The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

[Fred Sherman]

So how about this.

For every dollar You pay a tax
earned between rate of
$0 - $30,000 0%
$30,001 - $1,000,000 15%
$1,000,001 - $50,000,000 18%
>$50,000,000 21%


So, for someone who made $50,000,001, they pay:

$0 on their first $30,0000
$145,500 on $970,000 (15%)
$7,200,000 on $40,000,000 (18%)
$0.21 on $1 ($21%)

Total tax on $50,000,001 = 7,345,500.21 for an aggregate tax rate of 14.69%

But this comes at a price because EVERYONE must pay.

7% Federal Sales Tax.

 

[Fred Sherman]

These things are of vast importance. If we started truly having universal health care, for instance, we'd see an economic boom result from folks having a "floor" underneath them.

Reality doesn't suggest that is true. Obamacare has cause healthcare costs to rise 17%.

The answer is never more government, the answer is always less. Or at the very least, allow states to do what works best for them rather than a one size fits no one approach.

 

[Fred Sherman]

More liberal lies exposed through simple mathematics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...y-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

Are the people who come up with these ideas stupid or do they think we're stupid. It has to be one or the other. They're either being purposely dishonest or disrespectful of the American people.

 

[jadmperry]

More liberal lies exposed through simple mathematics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...y-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

Are the people who come up with these ideas stupid or do they think we're stupid. It has to be one or the other. They're either being purposely dishonest or disrespectful of the American people.

Where is the lie? The only assertion I ever heard was that Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher effective tax rate than Buffet does. Nothing in the article refutes this. It is apples and oranges. (Also, the reply from Janet Novack fairly well debunks the article; her reply shows that the faulty assumption of the article is to exclude payroll taxes).

I see no "liberal media" bugaboo at work here.

 

[craigiri]

Fred thinks we are saying that his Sec. pays more in taxes in DOLLARS than he does. He really thinks people are that stupid?

Fred, as you well know, countries with universal care spend about 10% of GDP on better health care than we get for spending 18% of GDP. The profit motive is killing us in more ways than one. You can't point to a single country in the world where capitalistic profiteering health care solved the problem. Even the ultra-conservative capitalist UK and Winston Churchill and your hero Thatcher promoted universal health care.

C'mon. You are among friends and intelligent people. Drop the rhetoric and look at the actual issue. 2.5 trillion on health care because we have a predatory system. That's a big part of what is driving our "demise"....probably the #1 reason.

 

[craigiri]

So how about this.

an aggregate tax rate of 14.69%

But this comes at a price because EVERYONE must pay.

(PLUS?) 7% Federal Sales Tax.

That might work. You have to run the numbers. I don't know how much the VAT would raise - that is, I don't know the total sales of goods and services that would be subject to that tax. It would have to raise a trillion dollars or more.

Ok, so I looked and it appears total retail goods and services are approx. 4 trillion.
You would need a 25% Federal sales tax to raise a trillion from that.

Get out the calculator again, Fred, and get back with another proposal. Remember, we need about 3.5 trillion. That figure INCLUDES substantial cuts from current budget and no inflation of the budget figures.

 

[Fred Sherman]

You keep assuming that the budget isn't going to be cut. The budget has to be cut by 40% across the board to begin paying down the debt. Hell, just having an annual budget is a step in the right direction.

 

[EQnoble]

2.5 trillion on health care because we have a predatory system. That's a big part of what is driving our "demise"....probably the #1 reason.

I really am completely in the dark about what a 'predatory system' would be in terms of healthcare having no interaction with one ... a heath care system has never really existed for me. Could you possibly explain a predatory system in reference to health care.

Remember, we need about 3.5 trillion. That figure INCLUDES substantial cuts from current budget and no inflation of the budget figures.

I have an idea that I KNOW if I ever knew anything but pretty much the idea gets shot down anytime it is referenced in anyway remotely so I doubt it is worth really mentioning here.

 

[craigiri]

I really am completely in the dark about what a 'predatory system' would be in terms of healthcare having no interaction with one ... a heath care system has never really existed for me. Could you possibly explain a predatory system in reference to health care.

