Is Fixing Income Inequality Actually Un-American?

[ludin]

Please.. listen.. we have about 85 to 90% of americans who have healthcare insurance. About only 10 -15% of americans go without health insurance And a good portion of them now is because of choice...

And those 85-90% of americans have a healthcare insurance that is by and large equal or usually BETTER than the healthcare insurance than most Europeans have.

so we pay less taxes and end up with better healthcare and more money in our pockets.

yep good luck getting certain procedures or drugs there because thier system has deemed them too expensive.

 

[Moderate Right]

yep good luck getting certain procedures or drugs there because there system has deemed them too expensive.

But the middle class has it better in Europe!

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You never said "SOME" before. You just said Europe.

No, I checked all my posts and that is untrue. Whenever I mentioned the European countries I always stated, "many other European countries" post #392 or "some European countries" post #412 and the same in post #442 so please keep it honest.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

yep good luck getting certain procedures or drugs there because thier system has deemed them too expensive.

Private insurance does the same.

 

[jaeger19]

Ok, right on with you Jaegar! We have socialized risk and privatized profits!!! All the programs you named (Medicare part D, Obamacare, favoring companies and bailing out banks) are all in favor of privatized business and our social safety nets have slowly over the years become more and more privatized and costly (perfect example Medicare part D)....not to mention how Obama's healthcare initiative is almost identify to Romney's Mass plan which is almost identical to a plan the Cato Institute came up with years ago. It all benefits private companies/entities with the costs being shouldered to its citizens.

As far as sacrificing wellbeing for that fancy car or house...in those cases sacrificing "wellbeing" was being put into massive debt. I believe those who go without health insurance are the ones that may sacrifice buying whatever car they can afford just to have transportation to get then to point A to point B. Not having a car for them could also mean not being able to get to work and therefore losing a job.

You do realize that socialized countries do exactly the same right? That in many cases their services are administered or handled by private companies that contract with the government right?

And of course you have to be "in" to get such a contract.

I believe those who go without health insurance are the ones that may sacrifice buying whatever car they can afford just to have transportation to get then to point A to point B. Not having a car for them could also mean not being able to get to work and therefore losing a job.

Yeah... most of the time.. people are going without health insurance by choice because they figure it won't happen to them. and or 2. they know they still get treatment in the ER.

 

[jaeger19]

Private insurance does the same.

well.. and here is the difference. Number one.. it does happen but generally private insurance in America covers more than the public insurance in other countries (pharmaceuticals being the caveat)...

And two.. when you have an insurance that does not cover what you need.. in America you have the option to switch insurances.. not so much in single payer systems.

 

[jaeger19]

That is pretty much any liberal you run into. They can't see the forest for the tree's.
they expect other people to hand over more of what they earn but they refuse to do it
themselves.

even when proven that government cannot run things like healthcare etc they just double down.

You know.. that's exactly right.

Just take Bernie.. now I think the guy of all of them means well.. and probably truly has the interests of America at heart. But he seems to not realize his intellectual disconnect. On one hand.. he runs on the premise that the federal government has not been working for the people and is broken.

and in the next breath he is promising to hand over our healthcare to the very people that he is complaining about.

I mean.. does he really want a bachman or santorum or a trump to be in charge of his children and grandchildrens healthcare?

 

[pdog]

You have to add the two papers together, which proves that the majority of the homeless are either mentally ill or have alcohol or substance abuse problems, but you knew that already from your deceivingly worded post. Very few of these will ever be able to function well enough to retain jobs long term. Hey, you should be happy to hear what I'm saying. I'm saying that these people need to be taken care of better than they are now and that we should spend the money to do it. But your argument that we should add to the deficit to create public sector jobs for the homeless is worthless claptrap.

Still no. First we were talking about employing the homeless. When you couldn't get your "majority" out of the 20-25% your first article gave you, you threw in substance and alcohol problems too.

Then you go and add the percentages together as if you're sure that none of the mentally ill ALSO have substance abuse problems (you could only add them if they were mutually exclusive). Even if I throw you a bone and generously give you your 63 percent AND give you that none of them can be treated for either case, it still says nothing of the say 200k+ people that aren't either of these things, including 75k veterans.

