Birthers

jcp026 · 07-20-2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

... I'm gonna' need clarification on who you were referring to as a 'douche' & 'stupid ass' first before I put any effort into that one, .

The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions.

ScottF · 07-20-2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by jcp026

The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions.

Closing tax loopholes is the key. The tax rates could stay where they are as long as the ultra wealthy are not allowed to shelter funds. The whole Buffett pays at a lower tax rate than his secretary was overblown, but there still was some truth there.

As for raising the minimum wage, that affects less than 20% of the country, and unless you are talking about a 50% increase, those people will still be living in poverty:
40 hours X $7.25 X 52 weeks = $16 K a year. amazingly low number

jcp026 · 07-20-2012, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by ScottF

Closing tax loopholes is the key. The tax rates could stay where they are as long as the ultra wealthy are not allowed to shelter funds. The whole Buffett pays at a lower tax rate than his secretary was overblown, but there still was some truth there.

As for raising the minimum wage, that affects less than 20% of the country, and unless you are talking about a 50% increase, those people will still be living in poverty:
40 hours X $7.25 X 52 weeks = $16 K a year. amazingly low number

Can't disagree with any of that, but the increase in the minimum wage I talked about wasn't necessarily to bring people out of poverty but to increase demand and bring the wage more in line with what it was at its inception.

SloMotion · 07-22-2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by jcp026

The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions.

Oh, since you put it that way,

, here's my two cents ... disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and don't get along with the Ron Paul people either, I dislike them all equally and just try to cover my ass regardless of who's running the country,

.

Q: How do we get wages up? A: Do we need to, or do we need to bring outsourced jobs back to the US? That's where I'm at ... having the unions structured like they are in Europe as a single, collective union vs each individual trade acting seperately would help also. I don't agree with the raising of the minimum wage unless it's going to be raised to a 'living wage' and view it mostly as a safeguard for unskilled workers who would otherwise be taken advantage of by employers.
- I see wages up in the skilled labor sectors, down in the unskilled ... Michigan has been proactively retraining/preparing it's workforce to compete for these higher skilled/higher paying jobs with some success ... those are the keys, IMO, train the workforce, bring the jobs back. Employer based healthcare will be covered under the next question & I didn't quite understand the 'Pigouvian Tax' and am generally opposed to taxes.

Q: What about my health insurance? A: I would hope nobody begrudges a fellow human being that needs it, healthcare ... which is what we already do in the US ... you enter a medical facility through the emergeny room (excluding private) and you will receive medical care regardless of your ability to pay ... you may get your ass billed off later on and go bankrupt, but you'll get medical attention you need ... problem here is too many people are clogging up the emergency rooms with non-emergency type care. I don't understand why we need another program like Obamacare and don't just issue everyone a Medicare card so they can access Urgent Care or a regular doctor ... those receiving government assistance can be billed for their healthcare just like is done with Social Security recipients to help defray costs, and maybe the politicians could stop raiding programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security so they can remain solvent, eh? The business tax could be reconfigured so employers contribute to the program, but only at a fraction of the cost they paid out to maintain their own healthcare programs. I don't agree with allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines for the very reason you stated, it would lead to 'crappier' private insurance ... I've opted out many an employer's health plan because it was 'crappy' and didn't feel it offered any real value for my money ... that kind of stuff is just smoke & mirrors healthcare, and really isn't healthcare at all.

Q: What about the job creators? A: I'm tired hearing about 'the job creators' ... you mean the corporations we bail out with billions of tax dollars so they can discharge their creditors, remove legacy costs they promised to their retirees, close plants, layoff thousands of workers and pretend to pay back a portion of their debt to the American taxpayer with over-inflated stock where the price immediately plunges to less then 50% of the IPO? Last I heard, the 'trickle-down' affect there was a $38 billion dollar loss to the American taxpayer ... nah, I rarely see 'trickle-down' working, at any level ... instead of giving tax breaks to corporations, I'd rather see a penalty for them incorporating offshore (a popular method of avoiding US taxes) and/or outsourcing jobs offshore ... it's only right if you want access to US markets/consumers and do business here. I don't focus on small business because I think the whole notion that they're the largest source of jobs in the US is a farce ... they're the ones paying minimum wage, not offering health insurance or any kind of benefits and generally abusing their employees in my neck of the woods.

