Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#181 Post by mockbee » Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:11 pm

And since we are on the subject of taxes. We have an Arts tax here that is $35/person, no graduated increase for people making more $. It's $70 for a family of 4 making $25,750 or more.

Democrats, progressives, who don't think that is a big deal for families making $26,000, when rent averages $1,590/mo, trying to put food on the table for a couple kids, or $35 for a single mom on minimum wage.....I just dont get it.....?


Baffles me.....

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#182 Post by Hype » Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:42 am

In Canada there’s a “minimum personal exemption”, which is the amount of income for everyone that isn’t taxed. I don’t know what it is this year yet, but it’s something close to $12,000. So the first marginal tax rate only applies to income above that. You pay zero tax on your first $12K or so. There are also tax credits/rebates, etc., designed to help lower income families.

I guess in the US there will be wild variance in the State taxes, but is there a minimum exemption thing? Or do they really tax the entire first x-thousand at 10%?

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7118
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#183 Post by SR » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:44 am

mockbee wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:11 pm
And since we are on the subject of taxes. We have an Arts tax here that is $35/person, no graduated increase for people making more $. It's $70 for a family of 4 making $25,750 or more.

Democrats, progressives, who don't think that is a big deal for families making $26,000, when rent averages $1,590/mo, trying to put food on the table for a couple kids, or $35 for a single mom on minimum wage.....I just dont get it.....?


Baffles me.....
Is this a state tax? County tax?

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#184 Post by Hype » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:46 am

:confused: Yeah, keep that shit clear. Has nothing to do with potential federal tax plans.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#185 Post by mockbee » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:51 am

Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:42 am
In Canada there’s a “minimum personal exemption”, which is the amount of income for everyone that isn’t taxed. I don’t know what it is this year yet, but it’s something close to $12,000. So the first marginal tax rate only applies to income above that. You pay zero tax on your first $12K or so. There are also tax credits/rebates, etc., designed to help lower income families.

I guess in the US there will be wild variance in the State taxes, but is there a minimum exemption thing? Or do they really tax the entire first x-thousand at 10%?
Called the Earned Income Tax Credit.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/ ... it-amounts

Maximum Credit Amounts
The maximum amount of credit for Tax Year 2020 is:

$6,660 with three or more qualifying children
$5,920 with two qualifying children
$3,584 with one qualifying child
$538 with no qualifying children.



You've "made it" once your small family earns. $5,920/yr ....... :eyes:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#186 Post by mockbee » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:57 am

Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:46 am
:confused: Yeah, keep that shit clear. Has nothing to do with potential federal tax plans.
you're not serious right....... :noclue:

Yeah, we can talk tax policy all day long. But what I see is that doesn't matter a lick for families struggling to pay TAXES, which is what I'm talking about. It's the frame of thinking that is the problem. There are certainly structural problens as well. But NO progress will be made without addressing the crossed wires here....IMO
And yes it is regional, but same concept applies to ALL taxes, whether its a local or federal tax. Regressive taxes are a big deal and Dems don't see it that way.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#187 Post by mockbee » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:08 am

I thought Andrew Yang's idea of $1,000 a month to everybody, no matter the circumstance, was very intriguing and had a ton of promise. No idea how he would pay for it. But would address pretty much all the issues Dems stump about. Without the gatekeepers that muddy everything up.
:noclue:

Trust the people to do the right thing. The Dems don't trust the people, which is very ironic. :wink:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#188 Post by Hype » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:59 am

mockbee wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:08 am
I thought Andrew Yang's idea of $1,000 a month to everybody, no matter the circumstance, was very intriguing and had a ton of promise. No idea how he would pay for it. But would address pretty much all the issues Dems stump about. Without the gatekeepers that muddy everything up.
:noclue:

Trust the people to do the right thing. The Dems don't trust the people, which is very ironic. :wink:
I wish people would stop saying "How are they going to pay for X?"

