Ok and? I engaged with you on all the stuff I thought was relevant to the conversation and the other stuff I responded how I felt. So you think you are not engaging in any poster drama, whatever that is.
No I hardly begin with it. Though I guess with my opinions in the GARM about Harden, it generates a lot of personal attacks that I am guilty of responding to in a back and forth with when I probably should ignore it.
Dude I don't take anything posted here personally because nobody here affects my daily life. Now you take stuff personally on an hourly basis, not healthy.
If doesn't effect your daily life, then it shouldn't effect you when I say that you are a bad poster to engage any conversation with without getting into petty arguments.
I know you are but what am I. I know you are but what am I. I know you are but what am I. I know you are but what am I. I know you are but what am I. I know you are but what am I.
Makes sense. Yeah you miss out on uptrend that’s going on now (unsustainable), and best case only for a few months and worse case you’ve ended up saving HUGELY. The upside on this play outweighs the downside.
How Bernie is going to pay for it - Tax the billionaires. Its just not mathematically possible. Not when there is a $20 Trillion shortfall in the plan. There are only 621 Billionaires in the USA. The top 400 have a combined net worth of $2.9 Trillion. So even taxing those 400 at 100% of their net worth leaves you with a shortfall of $17.1 Trillion. Now lets realize that net worth isn't what gets taxed and it would be unconstitutional to make the attempt. What's taxed is Income which is generally some fraction of net worth. So now we understand the billionaires aren't paying for it all .... ask the question again - who's paying for it all ? I think we have to take a step back to the total amount being spent here - $90T-$100T over a decade and not just look at the shortage of ~$2T per year. The GDP of the US was $21.429T for 2019. At $9T per year added government spending , that equates to 42% of the entire GDP for 2019. At $10T its 46.6% of the nations entire GDP. Now realize that this is in addition to current spending which equates to 21% GDP. US government revenue for 2019 was $3.422 trillion while government spending was $4.45 trillion. Bernie's plan at minimum doubles government spending. Taxing the entire GDP of the US at 50% nets $10.7145T You guys need to take a step back from the ledge. We can all be pissed off at Billionaires and tax the hell out of them .... deservedly or not , I'm indifferent on that matter. Just realize that these figures they are throwing around .... just don't add up. You are going to pay for it right along with those Billionaires. You really want someone to be pissed off at -
Bernie has readily admitted that brackets outside of "billionaires" will see an increase in taxes. But for the vast majority of Americans, they will see a net savings either from an increase in their taxes but a decrease in the medical spending and educational expenses or see their taxes stay the same but also still see a decrease in their medical and educational costs. Like I've said before, in a private health insurance market, you already are paying for other people's healthcare. I mean that is the core essense of a insurance business model. Pool people's money together to mitigate risk. The difference between a private and public health insurance system is that in a private health insurance system, 20-45 year old healthy adults disproportionately pay for other people's healthcare as they pay for their insurance premiums but use healthcare services far less while in a public health insurance system, people of more significant wealth will disproportionately pay for other people's healthcare. Is one better than the other? That is up for you to decide. We also have to consider the long terms effects and how the long term effects of every American citizen having full coverage healthcare effects spending and tax revenue generation. More people on healthcare means more people doing routine check ups and doing more preventive care which shows a significant savings in the long run. Americans not worrying significant deductibles and premiums for healthcare now have a significant increase in disposable income meaning that will increase economic growth rather than the tradional means of merely fueling economic growth with consumer debt. This generates more tax revenue.
You already know we're on the same page when it comes to healthcare - just bite the bullet and get it over with , go single payer. But that (and education) aren't all we're talking about here. There's a lot more than just HC / Edu and I'm not buying it. You really need to consider the numbers posted above as a percentage of GDP , we're talking better than 60% GDP as government spending. You obviously don't care that the math doesn't add up damn the torpedoes , full steam ahead Socialism sounds great .... Sure is easy to spend other people's money. (Maybe I should get Tilman a break for not going into the tax cause its easy for me to spend his money). I hope you don't get your way .... we'll all suffer for it. The long term effects you need to consider are simple math.
Did you not read those numbers ? Most notably the fact that even taxing the entire GDP at 50% it Does Not cover the cost ? How much wealth does that leave for "we the people" and that includes the already wealthy who are going to continue to take a disproportionate piece of the pie - What does that leave for the middle class and the already poor. Crumbs. The requirement to cover that spending adding the new $9t-$10t to the current $4.45t is literally 71% GDP minimum. In what world is a government spending 71% GDP a good thing ? This is doing nothing but increasing the wealth gap.
"We the people" have been losing since the 80s while CEOs and shareholders hoard money and avoid taxes. The solution was unions but now it's wait for the bullshit to trickle down. There's a way to make single payer work for us we just don't care enough to do it.
It seems like a rather makeshift calculation based on a faulty assumption that GDP is the same as wealth. Unfortunately calculating the costs is no where as simple as you have attempted to calculate it.
I'm resigned to the fact that single payer is an eventuality ..... but healthcare is only a part of this increased spending , there's debt forgiveness on student loans and the GND / climate change spending among other things. $90T to $100T in new spending over a decade. Average that and you are talking about 41-46% of GDP for 2019 on top of the current $4.45T in spending which is 21% GDP. I said in another post - If you want someone to be mad at - Look no further than corporations who contributed only 7% to the total taxes collected last year. Figure out how to tax them prior to their CEO's being compensated .... that puts a lot more money in play and stops so much of it from going to individuals.
If we can just get single payer done in the next 8 years it would be a major accomplishment. No way the rest of that stuff happens even if Bernie gets elected...it's just a pipe dream. We do need laws to strengthen unions also...
Wealth isn't taxed. Earnings are taxed. GDP is literally the sum of all goods and services produced - That which is taxed. 71-76% GDP as government spending .... come on man.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/ It's debatable on whether taxing wealth is unconstitutional.
