• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rich people prepare to pay more taxes

Do we feel sorry for rich people?

  • Yes, i feel sorry for rich people

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Hell no, let the rich pay their fair share

    Votes: 37 92.5%
  • Total voters
    40
There you go again. First you lie and say health premiums are $1,500 a month now you are lying again. That $11,000 figure is only for people over 65. That is because that age bracket is the ones most likely to have costly health issues and require end of life care. By the way, most in that bracket are covered by Medicare and do not factor in insurance premium costs except for their supplemental insurance if the take it.

The only honest thing you have printed is that employers factor in benefit costs when hiring employees. That additional expense is also saved when employees are laid off. In addition, a company who hires no union employees with no benefit packages can afford to pay those employees a higher salary than the union employees and still save money.

Healthcare Costs & Spend: Rising by Age, Gender, and Race || RegisteredNursing.org
 
Are you actually stupid enough to think 373 billion dollars worth of gold covers 23 trillion dollars in Federal Debt?
 
BahamaBob said:
There you go again. First you lie and say health premiums are $1,500 a month now you are lying again.
Click to expand...
I wasn't the one who claimed health premiums are $1,500 a month. In fact, I started out by saying that, "I agree the average person didn't spend $1,500 per month."

I am sorry if this is rude, but it should not be that hard for an adult participating in a discussion forum to have enough basic math skills to do some simple division. The U.S. spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare in 2019. There were 328.09 million people in America in 2019 (that is the average number by the way). 3,800,000,000,000/328,090,000 = 11,582. Practice some at home you can get it.

First, see the math above. Next, I wrote that to counter what you wrote so... Cool.
BahamaBob said:
Healthcare Costs & Spend: Rising by Age, Gender, and Race || RegisteredNursing.org
Click to expand...
If you had read your source above you would see that is out of pocket. Once again, money is fungible. It was paid by someone, do you really believe the only money that counts towards your contribution to healthcare costs are the money you spend out of pocket? It seems unlikely that you do because you just noted that my honesty above factored in employee costs as compensation costs. Are you now going to claim that paying Medicare taxes don't change your take-home pay?
 
Last edited:
Are you trying to look bad?
I wasn't the one who claimed health premiums are $1,500 a month. In fact, I started out by saying that, "I agree the average person didn't spend $1,500 per month."

Here is your quote from post 436.
"When you include the fact that the average American pays over $1500 a month for health care"
That is an unsubstantiated lie.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if this is rude, but it should not be that hard for an adult participating in a discussion forum to have enough basic math skills to do some simple division. The U.S. spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare in 2019. There were 328.09 million people in America in 2019 (that is the average number by the way). 3,800,000,000,000/328,090,000 = 11,582. Practice some at home you can get it.


If you had read your source above you would see that is out of pocket. Once again, money is fungible. It was paid by someone, do you really believe the only money
that counts towards your contribution to healthcare costs are the money you spend out of pocket? It seems unlikely that you do because you just noted that my honesty above factored in employee costs as compensation costs. Are you now going to claim that paying Medicare taxes don't change your take-home pay?

Again you lie it is not out of pocket. Here is a quote from the article I posted.
" By the time you reach 65 years old, average healthcare costs are $11.3K per person, per year in the United States. "
Here is another quote from the article.
" Healthcare costs are lowest from age 5 to 17 at just at $2,000 per year on average."
Because you are math challenged, 2,000 is much less than 11,000.

By the way money is not fungible. If it was your employer could pay you in chickens. In fact, try that out the next time you buy something. Tell them you are going to pay them in something of equal value.



Like Quote Reply
Report
 
You actually take the cake. Did you notice THAT IS NOT ME? Seriously, do you need some sleep or is this just normal you?


From your source, "But the big unknown is healthcare expenses. It turns out as you age, your annual healthcare costs go up a lot and despite having insurance you may be on the hook for copays, deductibles, and all sorts of things that aren't actually covered."

NHE Fact Sheet | CMS

Quick summary of NHE Facts
www.cms.gov

FastStats

FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.
www.cdc.gov

Health resources - Health spending - OECD Data

Find, compare and share OECD data by indicator.
data.oecd.org

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data
data.worldbank.org

Would you like more sources that prove you are wrong?

As for R&D how do you think R&D would happen if it wasn't paid for? Do you believe that everyone in R&D is suddenly going to stop wanting to get compensated?
As for Dental, it was 4.2% of the expenditure. If you would like me to correct my number to $11,096 per person I am OK with that.