A predatory system can be explained with some examples.....
A hurricane has hit hard where you live. A bunch of folks from 100 miles away back up their trucks to Home Depot and load up generators which they pay $300 for. They drive 100 miles and offer them from the back of the truck for $1200-$1500 ch.
(that is illegal in most places in the USA, by the way!).....

In terms of our health care, it is simply taking advantage of people who are in a weakened position - for profit.
Or, the real world examples.
In the USA a doctor, drug companies and hospitals make MORE money when patients are sicker and outcomes are worse. They have an inventive to treat disease rather than to prevent it. It goes by the name "fee for service".

Doctors have to become business people instead of concentrating on healing. Many of them end up getting chewed up by the system, because they are expendable and also preyed upon by the health insurance companies. I know some docs who went into it for the love of helping people. They actually left their practices because they cannot deal with the corporate masters at the insurance companies.

If they take sick patients - the insurance companies rate them poorly! Yes, they are given incentives NOT to take sick people. Sick people make their statistics look bad to the bean counters.

I'm not going to explain the entire situation in a forum post, but suffice it to say it provide the wrong incentives and the wrong result.

We have a lot of similar predatory problems in the US - heck, the mortgage crisis involved a lot of this! As we speak, many seniors are getting sold reverse mortgages so the "system" can extract every dollar from their life savings. One lady, over 100 years old, was just evicted from her house due to a reverse mortgage.

That is also predatory capitalism. Consumers should not be allowed to simply sign for anything...especially seniors! Civil society demands that we protect the sick, the elderly and the disabled...NOT prey upon them. As you can probably tell, I feel strongly about this issue - because we each are going to be in that position someday.

 

[craigiri]

You keep assuming that the budget isn't going to be cut. The budget has to be cut by 40% across the board to begin paying down the debt. Hell, just having an annual budget is a step in the right direction.

And the tooth fairy is coming tonight with $500 under my pillow.

Let's be real, Fred. The budget is not going to be cut by 10% or 40%. At best we can save a few percent and not let it go up. You can't wave a magic wand and claim otherwise.
Heck, that "conservative" Newt told us he isn't even going to stop sugar subsidies.

We have to work with what we have. I'm sure you don't send in your mortgage payments 40% short and then claim "I thought it should be cut to this".
But just to humor you, let's cut 15% (which will never happen)
Now, show me 3 Trillion from your tax plan (actually budget is closer to 3.6)

Oh, I forgot. We still have to pay down that 15 trillion debt! Show me 3.5 trillion so we can pay 500 billion of that down.

 

[EQnoble]

Thank you for that explanation. I too have developed a strong position against anyone who takes advantage of good folk, especially those who can't defend themselves 100%.

So basically in my lamo street term I could refer to it as health for profit = death to actual health care and not be too far off? I already had my own gripe with the whole health care system...being a person who never really benefited in my adult life from it but to make a professional in the medical field make a decision that is derived from anything other than their medical knowledge is criminal in my eyes and should not be allowed to continue.

 

[dutchbb]

Well, the SotU has removed any doubt left regarding the thread title for me. Anyone who understands what's going on should be very worried. If not, try watching this crash course on the subject if you have the spare time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WuQ5-t3xM

 

[Fred Sherman]

We have to work with what we have. I'm sure you don't send in your mortgage payments 40% short and then claim "I thought it should be cut to this".

Nor do I spend more than I make. When my income decreases, I make tough decisions about things I can no longer afford, even if they are beneficial. And I never spent my children's savings.

You cannot tax everyone making more that $100,000 at 100% and make up the budget shortfall. There just isn't that much revenue to be had. The budget has to be cut, across the board in all programs - defense, and social spending. No sacred cows. Everyone's cow gets gored.

There is no political will to do that, so we will continue merrily down this path to our unavoidable and inevitable demise. Welcome to the decline of the new Roman empire.

