "state income taxes" on individual income in Europe, with the exception of Switzerland (cantonal taxes), but then the national tax rates there are extremely low
Just stop. First, the purpose of the whole exercise is to bring down the cost, say from 4 trillion to 2 trillion a year (Which would be in line what other developed countries spent).
Speaking of not understanding math. I gave you an example that put the current equivalent tax burden on 100k earner at 44% (if you use the average per capita cost). If you collect that from everybody that would be 8 trillion or something like that. So there is no reason for it to be 44%, that's the point.
Your EU 45% tax + plus VAT "on top" (which, of course it is not, it is on consumption) includes many things that we haven't discussed here, like college, retirement, other benefits
Yet, with your numbers it seems we are already close to 100% here (44% HC, federal tax, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, retirement contributions), lol... And that's before talking about the items listed in the previous paragraph.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
