Obama lays down the gauntlet.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
I ask myself: does it COST $30,000 dollars to take out a gallbladder? And if so, WHY? Why do costs for relatively routine procedures continue to go up instead of down? A damn box of Kleenex used during a hospital stay is billed out at $10.

With everything else, technologically speaking, price goes down. In a free market, every business wants to increase its pool of customers, and beat its competitors' prices.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

It's because the hospital is at odds with medical insurance practices. They have to inflate and add erroneous charges that are obfuscated in confusing terminology and coding in order to make sure they will be compensated by the insurance companies, and the result often leaves the patient in the crossfire unable to pay an inflated co-pay.

Is there a doctor here who could explain this better?

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Gale Haut said:
I think they'll have to given the influx of the hispanic vote. They've already begun discussing compromise on immigration policies. And I really think that the view of the GOP is going to become more and more uncompromising over the next two years. Along with that you'll see the Tea Party dissolve into nothing, and former libertarians taking Republican seats in the house.

I'm just speculating.

That would be SO awesome. I hope your speculation is right.

RichardGarfinkle said:
It costs a lot for a number of reasons:
1. Human skill. It takes surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and a number of other people to run a surgery.

2. Hardware. There were a number of machines keeping me alive at the time and afterwords.

3. Medicine etc. There were a number of drugs necessary to keep me healthy and not screaming in pain.

4. Monitoring. I was in the hospital for several days afterwards being monitored by hardware, software, and skilled humans.

While some of these costs could probably be reduced. But probably not by more than 1/2. And the routine character of the surgery does not reduce the fact that it was surgery.

Surgery is the art of cutting humans open and putting them back together in better shape then when the surgeon started. Given how fragile we are that is a freaking difficult thing to do. Survival chances on gall bladder surgery these days are darned high, but that's mostly because of all the expensive stuff and training involved.

Why do I hear an American Express commercial in my head right now?

Cutting people open, putting them back together, and not getting sued?

.....Priceless.

Edit: Philosophy means love of wisdom. So you are saying that Libertarians do not love wisdom. Okay, I'll agree.

Libertarianism is about freedom from those who claim to have so much wisdom that they think they should run your life for you.

Monkey · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Of course new legislation doesn't have to include both. But if an agreement can't be reached, they will BOTH expire. That's how they are tied together.

Except - and I've pointed this very obvious truth out countless times already - the new legislation actually being proposed in the OP covers just the 98% and keeps those breaks from expiring no matter what else happens. It does not address the 2% at all, for good or for ill.

Scheduled to kick in? What, so prior spending increases are set to expire without an agreement?

Yes. This has also been gone over repeatedly, and links have been given to the original text. I'm starting to feel that this debate is completely useless, because nothing I type seems to be being read. One more time, with background music: without an agreement, there will be spending caps and cuts on about a thousand government programs - some important to Democrats and some important to Republicans (all of which important to one group or another of Americans.)

We're mostly hearing about the taxes. But that's NOT the only thing to it or the only reason Democrats have to reach across the aisle.

The Republicans, quite simply, are interested in assuring as much pain as possible to as many people as possible if we go over the cliff... and they've outright said they'll push us over if they don't get their way.

I'm a tax accountant, so I'm vested in all-things-tax-related as part of my job and don't know much about these other issues.

Link was given a page or so back.

I disagree. I see it as the pressure being off of Obama and the Dems once this "compromise" is made. After all, 98% of people will be happy. 2% of public opinion isn't going to mean squat.

Augh. The tax cuts are not the only thing on the table. Thousand other programs. Debt ceiling.

That's, I think, how most people here feel. And as such, Obama's "offer of compromise" seems perfectly reasonable.

This isn't a "compromise." This is both sides agreeing on one piece of the larger puzzle, and one side saying, "Good. Let's just sign off on that."

I think it may be hard to see it differently, because of what's "at stake" (rich people being taxed a little bit more, Big Whoop).

About a thousand other programs. Debt ceiling.

Here's a different scenario. Say the Dems and Reps are in agreement about reducing taxes for 98% of people, but the Dems also want to increase the Earned Income Credit for the poorest 2%. The Reps aren't willing to do that. The Reps want the Dems to "compromise" by passing the tax cuts for the 98%, and claim they are willing to talk about increasing the EIC on the very poor "later." They both agree on the 98% tax cuts. If they can't agree, they'll be no tax cuts for the 98%, and no EIC for the poor.

In your different scenario, is there a looming fiscal cliff that involves hundreds of programs that each side finds important? Will the EIC be part of that debate? Because otherwise, this is a piss-poor example.

RichardGarfinkle · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Libertarianism is about freedom from those who claim to have so much wisdom that they think they should run your life for you.