I'm sorry MR, you're going nowhere with this. You should give up.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You do realize that socialized countries do exactly the same right? That in many cases their services are administered or handled by private companies that contract with the government right?

And of course you have to be "in" to get such a contract.



Yeah... most of the time.. people are going without health insurance by choice because they figure it won't happen to them. and or 2. they know they still get treatment in the ER.

Yes, it varies for something like healthcare (they are all covered though), but that does not address all the services they benefit from which we do not get like family benefits and/or more comprehensive supports ie. income support policies, labor market policies etc....

Our healthcare drives up costs since not everyone is covered and people are using the ER for things that a doctor can do.

 

[Moderate Right]

Still no. First we were talking about employing the homeless. When you couldn't get your "majority" out of the 20-25% your first article gave you, you threw in substance and alcohol problems too.

Then you go and add the percentages together as if you're sure that none of the mentally ill ALSO have substance abuse problems (you could only add them if they were mutually exclusive). Even if I throw you a bone and generously give you your 63 percent AND give you that none of them can be treated for either case, it still says nothing of the say 200k+ people that aren't either of these things, including 75k veterans.

I'm sorry MR, you're going nowhere with this. You should give up.

There are plenty of jobs available for those who can work and want to. $7.25 per hour is better than making zero. Most of the homeless either can't work or don't want to. The others we'll try to help. No matter what liberal claptrap you want to spew won't change that fact.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

well.. and here is the difference. Number one.. it does happen but generally private insurance in America covers more than the public insurance in other countries (pharmaceuticals being the caveat)...

And two.. when you have an insurance that does not cover what you need.. in America you have the option to switch insurances.. not so much in single payer systems.

It depends as far as being able to switch insurance companies. Many people get it through their employer and it depends on what is being offered.

 

[jaeger19]

It depends as far as being able to switch insurance companies. Many people get it through their employer and it depends on what is being offered.

Sure.. and if enough of their employees complain about their insurance.. the company switches insurance plans...

Not so with government single payer.

In fact.. one of the major employers where I live just switched companies because their previous insurance company was not covering things as they felt it should.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, it varies for something like healthcare (they are all covered though), but that does not address all the services they benefit from which we do not get like family benefits and/or more comprehensive supports ie. income support policies, labor market policies etc....

Our healthcare drives up costs since not everyone is covered and people are using the ER for things that a doctor can do.

Well.. they don;t all benefit from those services.. some benefit..others don;t.

Certainly if you have 5 children.. you benefit more than the couple that goes childless. Yet they pay taxes for it.

That's one of the trade offs in the European system.. Its one of the reasons that its harder or has been harder for Europeans to get ahead..

Its why the best and brightest emigrate to the USA.. because there generally more opportunity to get ahead.

 

[mmi]

the nonsense from the folks on this thread that think that keeping the very money I EARNED is because the government "allows me"

When has that been even suggested? But since you bring it up that way, I may agree with it. If yer taxes go up, you'll be required to pay them, right? The gubmint won't "allow" you to simply pass on the idea. But you must know that liberals, all of us, recognize that the money you earn is … money you earn. It's not the gubmint's. But then when it's time to pay taxes, ya gotta pay.

>>low wage employees have multiple subsidies that they can access to have housing or help them pay for housing.

It all works out just perfectly, eh? Single and can't afford to pay the rent on yer $15-17K income? No problem, just fill out an application at some office and start getting subsidies. Such as?

No SNAP, no rental assistance, no "welfare" of any kind. Isn't that correct?

I'll … admit … (I know you guys get all excited to have liberals "admit" stuff) that I have no idea how this stuff works. But I looked around on HUD's site and searched for cheap apartments in my town, and it looks like you can find something affordable … if yer elderly and/or disabled, and maybe if yer "a family," which I suppose means kids. But if yer single and less than 65 or whatever and not disabled and no kids … everything seems to be at least $700/mo.

Now I am one cheap SOB who basically never buys anything I don't need. But would most people be able to live on the the six or seven hundred dollars a month that would be left over in this scenario after the rent is paid? Utilities, transportation, food, yeah I guess you could squeeze by, but …

Anyway, I'll say that things don't look as bad as I thought they might be. But I'd say it's important to note that ALL the affordable housing I saw in my quick search was constructed with gubmint money. I figure we need the programs funding that, and maybe a little more. And it may be a lot more difficult in a city.