Q: What about taxes in general? A: In general, I'll vote against any tax because I don't trust any politician on any level to apply tax dollars as they are intended, case in point: Social Security/any local millage applied to a 'general fund'. I don't care anymore if the 'Bush (now the Obama) tax-cuts' expire and support going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, which were much lower then previous tax levels anyway, but still provided enough revenue to run the country. I wouldn't mind a flat-tax or a consumer-tax in that you could control how much you pay ... don't consume, don't pay tax ... why should I be subsidizing some eco-snob to purchase an overpriced, under-engineered Chevy Volt? Get rid of all tax-breaks, you say? If you do your own taxes, you should have noticed this is being done already.
- I'll touch on the small-business tax code briefly ... in Michigan, it's a mess and they have/are revamping it to make it more small-business friendly ... I don't mind, my whole neighborhood is Mom & Pops and I don't begrudge anyone going into business for themselves ... but I also know these places are not sources of long term employment, pay minimum wage, offer no healthcare/benefits, cut corners where they can and consider their employees as an 'expense' rather then an 'asset' ... any breaks they get 'trickle down' into their personal budgets rather then into 'creating jobs', which is why I have a problem considering small business as 'job creators'.

Q: With our current political system, how does this get done? A: It won't, partisan-politics and special-interests will be the death of the country ... SloMotion - "out".

jcp026 · 07-22-2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

Oh, since you put it that way, , here's my two cents ... disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and don't get along with the Ron Paul people either, I dislike them all equally and just try to cover my ass regardless of who's running the country, .

Q: How do we get wages up? A: Do we need to, or do we need to bring outsourced jobs back to the US? That's where I'm at ... having the unions structured like they are in Europe as a single, collective union vs each individual trade acting seperately would help also. I don't agree with the raising of the minimum wage unless it's going to be raised to a 'living wage' and view it mostly as a safeguard for unskilled workers who would otherwise be taken advantage of by employers.
- I see wages up in the skilled labor sectors, down in the unskilled ... Michigan has been proactively retraining/preparing it's workforce to compete for these higher skilled/higher paying jobs with some success ... those are the keys, IMO, train the workforce, bring the jobs back. Employer based healthcare will be covered under the next question & I didn't quite understand the 'Pigouvian Tax' and am generally opposed to taxes.

Q: What about my health insurance? A: I would hope nobody begrudges a fellow human being that needs it, healthcare ... which is what we already do in the US ... you enter a medical facility through the emergeny room (excluding private) and you will receive medical care regardless of your ability to pay ... you may get your ass billed off later on and go bankrupt, but you'll get medical attention you need ... problem here is too many people are clogging up the emergency rooms with non-emergency type care. I don't understand why we need another program like Obamacare and don't just issue everyone a Medicare card so they can access Urgent Care or a regular doctor ... those receiving government assistance can be billed for their healthcare just like is done with Social Security recipients to help defray costs, and maybe the politicians could stop raiding programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security so they can remain solvent, eh? The business tax could be reconfigured so employers contribute to the program, but only at a fraction of the cost they paid out to maintain their own healthcare programs. I don't agree with allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines for the very reason you stated, it would lead to 'crappier' private insurance ... I've opted out many an employer's health plan because it was 'crappy' and didn't feel it offered any real value for my money ... that kind of stuff is just smoke & mirrors healthcare, and really isn't healthcare at all.