Yet you keep prescribing how life should be lived. You assert that your idea of freedom (which is economic centered) must be real freedom and only you and people who think like you understand the meaning of freedom. And everyone else must bow down to your wisdom as regards freedom.

Why are you trying to run everyone's life?

rugcat · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Libertarianism is about freedom from those who claim to have so much wisdom that they think they should run your life for you.

I see libertarianism as more a combination of "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you," "You're not the boss of me," and "I have no responsibility to the society I live in, except for those things I wish to have."

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
Yet you keep prescribing how life should be lived. You assert that your idea of freedom (which is economic centered) must be real freedom and only you and people who think like you understand the meaning of freedom. And everyone else must bow down to your wisdom as regards freedom.

Why are you trying to run everyone's life?

That's a load of crap, and I think you know it. I'm not prescribing anything. I'm resisting forced prescriptions.

And God knows, I'm in the minority.

rugcat said:
I see libertarianism as more a combination of "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you," "You're not the boss of me," and "I have no responsibility to the society I live in, except for those things I wish to have."

Oh good, crap in spades.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

rugcat said:
I see libertarianism as more a combination of "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you," "You're not the boss of me," and "I have no responsibility to the society I live in, except for those things I wish to have."

Sounds like the impetus to the Revolutionary War.

Monkey · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Oh good, crap in spades.

No, the Libertarian philosophy is a philosophy, and as such, it is just as much a matter of opinion and up for debate as any other. You might see it as resisting forced prescriptions, but seeing as it would take drastic changes to the society that we're currently living in, that view is extremely debatable.

And Rugcat stated how HE saw libertarianism - his opinion. So while you might think he's wrong, he is correct in describing his own perceptions.

Smile, Chrissy! Don't let this debate ruin your usually sunny disposition.

Don · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Libertarianism is about freedom from those who claim to have so much wisdom that they think they should run your life for you.

My favorite restatement.

I find it noteworthy that those areas where government is most involved (education, healthcare, finance, and utilities for example) are those areas where costs rise most rapidly, choice is most restricted, consumer satisfaction is the lowest, and power tends to consolidate, while those areas where government has relatively little control (electronics, apparel, food (on a local level), arts and entertainment) see declining or relatively stable prices, the widest range of choice, less dissatisfaction, and the most competition.

Of course, the counter-argument is that government is most heavily involved in those areas precisely because of skyrocketing costs, limited choices, high customer dissatisfaction, and monopolistic practices.

Needless to say, I don't buy the counter-argument, the historic trend being that government involvement shows little ability to reverse or even slow those negative trends, and generally tends to accelerate them.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Monkey said:
No, the Libertarian philosophy is a philosophy, and as such, it is just as much a matter of opinion and up for debate as any other. You might see it as resisting forced prescriptions, but seeing as it would take drastic changes to the society that we're currently living in, that view is extremely debatable.

And Rugcat stated how HE saw libertarianism - his opinion. So while you might think he's wrong, he is correct in describing his own perceptions.

Smile, Chrissy!

Okay.

But it's so wrong, imo, to think that the only way to take responsibility or to care about society is to allow FedGov to run it by force.

Basically, rugcat is assuming that all libertarians are like Ayn Rand. Or even that Ayn Rand was so evil. (What she was, in her day, was an strong voice against communism. Can you blame her???)

The fact of the matter is that libertarians aren't made from an L-shaped cookie cutter. And even if they were, it wouldn't be of the "I've got mine fuck you" variety. That is so far removed from the libertarian philosophy, I can't even....

:gaah

Monkey · Nov 12, 2012

Oh for fuck's sake.

Let's derail as far as possible and make this another thread on Libertarianism.

Whatever. I'm logging off for a while.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Monkey said:
Oh for fuck's sake.

Let's derail as far as possible and make this another thread on Libertarianism.

Whatever. I'm logging off for a while.

It wassssn't meeeeeee (this time).

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

hello?

rugcat · Nov 12, 2012

I believe the actual quote is this:

"Anarchy is the radical notion that other people are not your property."
– Roderick Long

Roderick Long is, among other things, an editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Chrissy said:
Basically, rugcat is assuming that all libertarians are like Ayn Rand. Or even that Ayn Rand was so evil. (What she was, in her day, was an strong voice against communism. Can you blame her???)

I did not refer to Libertarians. I was referring to Libertarian philosophy, which I despise. Various individuals embrace aspects of that philosophy and reject others -- as do followers of almost every other philosophy and religion.

As far as Ayn Rand goes, her views and worth have been discussed in many other threads.

Suffice it to say that being a strong voice against communism does not impress me. Other noted historical figures have been staunch Anti-Communists -- including senator Joe McCarthy and a certain leader of a country that will remain unnamed for fear of Godwinning.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

I'm sorry I got all pissy with you, rugcat. Apologies to you too, Richard.