Recently there was a suggestion in Canada to just give every Canadian $22,000 (approx. $16,000 USD / yr -- 1,333 a month). The mechanism was pretty obvious: tax rich people more. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bas ... 612e13c4dc

These basic income ideas are sound economic policy. They've been demonstrated to work in pilots, and counter-intuitively, they've shown that it doesn't make working people lazier -- it makes them work harder and better themselves (by going back to school, by being able to take a vacation so they can be refreshed at work, by being able to put their kids in a good daycare, etc).

There is one serious problem with UBI: in its conservative formulation, it takes the place of a majority of social services. This is a serious problem because there are many people who will still need help, either periodically, or persistently, in a way that ought not be left up to the exploitative private sector -- we're talking about adults with intellectual disabilities, people with permanent health issues who require certain types of facilitated care., etc. So if we go down the UBI route, I think left-wing-minded people need to push hard to get everyone to recognize that this isn't going to solve all our problems -- we will still need homeless shelters. We'll still need drug rehab centers, clean needle clinics, job search centers, abused women and children's shelters, and so on.

But medicare for all would solve a ton of people's issues more directly than a UBI (since a lot of common medical issues cost far more than any UBI will provide for -- giving birth, for example).

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#189 Post by Hype » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:03 am

mockbee wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:57 am
Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:46 am
:confused: Yeah, keep that shit clear. Has nothing to do with potential federal tax plans.
you're not serious right....... :noclue:

Yeah, we can talk tax policy all day long. But what I see is that doesn't matter a lick for families struggling to pay TAXES, which is what I'm talking about. It's the frame of thinking that is the problem. There are certainly structural problens as well. But NO progress will be made without addressing the crossed wires here....IMO
And yes it is regional, but same concept applies to ALL taxes, whether its a local or federal tax. Regressive taxes are a big deal and Dems don't see it that way.
This is an odd way to put it. Mainstream left-wing thinking is against regressive taxation. It doesn't make sense to say that "Dems don't see it that way", because, well, a) that isn't true, because many Dems certainly are against regressive taxes, and those who aren't are clearly the centrist/neo-lib Dems that gained power during the Clinton years; and b) this makes it seem like there's an alternative who do see it that way, but this is false; republicans are not against regressive taxes. If anything they're MORE in favour of it, especially the Ron/Rand Paul types who want flat taxes.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#190 Post by mockbee » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:09 am


There is one serious problem with UBI: in its conservative formulation, it takes the place of a majority of social services. This is a serious problem because there are many people who will still need help, either periodically, or persistently, in a way that ought not be left up to the exploitative private sector -- we're talking about adults with intellectual disabilities, people with permanent health issues who require certain types of facilitated care., etc. So if we go down the UBI route, I think left-wing-minded people need to push hard to get everyone to recognize that this isn't going to solve all our problems -- we will still need homeless shelters. We'll still need drug rehab centers, clean needle clinics, job search centers, abused women and children's shelters, and so on.
But, how would you pay for all the Basic services, Medicare for all AND ubi......? :hehe:

Certainly issues to be considered. But stuff like "free college" can be eliminated and what an individual or family decides to spend their $12k on.

I think to a greater point. The plan has major gravitas when selling it. Its for YOU.....not some plan to make the middle class richer at your working class expense. That shit is really important when politicking.... :noclue:
Last edited by mockbee on Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#191 Post by mockbee » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:13 am

Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:03 am
mockbee wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:57 am
Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:46 am
:confused: Yeah, keep that shit clear. Has nothing to do with potential federal tax plans.
you're not serious right....... :noclue:

Yeah, we can talk tax policy all day long. But what I see is that doesn't matter a lick for families struggling to pay TAXES, which is what I'm talking about. It's the frame of thinking that is the problem. There are certainly structural problens as well. But NO progress will be made without addressing the crossed wires here....IMO
And yes it is regional, but same concept applies to ALL taxes, whether its a local or federal tax. Regressive taxes are a big deal and Dems don't see it that way.
This is an odd way to put it. Mainstream left-wing thinking is against regressive taxation. It doesn't make sense to say that "Dems don't see it that way", because, well, a) that isn't true, because many Dems certainly are against regressive taxes, and those who aren't are clearly the centrist/neo-lib Dems that gained power during the Clinton years; and b) this makes it seem like there's an alternative who do see it that way, but this is false; republicans are not against regressive taxes. If anything they're MORE in favour of it, especially the Ron/Rand Paul types who want flat taxes.
We can define things all day long. But when tons of city blanket taxes are added by Progressive politicians. That IS by its very nature a regressive tax. $70 tax for a family making $25k a year is not the same as $70 tax for a family making $125 a year. We have a lot of these taxes here......
:noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#192 Post by Hype » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:22 am

mockbee wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:09 am
But, how would you pay for all the Basic services, Medicare for all AND ubi......? :hehe:

Certainly issues to be considered. But stuff like "free college" can be eliminated and what an individual or family decides to spend their $12k on.

I think to a greater point. The plan has major gravitas when selling it. Its for YOU.....not some plan to make the middle class richer at your working class expense. That shit is really important when politicking.... :noclue:
Well, I also think higher education should be public in the same way primary and secondary education is. The UW and UC systems are a great example of how to have world-class public universities at a system-wide level. But tuition should be paid for through taxes. Many schools already waive tuition for all sorts of reasons. Facilitating/mandating that would just make it easier to remove the issues with "legacy/donation" students.

Again, asking "How are we going to pay for this?" is kind of a confused question in the richest country ever to have existed. What makes it difficult to sell is not just that people don't think it's for them, but that the economic impact is only easy to see in its immediate form -- increased taxes. What is harder to see, even when it's spelled out, is that small-business / corporate costs will drop dramatically when they no longer have to provide the same kinds of private health insurance policies, and no longer have the same issues with mental and physical health, stress, etc., causing lower productivity and higher turnover. It's just very difficult for people to see that an increase in taxation here produces a lower overall net cost in ways that matter. But this is precisely what socialized health insurance does. When you don't have to pay exorbitant bills to have children, or to deal with accidents, or treat chronic conditions... your lifetime net income, overall health, lifespan, stress levels -- everything is baseline better. It's difficult to sell this because people are superstitious and don't reason correctly about their own situations. Probably the most common fallacious way of thinking about health is: I never had a problem, so I won't in the future, and neither will my kids. Everyone will have health problems at some point. Aging is a health problem. Nearly everyone will deal with heart disease or cancer, either for themselves or someone in their immediate family. But we don't want to think about that. Especially in youth and early middle-age.

Basic services are paid for across multiple levels of government through multiple mechanisms. This is another case where most people have difficulty understanding how it even works at all. Your federal taxes don't generally pay for your local school board or your local roads. Your state taxes don't pay for DARPA.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#193 Post by mockbee » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:24 am

Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:03 am

This is an odd way to put it. Mainstream left-wing thinking is against regressive taxation. It doesn't make sense to say that "Dems don't see it that way", because, well, a) that isn't true, because many Dems certainly are against regressive taxes, and those who aren't are clearly the centrist/neo-lib Dems that gained power during the Clinton years;

:hs:
Viral post criticizes Bernie Sanders' ‘math’ on health care, taxes. It's wrong
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
The post claims Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would place a 52% tax on earnings over $29,000. But he has never suggested that.

Sanders has proposed several options to help cover the cost of Medicare for All, including raising taxes to 52% for incomes above $10 million.

Another option is a 4% income-based premium paid by households. That would add to Americans’ tax burden, but not as much as the post said.
Sanders proposes a regressive (flat) tax of 4% on everything over $29k......

I know the answer from Coastal Elite democrats is blah blah... shell game ....not a big deal, poor people need to suck it up and pay it.