BahamaBob said:
By the way money is not fungible. If it was your employer could pay you in chickens. In fact, try that out the next time you buy something. Tell them you are going to pay them in something of equal value.
Click to expand...
That is not what fungible means. Fungible means that every item is perfectly substitutable for another of that same item. In other words, if you loan a friend ten dollars, you will take any ten dollars as repayment. He doesn't have to go beg the gas station to give him the same exact bill with that exact serial number back. Any dollar has the same value as any other dollar. As we expand the fungibility of money we begin to understand that there is no difference between spending less money and having more money. If you are given the choice between your parents giving you $100 to pay for your car insurance or your parents paying your $100 car insurance, you don't care. You are in the exact same financial position whether you saved $100 by not having to pay your car insurance or by getting $100 extra to pay your car insurance.

This matters when we start talking about healthcare expenditures. Just because your employer pays some of the costs directly it doesn't mean you are not effected. Those costs get priced into labor and employment, as well as taxes, etc. and end up removing dollars from the compensation pool and/or take-home pay.
 
Last edited:
swing_voter said:
Do we feel sorry for rich people? Since Joe and a democratic house and senate are sure to raise taxes that rich people pay.

trump cut taxes for the rich. A rich man making a million dollars a year saw $69,900 dollars in tax savings every year.
Click to expand...
**** rich people... a millionaire that pays 60% taxes would still make $400,000 a year... far more than some working stiff that makes $100,000 but pays 10% taxes ending with $90,000 and that does not cover the vast poor that make $20,000 a year.

Rich people can **** off with their whining.... they don't deserve their shit... it was built on the backs of the working class from the beginning.
 
I don't thing I will take financial advise from someone who thinks 373 billion dollars in gold will cover 23 trillion dollars in debt. Throwing out a bunch of irrelevant gibberish does not make you intelligent. It makes you childish.
 
People who earn $20,000 a year employ how many others?

Allot of these people who you seem to be pissed off at are owner / operators of small businesses employing others, where a lot of their money is tied up supporting their businesses, and are already under serious stress from COVID-19, related absenteeism / quarantines, additional precautionary measures expenses, etc.
In the US that's around 50% of the jobs.
These are the same people you wish to impose these punitive taxation on?
How many more unemployed in the middle to lower bands of the economic spectrum do you want?

The PPP program may have had it's faults, stumbles, but in concept it was a pretty good idea.

One needs to make sure not to kill off the jobs Golden Goose. That's never a good idea.

Now. If you want to put these punitive taxations on so called 'Trust Fund Babies' like Ossoff, then I could be talked into it.
 
BahamaBob said:
I don't thing I will take financial advise from someone who thinks 373 billion dollars in gold will cover 23 trillion dollars in debt. Throwing out a bunch of irrelevant gibberish does not make you intelligent. It makes you childish.
Click to expand...
/sigh...

Calamity said, "When you include the fact that the average American pays over $1500 a month for health care (insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays} that often is not even very good while earning roughly $50k, your math falls apart." I am not Calamity despite you saying that I am and actually going back and actually checking and still not figuring it out.

RealityNow said some stuff about gold in post 446. I am not RealityNow.

See if you can spot the subtle differences here: (1) SimpleTom (2) RealityNow (3) Calamity. Can you tell the difference between 1, 2 and 3 there? Take all the time you need.

-----

I don't know how to respond to your childish thing because I am not sure if you are even talking to me and you damned sure don't know who you are talking to.
 
Last edited:
The SS debt is the result of a system where you pay as you go. I paid in extra my whole life so there would be plenty of money when I retired. Unfortunately the money was not invest like every retirement plan that actually works. While retirement plans invest money we are told that if we had invested the surplus we had paid in we would have nothing now. Well when you take the money and put it in an account with a multi trillion dollar negative balance you end up with nothing but an IOU. So now the people working today not only have to pay our SS but all the money that was stolen from us for the past 45+ years. The problem is you just can't fix stupid.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Just stop working, get on welfare, and let all the illegals coming here pay for it.
Click to expand...
The rich don't pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The rich don't pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer.
Click to expand...
How would you like me to counter this?

I have explained price elasticity of demand several times now. Would you like a youtube video? An economics textbook? Can I just refer you back to an earlier comment where I explained it? Just let me know.
 
Quote> post: 1073324577
Click to expand...

The article did not that Corporate Taxes was a lesser contributor than the many other form of Federal Revenue. I got that! The point in posting that is, that all factors matter. Greater or Lesser... because our system is based on "All Factors being involved". UBI can do many positive things, it changes the dynamics out the Federal Outlay, but provides people means to improve their lives, and improved life is an efficient resource saver on every level.
We could have UBI, except the matter is related to the history of America, which for 300+ yrs embraced slavery and declared black people as non person, and for 100+ yrs chose to seek and engage any and every means to disenfranchise black people, but equally so, it was built upon strategies to keep poor whites poor and working poor whites earning at less than a living wage standard; Confederacy Ideology was/is a Con Job on White People

This ensured a circular vile that promoted a malicious competitiveness, and chaos is always profitable for the wealthy to increase the monetary gap between themselves and the mass of The Poor.