I won't respond specifically to your last post, rc, (although I do appreciate the clarification) because I've done that too many times to Monkey and I'm on her last nerve, I'm sure.

I know we have had and will cotinue to have opportunities to discuss on other threads, if anyone is inclined.

*hugs*

Romantic Heretic · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Libertarianism is about freedom from those who claim to have so much wisdom that they think they should run your life for you.

In my opinion, libertarianism is about power, as are all political philosophies. Power: who gets it, how it should be used and what limits can be imposed on it either internally through ethics or externally through organizations.

I'll point out again that the Ayn Rand philosophy is simply Marxism inverted so that bad becomes good and good becomes bad.

Also, again in my opinion, our society is, thanks to libertarianism, just as economically deterministic as any Marxist nation. We argue about how much things cost, whether the economy will allow certain actions to take place, not whether they are good or bad. If economics doesn't allow it, we can't do it and we mere mortals must bow before its majesty.

Unimportant · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
But see, when you're talking about taking other people's earned income by force, and taking it in different proportions depending upon how much money those people earn, and calling it moral.... I get confused, too.

But tax rates also depend on how you earn your money. Job income versus dividend income versus investment income versus capital gains versus business. Rich people tend to make most of their money in ways that have a much lower tax rate. I pay 36% on my few hundred bucks of overseas profit (royalties and short story sales); Apple pays 1.5% on its billions in overseas profit.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Unimportant said:
But tax rates also depend on how you earn your money. Job income versus dividend income versus investment income versus capital gains versus business. Rich people tend to make most of their money in ways that have a much lower tax rate. I pay 36% on my few hundred bucks of overseas profit (royalties and short story sales); Apple pays 1.5% on its billions in overseas profit.

I find that unacceptable as well. I disagree with corporate perks, and I disagree with a lower tax rate for investment income. Although... I'd like the ordinary income tax rate to be as low as capital gain tax rate... not vice versa.

backslashbaby · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
I find that unacceptable as well. I disagree with corporate perks, and I disagree with a lower tax rate for investment income. Although... I'd like the ordinary income tax rate to be as low as capital gain tax rate... not vice versa.

Also consider all of the other taxes folks pay: tax on gasoline, sales tax, taxes in each utility bill. Now consider the math on that, and you will see that the total tax burden on a poor or middle-class person is a much greater percentage of her income or wealth than for the 2%.

And then add in the cost of necessities versus luxury goods. Maybe bus fare is a good example. Compare daily bus fare to get to work as a given (or transportation in some paid form). That is part of the cost of being a working American in most of our cities. Add in food costs and all the other basic necessities. Total them up and make a graph compared to income (including capital gains) and/or wealth. Seriously, look at that graph.

The 98% must spend a much greater proportion of their income/wealth on necessities. The 2% have their necessities well covered and have lots of money to spend on luxury goods. Definitely good for them

However, when assessing how fair it is to pay progressive tax rates, you will see that the idea of 'fair' can cover the role of necessity vs luxury wealth or income. Certainly I feel worse if taking taxes on one person takes away their rent money while taxes on another only means their 4th yacht won't get a new paint job this year. It depends on what you mean by 'fair'.

However you define it, look at more than just federal income taxes, because they are only part of the situation the different classes face. If the rich paid sales tax or gas taxes in proportion to their income, we'd all be blown away by how much those sorts of costs really affect poorer people in comparison.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

backslashbaby said:
Also consider all of the other taxes folks pay: tax on gasoline, sales tax, taxes in each utility bill. Now consider the math on that, and you will see that the total tax burden on a poor or middle-class person is a much greater percentage of her income or wealth than for the 2%......

I look at gas tax and sales tax differently. These are consumptive taxes. First, the wealthy tend to consume (spend) more than the average person, if only that they buy more expensive things.

Second, if a middle class person drives 50 miles a week on roads and bridges, and a wealthy person drives 50 miles a week on roads and bridges, where would be the fairness is charging one more than the other?

The idea inherent in some people's definition of fairness is what a person can bear, and I can sympathize with that, to be sure, but its converse is not true, IMO: just because I person can bear it, doesn't mean they should.

Look at all the ways the government collects money: sales tax, local sales surtax, property tax, intangible tax, personal property tax, use tax, gas tax, luxury tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, gift tax, inheritence tax.... For crying out loud. And all the admin costs involved to collect all these taxes, process the tax returns, audit the taxpayers... oy vey.

I think it would be so logical to have a flat state income tax along with a flat federal tax. Simple and fair, IMO. But no one listens to me.

Which isn't suprising, because it looks like I'm rambling again....

Xelebes · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Second, if a middle class person drives 50 miles a week on roads and bridges, and a wealthy person drives 50 miles a week on roads and bridges, where would be the fairness is charging one more than the other?