Well, its an additional flat tax and that will be a problem.... :noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#194 Post by Hype » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:27 pm

mockbee wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:24 am
Hype wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:03 am

This is an odd way to put it. Mainstream left-wing thinking is against regressive taxation. It doesn't make sense to say that "Dems don't see it that way", because, well, a) that isn't true, because many Dems certainly are against regressive taxes, and those who aren't are clearly the centrist/neo-lib Dems that gained power during the Clinton years;

:hs:
Viral post criticizes Bernie Sanders' ‘math’ on health care, taxes. It's wrong
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
The post claims Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would place a 52% tax on earnings over $29,000. But he has never suggested that.

Sanders has proposed several options to help cover the cost of Medicare for All, including raising taxes to 52% for incomes above $10 million.

Another option is a 4% income-based premium paid by households. That would add to Americans’ tax burden, but not as much as the post said.
Sanders proposes a regressive (flat) tax of 4% on everything over $29k......

I know the answer from Coastal Elite democrats is blah blah... shell game ....not a big deal, poor people need to suck it up and pay it.

Well, its an additional flat tax and that will be a problem.... :noclue:
I don't think you're representing that accurately. But Snopes/Politifact clarify a couple of things nicely: the $12,400/24,800 that I noticed don't trigger any taxes are equivalent to a minimum personal exemption from taxation. That's pretty generous (on a par with what they do up here in Canada).

A 4% income-based premium "paid by households" isn't the same thing as a regressive 4% tax (like a sales tax).

Here's the real info:
How Sanders could pay for Medicare for All

Sanders has unveiled a series of possible options to cover the full cost of Medicare for All. Among them:

A 4% income-based premium that employees pay, exempting the first $29,000 of income for a family of four.
A 7.5% income-based premium that employers pay, exempting the first $2.5 million of payroll.
A more progressive federal income tax system with a 70% marginal tax rate on people earning more than $10 million per year.
An end to health tax expenditures.
And here's the details from Sanders' own site:
4 percent income-based premium paid by households

Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.Last year the typical working family paid an average of$5,277in premiums to private health insurance companies.Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All –just $844 a year –saving that family over $4,400 a year.Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
Again, not a regressive tax. You're confusing some stuff.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#195 Post by mockbee » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:19 pm

Hype wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:27 pm

I don't think you're representing that accurately. But Snopes/Politifact clarify a couple of things nicely: the $12,400/24,800 that I noticed don't trigger any taxes are equivalent to a minimum personal exemption from taxation. That's pretty generous (on a par with what they do up here in Canada).

A 4% income-based premium "paid by households" isn't the same thing as a regressive 4% tax (like a sales tax).

Here's the real info:
How Sanders could pay for Medicare for All

Sanders has unveiled a series of possible options to cover the full cost of Medicare for All. Among them:

A 4% income-based premium that employees pay, exempting the first $29,000 of income for a family of four.
A 7.5% income-based premium that employers pay, exempting the first $2.5 million of payroll.
A more progressive federal income tax system with a 70% marginal tax rate on people earning more than $10 million per year.
An end to health tax expenditures.
So I'm saying that Sanders is proposing a 4% tax for health care on all income above $29K (see above) and you're saying that Sanders is proposing a 4% tax for health care on all income above $29K (via Sanders site)....correct? And I got my quote from Politifact, the same place you reference....

I'm glad we got that straightened out.. :eyes: :lol:
A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-income earners.

In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the people with a higher ability to pay, as they shift the relative burden increasingly to those with a lower ability to pay.
And yes, in effect, the flat tax acts like a regressive tax. In addition, the fact that it is proposed that people pay health care expenses "already" assumes that the poor are actually already paying them. Some are in big trouble and have a ton of debt, but many, many households DON'T pay much for healthcare. We are talking about average expenditures. This 4% uniform tax would be an additional burden to many of the households below that average that already have trouble with necessary expenditures like food and rent. Yes, other factors come into play, like an increased minimum wage, etc. But this is just about health care. Bernies plan is actually a big giveaway for business. He eliminates the payroll tax for healthcare. That is HUGE.