 

[jadmperry]

Can't see the original premise of the thread having validity in any rational reference to the world we live in. We have the largest economy in the world. That will not change anytime soon. If the original thread stated, "The US may not do as well as it should," then I can see some points of agreement.

A fundamental problem with the premise is that if the US fails/falls, Europe and China are greatly harmed as well (both because they are both huge trading partners and the fact that US sovereign debt/Treasuries are so widely traded).

Other fantasies aside, I do agree that there should be policy changes to improve our absolute standing in the world. But, our relative standard will not change to a great degree.

 

[Digital Doctor]

The State of the Union address was a "game changer" for me.
I think there is hope in the US.
If Obama can't deliver what he said he would (regardless of the reason why) ... then I'll be worried again.

 

[Fred Sherman]

The State of the Union address was a "game changer" for me.
I think there is hope in the US.
If Obama can't deliver what he said he would (regardless of the reason why) ... then I'll be worried again.

He's been saying the same thing for two years and haven't delivered yet. Need I remind you of one of the definitions of insanity?

 

[MilesDB]

A predatory system can be explained with some examples.....

In terms of our health care, it is simply taking advantage of people who are in a weakened position - for profit.
Or, the real world examples.
In the USA a doctor, drug companies and hospitals make MORE money when patients are sicker and outcomes are worse. They have an inventive to treat disease rather than to prevent it. It goes by the name "fee for service".

Doctors have to become business people instead of concentrating on healing. Many of them end up getting chewed up by the system, because they are expendable and also preyed upon by the health insurance companies. I know some docs who went into it for the love of helping people. They actually left their practices because they cannot deal with the corporate masters at the insurance companies.

If they take sick patients - the insurance companies rate them poorly! Yes, they are given incentives NOT to take sick people. Sick people make their statistics look bad to the bean counters.

Big pharma corps routinely dine and wine doctors spending big $$$ to push their drugs. It tells me that some drugs are prescribed not on merits but on biggest $$$ spent bribing doctors. And there are baby deliveries. Hospitals make more money from Caesarean sections than normal deliveries. So, moms-to-be encouraged to opt for C-sections. Should there be government regulations to control these kinds of practices in healthcare? I say yes, even though I am more of a libertarian.

 

[MilesDB]

Nor do I spend more than I make. When my income decreases, I make tough decisions about things I can no longer afford, even if they are beneficial. And I never spent my children's savings.

Maybe you are such a perfect individual in redards to living within means. But a lot of people fall into the borrowing trap because of the circumstances of their lives. On top of that population as a whole tend not to use rational thinking when it comes to money.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Big pharma corps routinely dine and wine doctors spending big $$$ to push their drugs. It tells me that some drugs are prescribed not on merits but on biggest $$$ spent bribing doctors.

You fail to note the hoops that the drug companies jump through before they can even reach a point where they are in the marketplace. The FDA has run them through a long, arduous years (if not decades) long process of research, testing and trials.

Also, bribes? Come on. Its not bribery. Yes, they are wined and dined, taken to sporting events, etc. thats done in every business. I've done it and been on the receiving end too. Its called creating a relationship. People don't do business with companies. They do business with people they know and like.

its like dating, but the goal isn't sexual, its financial. What makes it better than dating is that the sales rep is always looking for a long term relationship.

And there are baby deliveries. Hospitals make more money from Caesarean sections than normal deliveries. So, moms-to-be encouraged to opt for C-sections. Should there be government regulations to control these kinds of practices in healthcare? I say yes, even though I am more of a libertarian.

I don't care how pure the motives are initially, the government has no place dictating treatment. That should remain between the doctor and patient. Why? Because the government's concern is purely financial too. They don't give two wags of a stray cat's tail what's best for the patient either. At least a doctor can be held accountable in court for a bad decision.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Maybe you are such a perfect individual in redards to living within means. But a lot of people fall into the borrowing trap because of the circumstances of their lives. On top of that population as a whole tend not to use rational thinking when it comes to money.

So what? The government should just relieve them off all their money and provide for all of their needs directly? Its not like Uncle Sam has proven more fiscally responsible.