I love this post. Every sentence of it is completely false. Let's take each one. This is the funniest, since you don't actually know the terms of the wealth tax. No, it's a bit simplified, but the vast majority of Bill Gates' wealth would be taxed at 6%. In my original post, I used 5% to account for that, and that's how you get to 50% instead of 60%. 6% applies at $1 billion, not $10B. Thus why the lesser rate is fairly minor for Bill Gates. It applies to less than 2% of his wealth. Knowing this basic level seems critical to "understanding the wealth tax". No, as I said, income and wealth are two different things. What they do with their wealth is irrelevant to the wealth tax. That's already taxed with an income/capital gains tax and any gains will also be subject to an additional wealth tax. Meaning to make similar amounts of money as now, you'd be encouraging much higher levels of risk taking.- they'd need to make around 10% annual gains *just to break even*, which is extremely unrealistic. Taking your own advice, you probably need a much better understanding of the wealth tax, basic math, and wealth/income if you'd like to engage further on this subject. Reading is fundamental. I literally put exactly what I was referring to in the middle of the sentence to make it super-easy. I'll re-quote it and even bold the relevant part in case it's too hard to comprehend. But if you do believe this - that government is better able to use resources than individuals - that's basically full-on socialism. Full-on socialism was in reference to your belief that government can solve problems more efficiently than charity - and had nothing to do with the wealth tax. Bill Gates can solve malaria far more efficiently than government. He can act quickly and decisively anywhere in the world, with a varying budget as needed instead of based on what Congress allocates years in advance. He doesn't have to worry about a politician threatening his work by asking why we're spending American taxpayer money on mosquito nets for Muslim black kids in Africa. He doesn't have to worry about a politician demanding we use American-made mosquito nets. He doesn't have to run each proposal through years of reviews and analysis. He can just hire brilliant minds and solve problems. Think I'm being ridiculous? Ask Planned Parenthood or Acorn how reliance on government disrupted their operations. Or the VA in how government red tape has made their operations so inefficient. Government wins on economies of scale. Private sector wins on innovation, efficiency, and speed. Each works better in different sectors for different reasons. If you wish to engage further on any of this, you'll need to learn to actually read and comphrend what I write instead of distorting it so you can fight a straw man.
Not all 14M member gets 30k plans. I don't know the number, but probably much much less. The employer contribution isn't 30k per union members - it's an avg based on all members including non-union members. I would guess it closer to 10k. The employer contribution also has a min to cover the expense - the national avg cost per employee. And if it falls short, she would need to increase tax on the rich again, which is already mentioned. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a Employers currently offering health benefits under a collective bargaining agreement will be able to reduce their Employer Medicare Contribution if they pass along those savings to workers in the form of increased wages, pensions, or other collectively-bargained benefits. New companies or existing companies who enter into a collective bargaining agreement with their employees after the enactment of Medicare for All will be able to reduce their Employer Medicare Contributions in the same way. Employers can reduce their contribution requirements all the way down to the national average health care cost per employee. That way, my plan helps unions that have bargained for good health care already, and creates a significant new incentive for unionization generally by making collective bargaining appealing for both workers and employers as a way of potentially reducing the employer’s Employer Medicare Contributions. Over time, an employer’s health care cost-per-employee would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally. That helps make sure the system is fair but also gives employers and employees time to adapt to the new system. If we’re falling short of the $8.8 trillion revenue target for the next ten years, we will make up lost revenue with a Supplemental Employer Medicare Contribution requirement for big companies with extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.
You did you math assuming a flat rate that wasn't marginal and you assumed zero investments by the taxed individual and you are going to come here in a patronizing tone? Also, you are severely mistepresting my claim. I'm stating that CHARITY, not allocation and distribution of wealth for investments to create a consumer product or service, is less efficient in allocating funds for public services such as infrastructure, healthcare and education than the method of allocated funds through taxes and distributing those funds for needed services through public deliberation through representation. Capitalism works better to create elastic demand consumer goods and services. The public sector would not be as efficient as the private sector in producing a luxury car or a smartphone. I'm specifically referring to charity vs public services. The existence of both entities in a nation's economy is not "full on socialism".