And here's the details from Sanders' own site:
4 percent income-based premium paid by households

Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.Last year the typical working family paid an average of$5,277in premiums to private health insurance companies.Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All –just $844 a year –saving that family over $4,400 a year.Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
Again, not a regressive tax. You're confusing some stuff.
:hs:
So since something "averages" out that means, of course all households can pay, it's average all of them are paying that anyway. That's not true, it's just average, half those people are NOT paying that. That is the definition of Regressive.....

A uniform (flat) tax is considered regressive, in terms of lower income households ability to pay.


I guess you and Bloomberg agree? Am I still RIGHT, or left? :tiphat: :hehe:



User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#196 Post by Hype » Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:02 pm

I understand why it looks similar to a flat tax. I don't think it's functionally the same. If it were, then you could say "there's a flat tax on income between X and Y" for all tax brackets, which are by definition not flat taxes, and not regressive. In this case, it's precisely not regressive because there's an exemption for low-income families.

But, like I said, I can see why if you ignore that, it looks similar to a flat tax since it applies uniformly to family income above $29,000. Well, look, this is semantic now, but suppose we just describe it as a 4% increase in the marginal rates? Is that regressive? Well, it's a tax-increase. But by calling it a 4% "premium", it lets them avoid using larger numbers for the marginal rates. Anyway, in Canada we pay what are called "EI premiums" -- employment insurance, aka "social security". You get these refunded if your income is below a certain amount. Pretty stock-standard social-welfare policy.

Oh, and it's also worth remembering that this is just one of several floated options for paying for medicare for all. It's not necessarily the one they'd implement. But I do think it would work quite well.

I don't understand the rest of what you said. :noclue:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#197 Post by mockbee » Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:49 am

I think we are arguing the same thing....just coming at it from different directions. :noclue:

You are coming at it from a technical standpoint. I am coming at it from a "working persons" perspective. Not saying you don't understand that. Just the technical angle, when politicking, is a really bad persuasion technique. There will never be the time or interest to understand nuance.

Totally agree with this:
Again, asking "How are we going to pay for this?" is kind of a confused question in the richest country ever to have existed. What makes it difficult to sell is not just that people don't think it's for them, but that the economic impact is only easy to see in its immediate form -- increased taxes. the economic impact is only easy to see in its immediate form -- increased taxes. Blah blah blah......
When I say "how are we going to pay for this" I don't literally mean how are we going to pay for this.. ..of course we can pay for it. We are the richest country in the history of the world. Everyone in this country requires health care. Raise your hand if you or your family does not require health care.... Bernie's plan eliminates all the bureaucratic middlemen and insurance brokers who gobble up tons of money and fees and make a profit off of YOU and your families healthcare. This plan is about focusing on care and not the profits of middlemen. Of course we can pay for it. We already are. STOP!

That is good persuasion. Bernie has part if it right, but overall he does a really lousy job, because he keeps going and going and promises details. That is BAD persuasion. Sound familiar... :wink: :hehe:
And yes, we are talking about politics and getting elected now and not how we are going to actually pay for it. This isn't the "healthcare" or "taxes" thread. :tiphat:

If Bernie promises details and tries to deliver on those, he will, as I have already stated, most certainly lose the Dem nomination.
:noclue:

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 4641
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#198 Post by chaos » Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:34 pm

Mayor Pete dropped out of the race.

(Maybe the Biden camp reached out and promised him VP :noclue: )

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#199 Post by mockbee » Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:16 am

chaos wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:34 pm
Mayor Pete dropped out of the race.

(Maybe the Biden camp reached out and promised him VP :noclue: )
Klobuchar more likely.

Prob offered him cab post. :noclue:


What I find peculiar is that I think aligning with Biden is like an Iraq war vote. This will bite them hard later. :idea:

Unless deep state intervened (bribes/threats)....
I don't see these endorcements as very bright. :noclue:

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 4641
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Democratic Presidential Campaign 2020

#200 Post by chaos » Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:20 am


Post Reply