It all benefits private companies/entities with the costs being shouldered to its citizens.

How could anything else get through the Republicans in Congress?

the next breath he is promising to hand over our healthcare to the very people that he is complaining about.

The insurance, not the care, although I realize the former has a significant effect on the latter. Fwiw, I don't have any more faith in Big Insurance than I do in CMS.

 

[jaeger19]

When has that been even suggested? But since you bring it up that way, I may agree with it. If yer taxes go up, you'll be required to pay them, right? The gubmint won't "allow" you to simply pass on the idea. But you must know that liberals, all of us, recognize that the money you earn is … money you earn. It's not the gubmint's. But then when it's time to pay taxes, ya gotta pay.
.

Well you are not reading your fellow liberals posts nor your own then. I know the liberals think.. and you are one of them.. that 1. the money I have is not earned.. ...

Oh no.. you don;t think that.. its "loose money" "easy money".. because we are "fat cats".. which is a euphemism for lazy fat and sitting around.

2. Any money I have is the governments money first.. and should only be "allowed to me"..

Which is why you and others state that "the reason the wealthy have that wealth is because of low taxes"...

No. the reason that we have that wealthy is because we EARNED IT.

It all works out just perfectly, eh? Single and can't afford to pay the rent on yer $15-17K income? No problem, just fill out an application at some office and start getting subsidies. Such as?

Depending on your area .. and income.. you could qualify for low income housing. In fact.. my patient.. who lives alone and is making minimum wage (actually less now because she is on workers comp) just qualified for low income housing. A nice one bedroom apartment with utilities covered as well. Actually better than the apartment she had before. However many single people would probably get roommates like I did when I was poor and making minimum wage.

I'll … admit … (I know you guys get all excited to have liberals "admit" stuff) that I have no idea how this stuff works. But I looked around on HUD's site and searched for cheap apartments in my town, and it looks you can find something affordable … if yer elderly and/or disabled, and maybe if yer "a family," which I suppose means kids. But if yer single and less than 65 or whatever and not disabled and no kids … everything seems to be at least $700/mo..

Which is why many single people have roommates. to share expenses. as I did when I was poor.

Anyway, I'll say that things don't look as bad as I thought they might be. But I'd say it's important to note that ALL the affordable housing I saw in my quick search was constructed with gubmint money. I figure we need the programs funding that, and maybe a little more. And it may be a lot more difficult in a city.

see and that's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. now me.. I know that affordable housing.. means a rich guy is making a ton of money off of that.. from construction to that subsidized rent.

In fact.. I hang with rich guys that complain all the time about the government and welfare.. are getting rich on all that government money. Money which by the way .. is being taxed FROM ME..

I would suggest.. that rather than continue to do that.. which furthers the inequality and income gap.. we instead put more effort in bettering the wages of those singles working.. things like better education.. stopping illegal immigration so that when they go to work in that restaurant.. or meat packing plant.. or onion shed, or motel/hotel.. that they are not competing with 20 illegal immigrants that are willing to not only work but work for less.. and won't complain that they don't get paid overtime, or that work conditions are unsafe.

things like changing laws that prevent workers from collectively bargaining...

But of course that would mean more wages.. were those folks could rent from me.. and myriads of other people.. not connected with the government. and they would have more money to spend in places that did not accept welfare benefits..

And so.. we keep pushing more government services to the benefit of the connected wealthy.

How could anything else get through the Democrats in Congress.?

The insurance, not the care, although I realize the former has a significant effect on the latter. Fwiw, I don't have any more faith in Big Insurance than I do in CMS.

the two worst insurances to have in America are the VA and Medicaid... with medicare somewhere just above. Doesn't inspire me to have more confidence in the government insurance.

By the way.. which insurances are federally prohibited from providing Abortion services or even in some cases talking about abortion? It ain;t private insurances.

You want to see a womans right to choose go away... put single payer government health insurance in place. The prohibition on abortion services has survived republicans AND democrats.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well you are not reading your fellow liberals posts nor your own then. I know the liberals think.. and you are one of them.. that 1. the money I have is not earned.. ...