The problem is that the person driving those 50 miles a day to work is using that mileage to earn his income just as much as the person who drives just as much but earns much more.

He drives 50 miles, consuming 2 gallons a day. That works out to $7 dollars. He earns 20 dollars an hour for 8 hours. 160 dollars a day. 160less 7 dollars is 153 dollars a day, a drop of 4.4%. If taxes make up 25% of the cost of gas, then he pays 1.1% tax on his income just to get to work.

Someone who makes 1000 dollars a day pays 7 dollars a day, leaving him with 993 dollars, a drop of 0.7%. Given the same portion of tax in the price of gas, he pays 0.175% tax on his income to get to work.

Don · Nov 12, 2012

One question nobody seems to be asking: "Is keeping the tax break for those under $250,000 economically feasible?" The CBO says no (bolding mine)

Entitlements, especially Social Security and Medicare, are the biggest drivers of the debt. The CBO reports that it would be possible to leave them essentially unchanged—but “only by raising taxes substantially, relative to current policies, for a broad segment of the population.” Raising taxes on high earners, in other words, wouldn’t fix the problem. Raising tax revenues just a little wouldn’t fix it either: To close the gap with tax hikes would requiring raising tax revenues “significantly above their historical average as a percentage of GDP.”

How big a tax hike are we talking about? Big. Very big.

Historically, tax revenues average roughly 18-19 percent of gross domestic product. And they don’t usually rise much higher: Since World War II, the government has never collected more than 20.9 percent of GDP in revenue. But on a current policy trajectory, the federal government will spend about 23 percent of GDP over the next decade and about 24 percent after. That means we’d have to hike tax revenues by about 26 percent above historical averages in order to match revenues to spending, which as the CBO suggests would mean raising taxes on the middle class as well as high earners.That seems neither desirable nor politically likely.

They go even farther:

“Without significant changes in the laws governing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,” the report says, “those factors will boost federal outlays as a percentage of GDP well above the average of the past several decades—a conclusion that applies under any plausible assumptions about future trends in demographics, economic conditions, and health care costs.”

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Xelebes said:
The problem is that the person driving those 50 miles a day to work is using that mileage to earn his income just as much as the person who drives just as much but earns much more.

He drives 50 miles, consuming 2 gallons a day. That works out to $7 dollars. He earns 20 dollars an hour for 8 hours. 160 dollars a day. 160less 7 dollars is 153 dollars a day, a drop of 4.4%. If taxes make up 25% of the cost of gas, then he pays 1.1% tax on his income just to get to work.

Someone who makes 1000 dollars a day pays 7 dollars a day, leaving him with 993 dollars, a drop of 0.7%. Given the same portion of tax in the price of gas, he pays 0.175% tax on his income to get to work.

Yeah, I get it. I'm against consumptive taxes, but it would be impossible to allocate them according to income. And, people will say that it's not fair either that the person who makes $160 a day has to pay the same amount for the gas itself (infinitely more expensive) as the person who makes $1,000 a day. Right? Am I right?

Are we trying to redistribute wealth, or are we not?

I'll add this too: property taxes. The exact same property is taxed, year after year, by the government. It doesn't matter how much money a person makes. It doesn't matter if a person has a job or not. People pay property taxes based on the value of their property, but it matters little if they are old, retired, sick, or whathaveyou. They could have busted their asses for their whole lives to pay off the mortgage on their homes, be 80 some odd years old, or younger but presently unemployed in this shitty economy, and they will still owe property tax every year on their home.

Bleh.

Income Tax. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. That's my 2 cents.

blacbird · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
I look at gas tax and sales tax differently. These are consumptive taxes. First, the wealthy tend to consume (spend) more than the average person, if only that they buy more expensive things.

In percentage of income terms, this is not true. The lower your income is, the greater percentage of it goes for obligatory expenditures, and that's the reason sales taxes are so regressive. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates doubtless spend more money, in absolute numbers, than your average day laborer does. But not as a percentage of income.

caw

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

blacbird said:
In percentage of income terms, this is not true. The lower your income is, the greater percentage of it goes for obligatory expenditures, and that's the reason sales taxes are so regressive. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates doubtless spend more money, in absolute numbers, than your average day laborer does. But not as a percentage of income.

caw

Hey, I don't disagree. But is that a reason to sustain progressive income taxes--to offset regressive consumptive taxes, or maybe... just maybe... should we get rid of regressive taxes?

Obama lays down the gauntlet.

waxing digital artistic

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Is me.

Nurture Phoenixes

Lost in the Fog

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

waxing digital artistic

Is me.

All Living is Local

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Is me.

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

waxing digital artistic

Lost in the Fog

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

uncoerced

No COVID yet. Still masking.

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

~~~~*~~~~

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Delerium ex Ennui

All Living is Local

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

*