I think we are talking about two different things when you say 'started'. It seems like you are talking about the initial bill that passed was small and has grown. I agree with that. I was referring to the initial proposal brought to the table ahead of the bill being passed. Even ACA was a bigger idea before it was compromised in the process to pass it. My point is that whatever bill ends up being passed will be smaller than what was proposed. Given that, let's go in with a proposal that is more than the minimum. Then when there are compromises on it, we end up with the minimum. If you go in the minimum, it ends up being compromised beyond that.
That is correct. It still doesn't matter. It is way too early to go by polling data. Nobody is chomping at the bit to go out and vote for Biden and get all of Uncle Joe's ideas on governing in action. After the campaign comes down to one on one there will still be nobody excited about Biden. They only like that he isn't Trump. There are people that do like Warren, and the more people see her the more they like her. Democrats need to play to win instead of playing not to lose.
I think Elizabeth Warren is brighter and stronger than Joe Biden. However I have serious doubts she can win in the states that matter like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. I believe she can carry Wisconsin but will have some struggles in the West. A lot of these battle ground states are blue collar and socially conservative or at least culturally conservative. The Democrats need to concentrate on WINNING the election. Over the next 4-8 years it is likely 2-3 Supreme Court openings will need to be filled. Also the man gutting the other branches of government need to go. I appreciate that Warren is bringing important issue to front and center but she is just very different than people in the swing states.
I acknowledge that her progressiveness will not be able to win everyone over. At this point, it's a crapshoot. I believe that she's good enough to explain her ideas in a way that while not winning everyone over, it will win enough folks over that she can carry enough battleground states provided that she's going against Trump. That is true not because they will endorse every policy that she brings to the table. I don't think the average voter really studies the issues. I think they will vote for the person and perceived leadership most of all. I think if she can highlight her accomplishments for protecting consumers combined with her energy and knowledge, she will be able to persuade enough moderates that she is still a better choice than Trump. Add to that the fact that she will actually have a base that is excited to see her try and (unsuccessfully) implement her policies, so they will turn up and help get others to turn up as well. Those that study her policies will also likely know that there will be many revisions before anything actually gets passed. Like every single other person here, I'm only guessing. But that's my guess.
It can make that element worse. Most big corporations are providing health insurance, even for low-wage (but full-time) employees. But there are also many businesses that cannot make the cost structure work with health insurance right now. Imagine a local restaurant, currently paying zilch for their employees' health, gets hit with a per-head tax of thousands of dollars each. They'll replace all the waiters with ipads. You can do some interventions (like exemptions) but they're distortions to the labor market, which I thought we wanted to get away from. And, what I really don't like is that it makes robots more cost competitive with people. Automation is great, but it rewards when companies move wealth from income to capital gains, which is bad news for wealth disparity. Not sure how this would work, but I'd rather see taxes on automation pay for people's healthcare than taxes on employment.
Democrats unload on Warren's health care plan: It isn’t surprising that Warren’s fellow candidates would attack her and her plan. That’s all part of running in a competitive primary, and, as I noted this morning, there is plenty there to criticize. What is somewhat surprising, I suppose, is the extent to which Democrats outside of the race for President are willing to call the plan out. The reason for that, of course, is because they are concerned that there are aspects to the plan that could end up hurting the party in November 2020 even if she does not turn out to be the nominee. These attacks and criticisms are likely to come up as we get further down the campaign trail. They are also likely to be used as ammunition by Republicans regardless of whether or not Warren becomes the nominee. The criticism is also unsurprising given the fact that Warren is now widely seen as a co-frontrunner for the nomination. Before now, she was able to get away with putting largely utopian plans forward without having to worry about having hem scrutinized. That’s not going to be the case anymore, and whether or not Warren can move forward is largely going to depend on whether or not she can defend those plans. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/democrats-open-fire-on-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan/
I haven’t read Warren’s plan yet , but I have a few general comments about healthcare 1) providing healthcare in the form of MFA is gonna be a financial loss for the government no matter what . - I still think they should do it 2) we already spend TONS (as a country) on healthcare , 18 percent of gdp. And obviously , the results aren’t that great . There have been a lot of bad actors (or at least the incentives don’t line up with maximizing health outcomes , just dollars) from hospitals, to insurance , to pharma 3) so in my mind , to judge warrens plan ... the appropriate question isn’t “how much is it going to cost?” It’s how does the cost of this compare to the path we are currently on ? 4) I’m getting a PhD in Econ , I’m as pro market as anyone . It’s clear the healthcare space is not a problem that will be solved Primarily with market solutions . The profits and positive health outcomes often fly in different directions 5) any play that bans private insurance overnight (I think I read warren transitions) is absolute insanity . 18 percent of gdp is being spent on healthcare , shifting the entire remaining burden to the govt balance sheets is a non-starter I’ll take a look at Warrens plan at some point , but I’m definitely for MFA with a choice to keep or buy private insurance. If the government healthcare is good , then private insurance will HAVE to change how they operate and compete , because if not people will just choose the govt way. Healthcare costs are a factor of many many different excesses and incentive flaws . The supply of doctors , incentive to specialize , scope of practice laws , state by state licensing, insurance, pharma , and others It’s an inflationary spiral
What? What stink does it have on it not coming from a republican talking point? If you don't have any more bread those burned crumbs are easily ignored. I am really worried that this line of thinking will get Trump reelected this all or nothing?