Oh no.. you don;t think that.. its "loose money" "easy money".. because we are "fat cats".. which is a euphemism for lazy fat and sitting around.

2. Any money I have is the governments money first.. and should only be "allowed to me"..

Which is why you and others state that "the reason the wealthy have that wealth is because of low taxes"...

No. the reason that we have that wealthy is because we EARNED IT.



Depending on your area .. and income.. you could qualify for low income housing. In fact.. my patient.. who lives alone and is making minimum wage (actually less now because she is on workers comp) just qualified for low income housing. A nice one bedroom apartment with utilities covered as well. Actually better than the apartment she had before. However many single people would probably get roommates like I did when I was poor and making minimum wage.



Which is why many single people have roommates. to share expenses. as I did when I was poor.



see and that's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. now me.. I know that affordable housing.. means a rich guy is making a ton of money off of that.. from construction to that subsidized rent.

In fact.. I hang with rich guys that complain all the time about the government and welfare.. are getting rich on all that government money. Money which by the way .. is being taxed FROM ME..

I would suggest.. that rather than continue to do that.. which furthers the inequality and income gap.. we instead put more effort in bettering the wages of those singles working.. things like better education.. stopping illegal immigration so that when they go to work in that restaurant.. or meat packing plant.. or onion shed, or motel/hotel.. that they are not competing with 20 illegal immigrants that are willing to not only work but work for less.. and won't complain that they don't get paid overtime, or that work conditions are unsafe.

things like changing laws that prevent workers from collectively bargaining...

But of course that would mean more wages.. were those folks could rent from me.. and myriads of other people.. not connected with the government. and they would have more money to spend in places that did not accept welfare benefits..

And so.. we keep pushing more government services to the benefit of the connected wealthy.

How could anything else get through the Democrats in Congress.?



the two worst insurances to have in America are the VA and Medicaid... with medicare somewhere just above. Doesn't inspire me to have more confidence in the government insurance.

By the way.. which insurances are federally prohibited from providing Abortion services or even in some cases talking about abortion? It ain;t private insurances.

You want to see a womans right to choose go away... put single payer government health insurance in place. The prohibition on abortion services has survived republicans AND democrats.

Good point about the single payer and abortion services. They're going to have to put that in their pipe and smoke it for a while. That all by itself is enough to discourage single payer on both sides.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Sure.. and if enough of their employees complain about their insurance.. the company switches insurance plans...

Not so with government single payer.

In fact.. one of the major employers where I live just switched companies because their previous insurance company was not covering things as they felt it should.

This is definitely not always the case. Many companies look for the cheapest plan possible.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Well.. they don;t all benefit from those services.. some benefit..others don;t.

Certainly if you have 5 children.. you benefit more than the couple that goes childless. Yet they pay taxes for it.

That's one of the trade offs in the European system.. Its one of the reasons that its harder or has been harder for Europeans to get ahead..

Its why the best and brightest emigrate to the USA.. because there generally more opportunity to get ahead.

What exactly do you mean by get ahead? You don't think they can move up?

 

[mmi]

I know the liberals think, and you are one of them, that the money I have is not earned.

Well, I'm sure yer wrong about the others here, but I'll let them speak for themselves. Rest assured that I do not have any reason to even suspect that you haven't earned all the money you have. What could I base such a thought on?

>>Oh no.. you don;t think that.. its "loose money" "easy money".. because we are "fat cats".. which is a euphemism for lazy fat and sitting around.

If it's loose and easy, toss some my way — I'm on a frayed shoestring. I agree that "fat cat" has a negative connotation, but I don't see it as in any way connected to "lazy." I'd say it means wealthy and typically powerful in business or politics. Frumpy is a fat cat's fat cat. "Here Frumpy! C'mon, kitty!"

>>Any money I have is the governments money first.. and should only be "allowed to me"

Paranoid delusion, isn't it? Who said that or anything like it?

>>Which is why you and others state that "the reason the wealthy have that wealth is because of low taxes"

Well, a little progress there. I (and others, I expect) argue that some of the wealth accumulated by upper-income households over the past thirty-five years is the result of their federal taxes being cut, and cut a lot. In 1979, the top 0.01% had their after-tax income reduced by 43%. In 2005, they were able to hold onto all but 32%. The difference is about $45 billion in 2005 alone.