Q: What about the job creators? A: I'm tired hearing about 'the job creators' ... you mean the corporations we bail out with billions of tax dollars so they can discharge their creditors, remove legacy costs they promised to their retirees, close plants, layoff thousands of workers and pretend to pay back a portion of their debt to the American taxpayer with over-inflated stock where the price immediately plunges to less then 50% of the IPO? Last I heard, the 'trickle-down' affect there was a $38 billion dollar loss to the American taxpayer ... nah, I rarely see 'trickle-down' working, at any level ... instead of giving tax breaks to corporations, I'd rather see a penalty for them incorporating offshore (a popular method of avoiding US taxes) and/or outsourcing jobs offshore ... it's only right if you want access to US markets/consumers and do business here. I don't focus on small business because I think the whole notion that they're the largest source of jobs in the US is a farce ... they're the ones paying minimum wage, not offering health insurance or any kind of benefits and generally abusing their employees in my neck of the woods.

Q: What about taxes in general? A: In general, I'll vote against any tax because I don't trust any politician on any level to apply tax dollars as they are intended, case in point: Social Security/any local millage applied to a 'general fund'. I don't care anymore if the 'Bush (now the Obama) tax-cuts' expire and support going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, which were much lower then previous tax levels anyway, but still provided enough revenue to run the country. I wouldn't mind a flat-tax or a consumer-tax in that you could control how much you pay ... don't consume, don't pay tax ... why should I be subsidizing some eco-snob to purchase an overpriced, under-engineered Chevy Volt? Get rid of all tax-breaks, you say? If you do your own taxes, you should have noticed this is being done already.
- I'll touch on the small-business tax code briefly ... in Michigan, it's a mess and they have/are revamping it to make it more small-business friendly ... I don't mind, my whole neighborhood is Mom & Pops and I don't begrudge anyone going into business for themselves ... but I also know these places are not sources of long term employment, pay minimum wage, offer no healthcare/benefits, cut corners where they can and consider their employees as an 'expense' rather then an 'asset' ... any breaks they get 'trickle down' into their personal budgets rather then into 'creating jobs', which is why I have a problem considering small business as 'job creators'.

Q: With our current political system, how does this get done? A: It won't, partisan-politics and special-interests will be the death of the country ... SloMotion - "out".

Nice post. Exactly what I was hoping for. Thoughtful and original, not talking points and dogma.

I'll try to explain Pigouvian taxes better. With quotes, instead of my garbled non-sense.

"The goal of this type of tax (named Pigouvian after Arthur Pigos, the British economist who invented it) is to correct distorted incentives, not to raise revenue. If it does generate revenue, however, we have a double benefit: we improve efficiency and we save the need to impose distortionary taxes to pay for government expenses. The tax on tobacco is an example of a Pigouvian tax, if we consider the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to be a cost imposed on the rest of society." (pg222) A Capitalism for the People by Luigi Zingales

I'll go on quoting to try to explain the tax on the financial system: "A better solution is a tax on short-term debt, especially that held by financial institutions. By taxing the use of short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), we can discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion annually just among the top nine institutions. This is equal to the total amount of taxes raised from the 65 million households making less than $30,000 a year. So this tax could exempt 65 million households from paying taxes, while stabilizing the financial system and preventing a new crisis." (pg223)

He says it "could exempt" but doesn't necessarily advocate for it. I take it a step farther and say that, for five years, those 65 million households could be exempted and this would put $107.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and increase demand dramatically. Then, those taxes on the 65 million households could be phased back in over the next five years to avoid a dramatic increase in taxes from one year to the next on people who functionally poor or working poor.

I hope that helps. Zingales doesn't mention it, but I think a Cap and Trade tax on carbon would be a great example of a Pigouvian tax, because it would curb carbon emissions and raise revenue. And before any Cap and Trade haters get up in arms, we've done it before under President George H.W. Bush to deal with sulphur dioxide and acid rain. It was really effective.

I have a question for you, SloMotion. How do we deal with health care costs that have been rising faster than inflation for years now? I like the idea of Medicare for all, but, until we can curb those costs, wouldn't it explode the debt? The purpose of my version of a "Public Option" is, for the most part, to hedge against this growth. No one is compelled to join, so we don't have questions about infringement on liberty, and because it's designed to be revenue neutral, if the cost of health care goes up, then the rates participants pay go up. No added cost on taxpayers not participating. If the public option ends up accidentally turning a profit, then those profits can be rebated to participants or go to pay down the debt.

