Forbes: US Crumbles under Obamacare

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,223
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,337
    The top brackets need to be higher for starters. I'd probably eliminate some deductions too, like charitable giving and mortgage, specifically.
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,223
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,337
    What do you mean by "efficient?"
  3. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +764
    Question to Wqb:

    If Forbes' is so far off is rocker....why did Barry agree to grant waivers to so many big corporations, and postpone implementation of Obamacare, until next year?

    Is it just a coincidence, that he's seeking to pospote its full implementation until after the mid-term elections?

    Wasn't it supposed to save money?

    Wasn't it supposed to be 'budget neutral', yet now isn't it estimated to cost 3 Trillion or so?

    If it's economoically feasible, why delay implementing it?

    If it's economically benefical, why not implement it ASAP?

    That's what this topic is about--not what Forbe's tax plan MIGHT have looked like if implementerd; he was never elected president.

    Barry was.

    His legislative baby IS being implemented.

    Discuss that.
  4. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +764
    Same questions to you, Old:

    If Forbes' is so far off is rocker....why did Barry agree to grant waivers to so many big corporations, and postpone implementation of Obamacare, until next year?

    Is it just a coincidence, that he's seeking to pospote its full implementation until after the mid-term elections?

    Wasn't it supposed to save money?

    Wasn't it supposed to be 'budget neutral', yet now isn't it estimated to cost 3 Trillion or so?

    If it's economoically feasible, why delay implementing it?

    If it's economically benefical, why not implement it ASAP?

    That's what this topic is about--not Bush's presidency--he hasn't been president for some 5 years now.

    Barry is.

    This topic is about his 'legislative baby'--Obamacare.

    Discuss that.
  5. tim85
    Offline

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,821
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,000
    The opposite of our current system - bloated with a variety of complex tax codes that neither I, nor 99% of our citizens really understand. But I'll admit - i find a flat 10-15% fair, regardless of whether someone will be less affected than myself. I do believe it to be the closest thing to fair. I think simplification is the biggest issue, the simpler it is, the more transparent it is.
  6. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,223
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,337
    Our tax code is pretty byzantine, but its not necessarily totally "inefficient" either. We seem to be rather decent at actually collecting the taxes, etc. Greece is a country with an inefficient tax system, as they are/were notoriously bad at even collecting revenue.

    Maybe "simpler" is a better word? As I said before you could render a flat tax system equally as complex by allowing rebates, credits, exemptions, exceptions, deductions, etc. A flat tax with no deductions isnt all that much more simple than a progressive income tax with no deductions.

    Basically, the ideal tax system is one that generates the revenue needed to sustain the government doing what we want it to do. I don't think you could sustain a large military and basic welfare state (like what we have now) with a flat tax. So, in that sense it would be "destructive." Obviously, the people that support a flat tax support it because you couldnt support that. Seems less about fairness, and more about limiting the government to a small(er) amount of revenue.
  7. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +764
    ^^^blah blah blah [ad hominem, deviation] blah blah blah....

    What about the economic feasibility of Obamcare?

  8. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Knock yourself out hoping that government or your neighbors or someone else will take care of you, your family and your relatives and insure a "basic standard of living". Whether it is basic or perhaps enjoying a higher standard of living, I've found the only one in my life who can make that happen is the guy I look at in the mirror each morning when I shave and brush my teeth. "If it is going to be, it is up to me." I've been saying that for 35 years of my working life and it seems to work.
  9. harwil
    Offline

    harwil Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +124
    Why raise the topp rates(40%) when you eliminate deductions.Tax reform lowers rates and limits deductions.See 1986
  10. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    So what % do you think Fed Taxes need to be. They are 40 right now. In a high cost state, when you add in state income taxes, city income taxes, burrough taxes, property taxes, it can be hefty. So do you think it should be 50% at fed level, 60%, 70% or should government just take it all and they decide how much each of us should keep?
  11. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,569
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,032
    why does this absurd flat tax argument keep coming up

    it WONT WORK, and its been laid out many times why

    our consumer economy starts from the ground up...the lower your income, the more it goes right back into the economy...essentially you would be raising the taxes from the bottom to middle (most consumers), and lowering the tax base of the few wealthy

    where would the demand come from?!?!?!?!

    progressive income taxation is a must, as the rest are regressive as is
  12. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,517
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    Of course you don't. The fact we redistribute future generations wealth to current ones is no big deal for those who could give a rip about the future and only care about themselves.

    I have no doubt a basic standard of living to you is well above that of most the world. But we are arrogant Americans...
  13. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +764
    It was brought up in this thread, as a diversion from the actual thread topic, which is:

    The economic feasilibility of Obamacare.
  14. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,517
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    If we are going to play this ridiculous game of semantics then I suggest we need a regressive system to reduce "income inequality".

    Using Bulgaria as the example who has less "income inequality" than we do incorporates a flat tax but also has a VAT making their system regressive....

    I just do not get people who support complex tax codes that your best accountant does not fully understand.

    :smoke:
  15. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    I think a tax system should be based upon who benefits from the maintenance of the current economic system. That should be the overriding concern.

    Think about this case: you have an economy with two people. One person has a home worth $50,000. The other has a home worth $5 million. Now you need to provide for fire protection. Let's say that the $5 million house has a 0.1% chance to catch fire while the $50,000 home has a 0.5% chance to catch fire. For ease of estimation, lets say this is perfect fire service, which will put out the fire with a 100% success rate and without the service, if the house caught fire, it would be destroyed 100% of the time. Now how should we pay for fire service? The person with the $50,000 home receives $250 in benefit from fire service. The person with the $5 million home receives $5,000 in benefit. I would argue that the person receiving $5,000 in benefit should pay 95% of the taxes based upon benefit in this case. So let's say fire service cost $1,000 for these two houses. The person with the $5 million house should pay $950, while the other person should pay $50.

    Think of taxes like prices for services in which the government can effectively price discriminate based on benefit.
  16. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +764
    'Budget neutral' anyone????

    Wasn't this f'n monstrosity supposed to be 'budget F'n neutral'?

    Is Negative Three Trillion Dollars (or whatever the hell the current estimats are--I think CBO had it at 2.6 TRIL. in first 10 years....) somehow supposed to pass as 'budget neutral' these days???
  17. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +764
    Will tweaking the tax code make Obamacre profitable? 'budget neutral'? Less expensive?

    ...or just maybe, indirectly, generate enough revenues so that we can afford teh additional 3 Trillion dollars? Is that the angle?
  18. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Because the bill includes both revenues and expenditures. That is how something becomes neutral (and I am pretty sure you are just making up numbers, as the cost of the insurance provisions, which are the primary drivers of expenditures are half what you are discussing).

    The last time the CBO scored the entire legislation, it found that repealing the legislation would cost the government $109 billion in additional deficit over the next ten years.

    Table 1:
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf
  19. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Wondering what it is costing government now in MIA taxpayers who are on the sidelines gobbling up benefits due to lack of hiring?
  20. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,517
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    Basically the same amount delaying the employer mandate will cost in revenues.

    Cutting our losses at 109 billion over the next ten years (as unappealing as it is) will be far better for our deficit...

    Chalk it up to nuts in Washington whompass things without reading them and lets start thinking about our greed...

Share This Page