>>the reason that we have that wealthy is because we EARNED IT.

But are you not a lot wealthier than you would have been if the tax code hadn't been changed to yer substantial benefit?

>>many single people would probably get roommates like I did when I was poor and making minimum wage.

Yeah, makes sense. But I'm still concerned about people living in big cities with expensive rents. How much affordable housing is available for single low-wage earners without a disability or dependents?

>>I would suggest … put more effort in bettering the wages of those singles

Yeah' like a moderate, staggered increase in the MW.

>>things like better education

Absolutely.

>>stopping illegal immigration so that … they are not competing with 20 illegal immigrants that are willing to … work but work for less

You see these people as having the leverage to demand higher wages? I worked in restaurants for twenty-five years, and had a whole lot of experience staffing low-wage jobs. We didn't have undocumented immigrants taking those jobs from anybody. You couldn't get hired without a SS number.

>>things like changing laws that prevent workers from collectively bargaining

I'm with you on that. As I recall, the only thing we disagree about in this area is those job-stealin' wetbacks.

>>How could anything else get through the Democrats in Congress?

Yeah, they're all a bunch o' crooks, just like Hellory and Obummer.

>>the two worst insurances to have in America are the VA and Medicaid... with medicare somewhere just above.

I looked after my mom for six years and handled her healthcare. I had no problems with either Medicare or Medicaid, although there was some waste, particularly when she was on her way to the reward she earned and was placed on and off hospice a couple of times. But I will say that I worked hard to get her what she needed, and I did sometimes wonder how someone who, e.g., was an ESLer would possibly have been able to fight through the hell we got put through by my state's Department of Elderly Affairs (ironic, eh?) which conspired with my &^%*@^ sister-in-law to get her dumped into a lousy nursing home. It's a good thing I hate guns, because …

>>The prohibition on abortion services has survived republicans AND democrats.

Well get that taken care of if we can get these Christofascists sufficiently marginalized. Another ten years, I'd say.

 

[ludin]

Private insurance does the same.

Private insurance covers a great deal more drugs than they do in Europe.
They also pretty much cover almost any procedure except for cosmetic.

 

[ludin]

Well, I'm sure yer wrong about the others here, but I'll let them speak for themselves. Rest assured that I do not have any reason to even suspect that you haven't earned all the money you have. What could I base such a thought on?

>>Oh no.. you don;t think that.. its "loose money" "easy money".. because we are "fat cats".. which is a euphemism for lazy fat and sitting around.

If it's loose and easy, toss some my way — I'm on a frayed shoestring. I agree that "fat cat" has a negative connotation, but I don't see it as in any way connected to "lazy." I'd say it means wealthy and typically powerful in business or politics. Frumpy is a fat cat's fat cat. "Here Frumpy! C'mon, kitty!"

>>Any money I have is the governments money first.. and should only be "allowed to me"

Paranoid delusion, isn't it? Who said that or anything like it?

>>Which is why you and others state that "the reason the wealthy have that wealth is because of low taxes"

Well, a little progress there. I (and others, I expect) argue that some of the wealth accumulated by upper-income households over the past thirty-five years is the result of their federal taxes being cut, and cut a lot. In 1979, the top 0.01% had their after-tax income reduced by 43%. In 2005, they were able to hold onto all but 32%. The difference is about $45 billion in 2005 alone.

>>the reason that we have that wealthy is because we EARNED IT.

But are you not a lot wealthier than you would have been if the tax code hadn't been changed to yer substantial benefit?

>>many single people would probably get roommates like I did when I was poor and making minimum wage.

Yeah, makes sense. But I'm still concerned about people living in big cities with expensive rents. How much affordable housing is available for single low-wage earners without a disability or dependents?

>>I would suggest … put more effort in bettering the wages of those singles

Yeah' like a moderate, staggered increase in the MW.

>>things like better education

Absolutely.

>>stopping illegal immigration so that … they are not competing with 20 illegal immigrants that are willing to … work but work for less

You see these people as having the leverage to demand higher wages? I worked in restaurants for twenty-five years, and had a whole lot of experience staffing low-wage jobs. We didn't have undocumented immigrants taking those jobs from anybody. You couldn't get hired without a SS number.