SloMotion · 07-22-2012, 08:37 AM

Thanks, I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, it's just what I see and my own experience.

Alright, I understand the Pigouvian Tax theory when you explain it as a sin-tax ... not that I have any vices,

... and that does kind of correlate with my opinion of flat/consumer type taxing ... if you want to play, you got to pay and in the same way I'd agree with that 1% taxing of financial institutions on short term debt (which they would pass on to the consumer, of course), with hesitation but in the knowledge that I could avoid that tax simply by limiting any short-term borrowing, ie credit.

- I'm on the fence with Cap & Trade, mostly because I see how easy it is to get around by simply 'trading credits' ... you get a guy like Al Gore who promotes it, then jets around the country abusing it by offsetting his actions with 'carbon credits' or something like that ... IDK.

The real problem, I've been told, with rising health costs, is people visiting emergency rooms with non-emergency illnesses ... my assumption is if you give these people access to urgent care or a regular doctor, they quit abusing the emergency room & you get control of this aspect of runaway health costs. I'm not for forcing people into taking anything, just providing it as an option for those who can't afford health insurance. IDK how you'd avoid not taxing everyone for this, but as we pay Medicare/Medicaid taxes already, I don't see the big deal. If anything & hypothetically, people would leave private insurance rolls, creating a huge competition for the remaining private insurance customers and drive the cost of private insurance down. As for costs like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, private insurance, et ... I'm all for supply,demand & competition controlling those costs.

Of course, it all seems so simple to me, but I'm sure there's some good reason our politicians have such a problem with this ... something like some special interest isn't going to make a few million and be able to contribute to a PAC fund or whatever ...

07-20-2012, 06:06 PM	#1
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953	Originally Posted by SloMotion ... I'm gonna' need clarification on who you were referring to as a 'douche' & 'stupid ass' first before I put any effort into that one, . The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions.
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953

07-20-2012, 06:17 PM	#2
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Originally Posted by jcp026 The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions. Closing tax loopholes is the key. The tax rates could stay where they are as long as the ultra wealthy are not allowed to shelter funds. The whole Buffett pays at a lower tax rate than his secretary was overblown, but there still was some truth there. As for raising the minimum wage, that affects less than 20% of the country, and unless you are talking about a 50% increase, those people will still be living in poverty: 40 hours X $7.25 X 52 weeks = $16 K a year. amazingly low number jcp026 likes this.

07-20-2012, 07:38 PM	#3
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953	Originally Posted by ScottF Closing tax loopholes is the key. The tax rates could stay where they are as long as the ultra wealthy are not allowed to shelter funds. The whole Buffett pays at a lower tax rate than his secretary was overblown, but there still was some truth there. As for raising the minimum wage, that affects less than 20% of the country, and unless you are talking about a 50% increase, those people will still be living in poverty: 40 hours X $7.25 X 52 weeks = $16 K a year. amazingly low number Can't disagree with any of that, but the increase in the minimum wage I talked about wasn't necessarily to bring people out of poverty but to increase demand and bring the wage more in line with what it was at its inception.
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953

