kallend 2,027 #301 October 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . . An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.) No, it's a flat tax. It only SEEMS regressive because there is a cap. It IS regressive because there's a cap. Only once you get PAST the cap. You don't get the privilege of discarding any data that disproves the point you're trying to make.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #302 October 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . . An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.) No, it's a flat tax. It only SEEMS regressive because there is a cap. It IS regressive because there's a cap. Only once you get PAST the cap. You don't get the privilege of discarding any data that disproves the point you're trying to make. I'm not discarding anything - merely pointing out that the tax is NOT regressive if you're one of the MILLIONS that are under the cap.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #303 October 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . . An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.) No, it's a flat tax. It only SEEMS regressive because there is a cap. It IS regressive because there's a cap. Only once you get PAST the cap. You don't get the privilege of discarding any data that disproves the point you're trying to make. I'm not discarding anything - merely pointing out that the tax is NOT regressive if you're one of the MILLIONS that are under the cap. So you're discarding the millions that are over the cap. Sorry, analysis doesn't work that way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #304 October 19, 2008 Whatever you say, John. Being the font of all human knowledge, you obviously knew what I meant better than I did.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #305 October 19, 2008 We have gone over this again and again. Read the WHO study. It studied which healthcare systems are best at socialized medicine. Not which are best at medicine. Indeed - check out that WHO study for info on which country leads the world in population satisfaction, privacy, respect, etc. You think Americans don't like their healthcare system, check out what socialized countries think of theirs. The grass is not greener... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #306 October 19, 2008 QuoteWhatever you say, John. Being the font of all human knowledge, you obviously knew what I meant better than I did. Veiled PA or no veiled PA, you STILL don't get the privilege of discarding any data that disproves the point you're trying to make. Your position is as absurd as claiming that if we ignore expenditures and only count revenues, then we no longer have a budget deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #307 October 19, 2008 as I said to you and mnealtx, "we fundamentally disagree' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #308 October 19, 2008 So, I went to the FULL BREAKDOWN of the World Health Organization ranking of health care systems. source There are nine actual categories. 6 in the attainment of goals section: Health- level and distrubition Responsiveness - level and distrubition Fairness in finicial contrubition Overall goal attainment Health care expenditure per capita in intertnatinal funds 2 in performance On Level of Health On overall health system performance. Lets Stack France against the US. Health - Level France 3, US 24. Distrubution France 12, US 32. Now... I couldn't find reference to what that was truly examining but I'm thinking that personal choices fall into this category. Meaning, we are, as a popultion, acting less healthy. Responsiveness. Level France 16-17, US 1. Distribution France 3-38, US 3-38. What I'm reading here is that the responsiveness in the US system is quite a bit better than that of France. and EQUAL in distribution. Fairness in finicial contribution. Again, I wish that I had what they truly meant by this category. France was 26-20, US 54-55. So we're "less fair"... but what does that mean? Less fair to those that need care and don't have the money or less fair to those on whom the debt falls when the bills are written off? Either way.... we are worse than France and could make it better... but France still isn't the number one here either. Surprisingly Colombia was. Overall Goal Attainment: France 6, US 15. Health care expenditure per capita in intertnatinal funds: France 4, US 1. Looking at that, are we truly as evil and expensive as many proclaim? (EDIT TO ADD - and does it mean that we are the most expensive, and how much are we off by the other countries?) Performance categories: On Level of Health - France 4, US 72. Really thinking our lifestyles fall into play here. On overall health system performance - France 1. US 37. This is the number that everyone keeps throwing around. Is this number an analysis of the nine evaluated categories or is this an independant category. If so, what do they look at: patient satisfaction? (cuz I've read some of the patient satisfaction evals from the hospital and honestly... does contempory interior decorating really add to health performance? relating to comments like "needs newer pictures on the walls" and "needs newer chairs in the waiting