>>things like changing laws that prevent workers from collectively bargaining

I'm with you on that. As I recall, the only thing we disagree about in this area is those job-stealin' wetbacks.

>>How could anything else get through the Democrats in Congress?

Yeah, they're all a bunch o' crooks, just like Hellory and Obummer.

>>the two worst insurances to have in America are the VA and Medicaid... with medicare somewhere just above.

I looked after my mom for six years and handled her healthcare. I had no problems with either Medicare or Medicaid, although there was some waste, particularly when she was on her way to the reward she earned and was placed on and off hospice a couple of times. But I will say that I worked hard to get her what she needed, and I did sometimes wonder how someone who, e.g., was an ESLer would possibly have been able to fight through the hell we got put through by my state's Department of Elderly Affairs (ironic, eh?) which conspired with my &^%*@^ sister-in-law to get her dumped into a lousy nursing home. It's a good thing I hate guns, because …

>>The prohibition on abortion services has survived republicans AND democrats.

Well get that taken care of if we can get these Christofascists sufficiently marginalized. Another ten years, I'd say.

yet the huge fact that you fail to realize is that the 1% you are talking about paid 37% of the income tax to the federal government.
while only making 15% of the pie.

so with those facts in place your entire argument that they aren't paying enough goes up in the smoke that it was made of.
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center

 

[mmi]

the 1% you are talking about paid 37% of the income tax to the federal government while only making 15% of the pie.

Last year, the top one percent collected 22.2% of national income and paid 24.3% of federal taxes.



>>with those facts in place your entire argument that they aren't paying enough goes up in the smoke that it was made of

But those aren't "facts in place." One is false and the other is misleading.

Social Security and Medicare account for more than forty percent of the federal budget, and they're funded through payroll taxes. In fact, you really should take the deficit out of that equation, since it isn't paid for out of current revenues. The divisor should be receipts not outlays, and that pushes the percentage up to 46%. Then there's the $100 billion or so collected in excise taxes, of which the top one percent pay less than ten percent. So the 37% figure you cite accounts for only a little more than half of federal revenues.

And that's why the top one percent paid 24.3% of federal taxes in 2015, 2.1% more than they collected in income. As to whether or not they are "paying enough," that's a matter of opinion. I figure they can afford to pay a few percent more, as they've been raking in income over the last thirty-five years (share of national income up from nine percent to twenty-one percent) while their effective federal tax rate has been cut almost in half from the 43% they paid in 1979, … and at the moment we need the money.

 

[pdog]

There are plenty of jobs available for those who can work and want to. $7.25 per hour is better than making zero. Most of the homeless either can't work or don't want to. The others we'll try to help. No matter what liberal claptrap you want to spew won't change that fact.

If you were making real points I might be interested in continuing. But answering this mindless banter of yours is just not worth my time.

 

[pdog]

...you mean the nonsense from the folks on this thread that think that keeping the very money I EARNED is because the government "allows me"..

...

I'll jump in on that one since it's my words you are skewing. I assert that "earning" is heavily dependent on the market and not solely a component of "hard work", ingenuity, or education. This is how you explain a college dropout ceo making 70M/year while a neurosurgeon makes around 400k/year. With that I assert that a market correction (via progressive taxes) is not dismissible by a "fairness" argument.

Of course, also always offer alternatives like a 100% death tax meaning that a man can do whatever the hell he wants EXCEPT leave a massive inheritance which hopefully at least tries to address the issue of our country being an oligarchy, but of course conservatives, can't seem to swallow that either.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I'll jump in on that one since it's my words you are skewing. I assert that "earning" is heavily dependent on the market and not solely a component of "hard work", ingenuity, or education. This is how you explain a college dropout ceo making 70M/year while a neurosurgeon makes around 400k/year. With that I assert that a market correction (via progressive taxes) is not dismissible by a "fairness" argument.

Of course, also always offer alternatives like a 100% death tax meaning that a man can do whatever the hell he wants EXCEPT leave a massive inheritance which hopefully at least tries to address the issue of our country being an oligarchy, but of course conservatives, can't seem to swallow that either.

Are you advocating for a 100% death tax? Also, did you have someone in mind when you referenced a 70M/year CEO who has dropped out of College?