07-22-2012, 07:12 AM	#4
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Originally Posted by jcp026 The reader is referring to me as those things when asking the questions. Oh, since you put it that way, , here's my two cents ... disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and don't get along with the Ron Paul people either, I dislike them all equally and just try to cover my ass regardless of who's running the country, . Q: How do we get wages up? A: Do we need to, or do we need to bring outsourced jobs back to the US? That's where I'm at ... having the unions structured like they are in Europe as a single, collective union vs each individual trade acting seperately would help also. I don't agree with the raising of the minimum wage unless it's going to be raised to a 'living wage' and view it mostly as a safeguard for unskilled workers who would otherwise be taken advantage of by employers. - I see wages up in the skilled labor sectors, down in the unskilled ... Michigan has been proactively retraining/preparing it's workforce to compete for these higher skilled/higher paying jobs with some success ... those are the keys, IMO, train the workforce, bring the jobs back. Employer based healthcare will be covered under the next question & I didn't quite understand the 'Pigouvian Tax' and am generally opposed to taxes. Q: What about my health insurance? A: I would hope nobody begrudges a fellow human being that needs it, healthcare ... which is what we already do in the US ... you enter a medical facility through the emergeny room (excluding private) and you will receive medical care regardless of your ability to pay ... you may get your ass billed off later on and go bankrupt, but you'll get medical attention you need ... problem here is too many people are clogging up the emergency rooms with non-emergency type care. I don't understand why we need another program like Obamacare and don't just issue everyone a Medicare card so they can access Urgent Care or a regular doctor ... those receiving government assistance can be billed for their healthcare just like is done with Social Security recipients to help defray costs, and maybe the politicians could stop raiding programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security so they can remain solvent, eh? The business tax could be reconfigured so employers contribute to the program, but only at a fraction of the cost they paid out to maintain their own healthcare programs. I don't agree with allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines for the very reason you stated, it would lead to 'crappier' private insurance ... I've opted out many an employer's health plan because it was 'crappy' and didn't feel it offered any real value for my money ... that kind of stuff is just smoke & mirrors healthcare, and really isn't healthcare at all. Q: What about the job creators? A: I'm tired hearing about 'the job creators' ... you mean the corporations we bail out with billions of tax dollars so they can discharge their creditors, remove legacy costs they promised to their retirees, close plants, layoff thousands of workers and pretend to pay back a portion of their debt to the American taxpayer with over-inflated stock where the price immediately plunges to less then 50% of the IPO? Last I heard, the 'trickle-down' affect there was a $38 billion dollar loss to the American taxpayer ... nah, I rarely see 'trickle-down' working, at any level ... instead of giving tax breaks to corporations, I'd rather see a penalty for them incorporating offshore (a popular method of avoiding US taxes) and/or outsourcing jobs offshore ... it's only right if you want access to US markets/consumers and do business here. I don't focus on small business because I think the whole notion that they're the largest source of jobs in the US is a farce ... they're the ones paying minimum wage, not offering health insurance or any kind of benefits and generally abusing their employees in my neck of the woods. Q: What about taxes in general? A: In general, I'll vote against any tax because I don't trust any politician on any level to apply tax dollars as they are intended, case in point: Social Security/any local millage applied to a 'general fund'. I don't care anymore if the 'Bush (now the Obama) tax-cuts' expire and support going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, which were much lower then previous tax levels anyway, but still provided enough revenue to run the country. I wouldn't mind a flat-tax or a consumer-tax in that you could control how much you pay ... don't consume, don't pay tax ... why should I be subsidizing some eco-snob to purchase an overpriced, under-engineered Chevy Volt? Get rid of all tax-breaks, you say? If you do your own taxes, you should have noticed this is being done already. - I'll touch on the small-business tax code briefly ... in Michigan, it's a mess and they have/are revamping it to make it more small-business friendly ... I don't mind, my whole neighborhood is Mom & Pops and I don't begrudge anyone going into business for themselves ... but I also know these places are not sources of long term employment, pay minimum wage, offer no healthcare/benefits, cut corners where they can and consider their employees as an 'expense' rather then an 'asset' ... any breaks they get 'trickle down' into their personal budgets rather then into 'creating jobs', which is why I have a problem considering small business as 'job creators'. Q: With our current political system, how does this get done? A: It won't, partisan-politics and special-interests will be the death of the country ... SloMotion - "out". Cruize and jcp026 like this.