Corporate Ideology in America has never given up on the slave and indenture model and its principles. We need a Paradigm Shift. Employees should not only be provide shares in any Publicly Traded Company as part of their pay compensation, but should have voice on the Board of Directors. this has to be structured property, where that voice has decision vote in corporate financial functions.

I was part of a company and we owned 51%, but did not have the voices on the Board, the company constructive went on a spending spree, and caused great debt that led to bankruptcy, they then allowed (illegally) for the Union to be changed, which eroded the ownership shares (no ownership position are to be changed in the middle of bankruptcy) however, they did, and proceeded to eventually delist the stock, when they came out of reorganization bankruptcy, the leadership awarded themselves 15% of the company! The employees go what equal 1% of what they had invested in their share ownership because State Street Bank, sold the share when they were practically worthless before they were delisted.
That should be a case study in how to restructure employees share ownership with protections against such things every happening again.

Now, back to Corporate Taxes... They should be Taxed and Taxed Heavily. It should also have a factoring related to how much foreign parts they use within their product production as well.
 

As usual....you are making it up as you go along.
 

CBO is the last source I would trust. I stand behind my claim. If you understood the math behind economics and tax policy, you would get it.
 
DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
CBO is the last source I would trust. I stand behind my claim. If you understood the math behind economics and tax policy, you would get it.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course you don't trust CBO because they are experts, who understand the "math behind economics and tax policy" better than you or I, because they have access to data and the tools to evaluate those data you can only guess at. Why not rely on ignorant people or liars, who come to conclusions you prefer?
 
Wayne Jr said:
The rich don't pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer.
Click to expand...
What you're talking about is tax incidence, and there's no evidence at all that "the rich" or corporations can simply pass through the cost of income taxes with higher prices. I'm sure they pass through some, and some are born by investors/owners, and some by employees. It depends on the company and industry. If it's a commodity business, their ability to pass through income taxes is close to zero. Too many sellers, globally, products often traded on commodity exchanges, to allow some producers in one country to unilaterally raise prices to compensate for income taxes. Even in the U.S. if there are 10 sellers, odds are high there will be 10 different effective tax rates, so 10 different amounts of taxes TO pass through. Well, if one of them faces rates of 0% (because of losses in another subsidiary), then it can keep prices low, gain market share, and it's win/win for them.

If a luxury good, unique, few or only one seller, more ability. But even those companies if they can just raise prices because they'd like to make more money - why not do it with or without tax increases?

Etc. Bottom line is the idea that the rich can simply raise prices to offset income taxes is false as a general proposition. It's why they spend so much money and effort buying lower tax rates, or fighting higher tax rates.
 

You are attempting to baffle me with bullshit, likely cut and pasted to a point. My point is that increased wealth comes from investing a portion of your wealth or in the case of corporations, a portion of profits. Raising taxes translates to less available wealth or profits to invest. The money is instead directed towards legal tax shelters, arranged by hired or employed tax accountants. Programs like Turbotax to a point do the same for you and I, if you file long form.
 

Thanks to the extremely low tax rates on the rich he world is awash with capital searching for returns. Also with interest rates so low it is easy for companies to borrow money they need. Raising top rates in high incomes will not limit investments.
Tax shelters do not shield income from taxes permanently. You still pay when you take the money out to use,

While tax shelters provide a way to legally avoid taxes, they can also be used to evade taxes. Tax minimization (also referred to as tax avoidance) is a perfectly legal way to minimize taxable income and lower taxes payable. Do not confuse this with tax evasion, the illegal avoidance of taxes through misrepresentation or similar means.7
If an investment is made for the sole purpose of avoiding or evading taxes, you could be forced to pay additional taxes and penalties. For example, if an independent contractor or subcontractor purposely transfers all or a portion of her earned income to another individual who is subject to lower tax rates, the contractor will be evading taxes.8 Also, companies who take advantage of favorable tax rates in certain countries by creating offshore companies for the purpose of evading taxes, will be heavily penalized by the IRS which treats such manipulative strategies as fraudulent activity subject to steep fees, criminal prosecution, and prison sentence.9 (For related reading, see "Why Delaware Is Considered a Tax Shelter")


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxshelter.asp
 
First you say they pay $11,000 a year which is BS. Now you say they pay $1.500 a month which is $18,000 a year. You can't even keep your lies straight. In your next post you will probably up it to 25K.

When you include something from someone else as part of your argument, you own it. When your lie is exposed don't try to snake out of it.
 
SimpleTom said:
How would you like me to counter this?

I have explained price elasticity of demand several times now. Would you like a youtube video? An economics textbook? Can I just refer you back to an earlier comment where I explained it? Just let me know.
Click to expand...
Tell us how much in taxes Warren Buffett pays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…