This not true at all what you said we should do with M4A is what we did with Obamcare and single payer but it was a compromise that got us what we have. There was no pivot before it was brought to the table. There is a lot of revisionist history going on or at least from what I remember.
Why do you believe she is good enough to explain her ideas when she is having trouble explaining her M4A? It took her 2 weeks after being called out on it to release a plan and she still dodges questions on it. I really like Warren and would have no issue voting for her but I must admit I am disappointed with how she has responded to being questioned on her health plan, it's like she thought nobody would actually ask to look at her numbers. I have to wonder does she actually have a plan for that?
NYT poll shows Trump mostly leading Warren in six battleground states but still behind Biden https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/...-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html
CRANKY BILLIONAIRE SCOLDS ELIZABETH WARREN FOR NOT BEING NICER TO RICH PEOPLE Hedge Fund manager, Leon Cooperman, doesn't appreciate the tone of Warren's voice Warren had previously twitted: “Leon, you were able to succeed because of the opportunities this country gave you. Now why don’t you pitch in a bit more so everyone else has a chance at the American dream, too?” some background info on Cooperman During the Obama years, he claimed that the president’s description of Wall Street leaders as “fat cat bankers”— made in the immediate wake of the financial crisis in 08/09—was encouraging “class warfare,” and that Obama’s “polarizing tone” was “cleaving a widening gulf…between the downtrodden and those best positioned to help them,” i.e. the rich. Speaking of tones, Cooperman, like many of his brethren, chose to liken Obama to Adolf Hitler. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/leon-cooperman-elizabeth-warren
maybe with reason: Warren’s Medicare-for-All will depend apparently on a 6 percent wealth tax on the super-rich, up from a previously proposed 3 percent. (Funny how the tax rate is rising already.) Here’s a riddle. Let’s just take Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, each worth something like $100 billion in round numbers. I am continually surprised by the number of people who think that Bezos, Gates, Buffett, etc., all have $100 billion in cash in a bank savings account or something—or even stacks of $100 bills in a vault somewhere. The fact that these wealth figures are the capitalized market value of the immense asset base (tangible and intangible) on paper (and only at the margin) is lost on everyone. So let’s just take a hypothetical annual 3% wealth tax and run it out. Gates, Bezos, Buffett, et al. will have to sell $3 billion worth of their stock holdings—each year—to send their wealth tax check to the IRS. Question: Just who is going to buy that much stock every year? And what would the effect of the many forced liquidations have on stock values, not to mention credit markets if Bezos decided to borrow the money every year (and, incidentally, wipe out any income tax liability for the year—heh). can't vouch for the numbers or the analysis (the topic itself is a bit above my paygrade), but more at: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/thin-lizzies-wedge.php and at https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/warren-loses-the-lawyers.php
Obama started out with the idea of single-payer, but before bringing it to congress, he had already abandoned it because he knew it wouldn't last and thought by going with something more moderate they would agree. But it got watered down even more after that.