07-22-2012, 08:00 AM	#5
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953	Originally Posted by SloMotion Oh, since you put it that way, , here's my two cents ... disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and don't get along with the Ron Paul people either, I dislike them all equally and just try to cover my ass regardless of who's running the country, . Q: How do we get wages up? A: Do we need to, or do we need to bring outsourced jobs back to the US? That's where I'm at ... having the unions structured like they are in Europe as a single, collective union vs each individual trade acting seperately would help also. I don't agree with the raising of the minimum wage unless it's going to be raised to a 'living wage' and view it mostly as a safeguard for unskilled workers who would otherwise be taken advantage of by employers. - I see wages up in the skilled labor sectors, down in the unskilled ... Michigan has been proactively retraining/preparing it's workforce to compete for these higher skilled/higher paying jobs with some success ... those are the keys, IMO, train the workforce, bring the jobs back. Employer based healthcare will be covered under the next question & I didn't quite understand the 'Pigouvian Tax' and am generally opposed to taxes. Q: What about my health insurance? A: I would hope nobody begrudges a fellow human being that needs it, healthcare ... which is what we already do in the US ... you enter a medical facility through the emergeny room (excluding private) and you will receive medical care regardless of your ability to pay ... you may get your ass billed off later on and go bankrupt, but you'll get medical attention you need ... problem here is too many people are clogging up the emergency rooms with non-emergency type care. I don't understand why we need another program like Obamacare and don't just issue everyone a Medicare card so they can access Urgent Care or a regular doctor ... those receiving government assistance can be billed for their healthcare just like is done with Social Security recipients to help defray costs, and maybe the politicians could stop raiding programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security so they can remain solvent, eh? The business tax could be reconfigured so employers contribute to the program, but only at a fraction of the cost they paid out to maintain their own healthcare programs. I don't agree with allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines for the very reason you stated, it would lead to 'crappier' private insurance ... I've opted out many an employer's health plan because it was 'crappy' and didn't feel it offered any real value for my money ... that kind of stuff is just smoke & mirrors healthcare, and really isn't healthcare at all. Q: What about the job creators? A: I'm tired hearing about 'the job creators' ... you mean the corporations we bail out with billions of tax dollars so they can discharge their creditors, remove legacy costs they promised to their retirees, close plants, layoff thousands of workers and pretend to pay back a portion of their debt to the American taxpayer with over-inflated stock where the price immediately plunges to less then 50% of the IPO? Last I heard, the 'trickle-down' affect there was a $38 billion dollar loss to the American taxpayer ... nah, I rarely see 'trickle-down' working, at any level ... instead of giving tax breaks to corporations, I'd rather see a penalty for them incorporating offshore (a popular method of avoiding US taxes) and/or outsourcing jobs offshore ... it's only right if you want access to US markets/consumers and do business here. I don't focus on small business because I think the whole notion that they're the largest source of jobs in the US is a farce ... they're the ones paying minimum wage, not offering health insurance or any kind of benefits and generally abusing their employees in my neck of the woods. Q: What about taxes in general? A: In general, I'll vote against any tax because I don't trust any politician on any level to apply tax dollars as they are intended, case in point: Social Security/any local millage applied to a 'general fund'. I don't care anymore if the 'Bush (now the Obama) tax-cuts' expire and support going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, which were much lower then previous tax levels anyway, but still provided enough revenue to run the country. I wouldn't mind a flat-tax or a consumer-tax in that you could control how much you pay ... don't consume, don't pay tax ... why should I be subsidizing some eco-snob to purchase an overpriced, under-engineered Chevy Volt? Get rid of all tax-breaks, you say? If you do your own taxes, you should have noticed this is being done already. - I'll touch on the small-business tax code briefly ... in Michigan, it's a mess and they have/are revamping it to make it more small-business friendly ... I don't mind, my whole neighborhood is Mom & Pops and I don't begrudge anyone going into business for themselves ... but I also know these places are not sources of long term employment, pay minimum wage, offer no healthcare/benefits, cut corners where they can and consider their employees as an 'expense' rather then an 'asset' ... any breaks they get 'trickle down' into their personal budgets rather then into 'creating jobs', which is why I have a problem considering small business as 'job creators'. Q: With our current political system, how does this get done? A: It won't, partisan-politics and special-interests will be the death of the country ... SloMotion - "out". Nice post. Exactly what I was hoping for. Thoughtful and original, not talking points and dogma. I'll try to explain Pigouvian taxes better. With quotes, instead of my garbled non-sense. "The goal of this type of tax (named Pigouvian after Arthur Pigos, the British economist who invented it) is to correct distorted incentives, not to raise revenue. If it does generate revenue, however, we have a double benefit: we improve efficiency and we save the need to impose distortionary taxes to pay for government expenses. The tax on tobacco is an example of a Pigouvian tax, if we consider the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to be a cost imposed on the rest of society." (pg222) A Capitalism for the People by Luigi Zingales I'll go on quoting to try to explain the tax on the financial system: "A better solution is a tax on short-term debt, especially that held by financial institutions. By taxing the use of short-term debt (with maturity of less than a year, for example), we can discourage both excessive leverage and short-term leverage, preventing a crisis. Also, a 1 percent tax on outstanding short-term debt would raise $21.5 billion annually just among the top nine institutions. This is equal to the total amount of taxes raised from the 65 million households making less than $30,000 a year. So this tax could exempt 65 million households from paying taxes, while stabilizing the financial system and preventing a new crisis." (pg223) He says it "could exempt" but doesn't necessarily advocate for it. I take it a step farther and say that, for five years, those 65 million households could be exempted and this would put $107.5 billion dollars in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and increase demand dramatically. Then, those taxes on the 65 million households could be phased back in over the next five years to avoid a dramatic increase in taxes from one year to the next on people who functionally poor or working poor. I hope that helps. Zingales doesn't mention it, but I think a Cap and Trade tax on carbon would be a great example of a Pigouvian tax, because it would curb carbon emissions and raise revenue. And before any Cap and Trade haters get up in arms, we've done it before under President George H.W. Bush to deal with sulphur dioxide and acid rain. It was really effective. I have a question for you, SloMotion. How do we deal with health care costs that have been rising faster than inflation for years now? I like the idea of Medicare for all, but, until we can curb those costs, wouldn't it explode the debt? The purpose of my version of a "Public Option" is, for the most part, to hedge against this growth. No one is compelled to join, so we don't have questions about infringement on liberty, and because it's designed to be revenue neutral, if the cost of health care goes up, then the rates participants pay go up. No added cost on taxpayers not participating. If the public option ends up accidentally turning a profit, then those profits can be rebated to participants or go to pay down the debt.
jcp026 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 953