room") or maybe discharge diagnosis (cuz here the insurance companies bill on number and severity of ICD9 codes on the discharge... so of course we are encouraed to list ALL the discharge diagnosis... not just the reason for admission and then resolution) But... we are getting off the topic of Wealth redistribution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #309 October 19, 2008 QuoteWe have gone over this again and again. Read the WHO study. It studied which healthcare systems are best at socialized medicine. Not which are best at medicine. Indeed - check out that WHO study for info on which country leads the world in population satisfaction, privacy, respect, etc. You think Americans don't like their healthcare system, check out what socialized countries think of theirs. The grass is not greener... Maybe you're looking at a different survey than I am (year 2000) but then Denmark was highest (91% satisfied or very satisfied) followed by Finland, Austria, Netherlands and Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, UK, Canada, Spain and only then the US with 40% satisfied or very satisfied.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #310 October 19, 2008 Quote Your position is as absurd as claiming that if we ignore expenditures and only count revenues, then we no longer have a budget deficit. According to Webster, regressive tax is "decreasing in rate as the base increases". The _rate_ technically stays the same, so it may or may not be considered a "regressive tax", and has been argued a lot over the Internet. Like sales tax on food - it has fixed rate for everyone, therefore someone who makes 1M pays the same amount that someone who makes 25K. However the amount they pay as a percentage to their income is smaller. Therefore it could also be considered regressive. Again, it's the word play.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #311 October 19, 2008 Quote Plenty of articles here about deaths due to lack of health insurance, not just ER visits. http://www.google.com/search?q=deaths+due+to+lack+of+health+care&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a This is kinda funny. You're talking about deaths due to lack of health insurance, but provide a search results pf "death due to lack of health _care_". Which is obviously different thing. Is that why all those countries are on the top of the WHO lists? Because they provide lousy healthcare and higher costs that we do? Well actually the opposite is true Quote The top countries have 'socialized' healthcare. And not only healthcare; they have socialized government. Quote Half my staff right now lives below the poverty line. That's because business is slow. Business is slow for a lot of reasons, none of which are their fault. But they do not qualify for food stamps. But they also cannot just go get another job for the same economic reasons. How you define the "poverty line", as it is not the state-mandated poverty line because they would qualify for food stamps? And it all depends on priorities. I know a person who is in the same position you described. He has a cable TV and Internet at home, and drives a 2-year old Prius. But when I suggested that because the times are tough, and he might need to cut cable TV and Internet and maybe sell Prius and get a $2000 junk car - he's not driving a lot anyway - and buy health insurance for him and his kid, he looked at me like I'm crazy. Quote But I digress. And none of them have health insurance because they cannot afford it I'm 99% sure that if you reviewed their budget, you'd see it yourself that most, if not all of them, could afford it. They just need to set priorities right. Just ask how many of them have cable TV, cell phones, Internet? Going out for a lunch or dinner? Spent on vacation? Expensive hobbies? Unnecessary stuff like tobacco and alcohol? Quote Universal healthcare is coming, mark my words. In this country, in my lifetime. It will happen. And when it comes, you'll hate it. Mark my words.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #312 October 19, 2008 QuoteQuote Your position is as absurd as claiming that if we ignore expenditures and only count revenues, then we no longer have a budget deficit. According to Webster, regressive tax is "decreasing in rate as the base increases". The _rate_ technically stays the same,. No, the rate decreases to zero once you pass the cut-off.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #313 October 19, 2008 I see some 1.8 million people voluntarily redistributed some of their wealth to the Obama campaign in September alone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #314 October 19, 2008 Their $$ - let them do what they want with it. The fact that they're donating $$ to somebody who wants to take more of them via the force of the government probably eludes most of them. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #315 October 19, 2008 Quote Their $$ - let them do what they want with it. The fact that they're donating $$ to somebody who wants to take more of them via the force of the government probably eludes most of them. Your elitism is showing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #316 October 19, 2008 Quote Quote Their $$ - let them do what they want with it. The fact that they're donating $$ to somebody who wants to take more of them via the force of the government probably eludes most of them. Your elitism is showing. You probably won't be suprised, but I wouldn't call that comment "elitist." He mentioned that he's not wanting to judge them for spending their money on what they might want to, but also noting that by spending that money, more will be taken away. I even re-verified the def'n in websters.... and nope. I see his comment as more tolerant (if maybe a bit snotty at the end... but not elitist) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #317 October 19, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Their $$ - let them do what they want with it. The fact that they're donating $$ to somebody who wants to take more of them via the force of the government probably eludes most of them. Your elitism is showing. You probably won't be suprised, but I wouldn't call that comment "elitist." He mentioned that he's not wanting to judge them for spending their money on what they might want to, but also noting that by spending that money, more will be taken away. I even re-verified the def'n in websters.... and nope. I see his comment as more tolerant (if maybe a bit snotty at the end... but not elitist) He's writing that he is able to see that which "eludes most of them". Call it what you like.PS I support Obama and I'm quite sure that in the short term I will pay more tax as a consequence. However, I think we pay up now, or pay far more later. At some point the country has to start living within its means or our currency will become worthless and we'll all be far worse off. Reagan/Bush/Cheney economics IS voodoo economics ((C) G.H.W. Bush 1980), and the consequences are already upon us.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #318 October 20, 2008 > It only SEEMS regressive because there is a cap. It in fact is regressive because there is a cap. People who make more pay a smaller percentage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #319 October 20, 2008 QuoteQuote>You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security . . . An interesting example. Social security is a regressive tax; the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of your income. So it rapidly becomes a non-issue for someone making $500K. (i.e. it's around 2%.) No, it's a flat tax. It only SEEMS regressive because there is a cap. It's actually progressive until you reach the cap, because the amount you and your spouse get out per additional dollar goes down until you hit the cap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #320 October 20, 2008 Quote> It only SEEMS regressive because there is a cap. It in fact is regressive because there is a cap. People who make more pay a smaller percentage. No. They pay the same tax rate up to the cutoff. They pay a smaller PERCENTAGE of their overall income the further they go above the cap, but the tax rate itself does not change.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #321 October 20, 2008 >They pay a smaller PERCENTAGE of their overall income the further they >go above the cap . . . That's the definition of a regressive tax. Merriam-Webster: Regressive One entry found. 3 : decreasing in rate as the base increases Encyclopedia Britannica: Regressive tax Tax levied at a rate that decreases as its base increases. Regressivity is considered undesirable because poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income in tax than wealthier people. Wikipedia: A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #322 October 20, 2008 Quote>They pay a smaller PERCENTAGE of their overall income the further they >go above the cap . . . That's the definition of a regressive tax. Merriam-Webster: Regressive One entry found. 3 : decreasing in rate as the base increases Encyclopedia Britannica: Regressive tax Tax levied at a rate that decreases as its base increases. Regressivity is considered undesirable because poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income in tax than wealthier people. Wikipedia: A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. There IS no tax above the cap. If it were regressive, it would be 6% for the first 50k, 4% for the next 50K, 3% for the last 20k (for example). It's not - it's 6+% for the ENTIRE range it applies to. The EFFECT of the tax is regressive ONLY for those people that earn above the cap.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #323 October 20, 2008 It's a bit misleading to call it regressive or not, based just on the money paid. Seems only apt if you consider it a tax that disappears, never to be paid back. But on paper, you pay in X, you get back Y. Those making more than 102k get the same benefit as those who make 102k, for the same $6400ish. So it cannot be regressive. When you look at it from the perspective of benefits paid in retirement, it's very clearly a progressive tax. As you go up the income scale to the FICA max, the benefit does not increase nearly as quickly. And those people are much more likely to have those benefits taxed, particularly in the 30s when the 'trust fund' evaporates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