07-22-2012, 08:37 AM	#6
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Thanks, I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, it's just what I see and my own experience. Alright, I understand the Pigouvian Tax theory when you explain it as a sin-tax ... not that I have any vices, ... and that does kind of correlate with my opinion of flat/consumer type taxing ... if you want to play, you got to pay and in the same way I'd agree with that 1% taxing of financial institutions on short term debt (which they would pass on to the consumer, of course), with hesitation but in the knowledge that I could avoid that tax simply by limiting any short-term borrowing, ie credit. - I'm on the fence with Cap & Trade, mostly because I see how easy it is to get around by simply 'trading credits' ... you get a guy like Al Gore who promotes it, then jets around the country abusing it by offsetting his actions with 'carbon credits' or something like that ... IDK. The real problem, I've been told, with rising health costs, is people visiting emergency rooms with non-emergency illnesses ... my assumption is if you give these people access to urgent care or a regular doctor, they quit abusing the emergency room & you get control of this aspect of runaway health costs. I'm not for forcing people into taking anything, just providing it as an option for those who can't afford health insurance. IDK how you'd avoid not taxing everyone for this, but as we pay Medicare/Medicaid taxes already, I don't see the big deal. If anything & hypothetically, people would leave private insurance rolls, creating a huge competition for the remaining private insurance customers and drive the cost of private insurance down. As for costs like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, private insurance, et ... I'm all for supply,demand & competition controlling those costs. Of course, it all seems so simple to me, but I'm sure there's some good reason our politicians have such a problem with this ... something like some special interest isn't going to make a few million and be able to contribute to a PAC fund or whatever ...