IDBillzFan Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 2 hours ago, section122 said: That is my point. Imagine not having to make concessions on your wage or your working conditions (the bigger wow to me) to get health care coverage that almost every other developed nation offers to their citizens. Taking it back to trickle down economic theory (remember this is why we do corporate tax cuts) the less employers have to pay for insuring their employees the more they can pay them in salary correct? The total cost of health care, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employees and dependents, is estimated to average $14,800 per employee in 2019, up from $14,099 this year. Large employers will cover roughly 70 percent of those costs, leaving $4,400 on average for employees to pick up in premium contributions and out-of-pocket expenses. So here is some fun with math: Employers could give each employee a $10,000 a year raise and still come out $400 ahead on each employee. Average wage in the US is $47,060 - $4400 equals $42660 pre tax income NYS tax (single person) on $42660 is $1881. Federal tax (at 8.11%) is approx $3461, social security tax is approx $2645 (gasp a socialist tax!) medicare tax (socialist!) approx 618. Take home wage is approx $34054 and you are responsible for co-pays, prescriptions, etc... If you received a $5000 raise since your employer no longer had to foot insurance costs they would come out $5400 on each employee on average I'll spare you the math but bring home on is approx $40,973 (8.89% federal tax) if your federal tax was raised to say 20% your bring home is approx $35,188 and your medical costs are minimal to nonexistent. Here is the tax calculator I used if you are so inclined When you avoid the talking points and look at the hard data it is easy to see how this should be in place. I raised everyone's taxes by 11.89% and they still came out ahead. Think about that, I more than doubled the federal tax rate and both employees and companies still come out ahead. I like how you think employers would give each employee a raise of over $190/week and be happy they get to keep $7.69/week per employee. That's pretty damn funny. You want fun with math? How about the employer finally gets back the $10,400 a year per employee they've been forced to fork out because of Obamacare, and the federal government finds a way to trim $10,400 a year per working person from some other budget, and then they can pay for it and allow companies to expand and grow with their businesses? Then we increase taxes of all federally elected employees by 11.89%, and give that money to all the families who were promised their annual health insurance would drop by $2500 a month? Now that's change you can believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: I like how you think employers would give each employee a raise of over $190/week and be happy they get to keep $7.69/week per employee. That's pretty damn funny. You want fun with math? How about the employer finally gets back the $10,400 a year per employee they've been forced to fork out because of Obamacare, and the federal government finds a way to trim $10,400 a year per working person from some other budget, and then they can pay for it and allow companies to expand and grow with their businesses? Then we increase taxes of all federally elected employees by 11.89%, and give that money to all the families who were promised their annual health insurance would drop by $2500 a month? Now that's change you can believe in. But can I keep my doctor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: But can I keep my doctor? Only if you like him. Or her. Or it. Or whatever pronoun they need. Side story: every day I drive by a local business that repairs and rebuilds transmissions. Dude has a big sign outside with his business name on it: Trans Doc. He'd have a totally different clientele walking through his doors if he set that up in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: Only if you like him. Or her. Or it. Or whatever pronoun they need. Side story: every day I drive by a local business that repairs and rebuilds transmissions. Dude has a big sign outside with his business name on it: Trans Doc. He'd have a totally different clientele walking through his doors if he set that up in California. I used to drive by a place in Fredonia, NY called S&M Lock & Key. Ended up in one of the Playboy sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it? Victor Davis Hanson | Tribune Media Services Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail. Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos. Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East. The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection. In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world. So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes? https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-history-socialism 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it? Victor Davis Hanson | Tribune Media Services Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail. Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos. Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East. The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection. In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world. So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes? https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-history-socialism The socialists always respond to Hanson's question by saying it has never been implemented properly before. "We'll get it right this time." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Warren’s Medicare For All: The Longest Political Suicide Note In Recorded History. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Mr. Walnut sauce is bribing people? Who would have thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 They think people will follow the stars... How'd that work in 2016? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 52 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it? Victor Davis Hanson | Tribune Media Services Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail. Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos. Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East. The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection. In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world. So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes? https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-history-socialism So you won't be taking medicarewhen you come of age right? That is socialist programs! We should do away with farming subsidies. Those are socialist!!! Hope you or a loved one are never permanently disabled. That's a socialist program! I thought it was only dems that were afraid of the commies? America isn't looking at full socialism. With all the examples of failing countries why aren't Norway, Sweden, or Denmark mentioned? They combine socialism and capitalism and are thriving. I posted upthread about how 8 of the top 10 gdp countries have socialized medicine. Somehow they all make it work but it is the end of the US if we implement it. It isn't a bad thing to help out your fellow Americans especially when almost every would benefit from it themselves as well. I would much rather have my tax dollars go to healthcare than never ending conflicts. "We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East." — Donald Trump on Saturday, April 28th, 2018 in a speech in Washington, Mich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, section122 said: I thought it was only dems that were afraid of the commies? .... what? 5 minutes ago, section122 said: With all the examples of failing countries why aren't Norway, Sweden, or Denmark mentioned? Because they aren't socialist countries, by any measure. 5 minutes ago, section122 said: It isn't a bad thing to help out your fellow Americans especially when almost every would benefit from it themselves as well. I would much rather have my tax dollars go to healthcare than never ending conflicts. "We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East." — Donald Trump on Saturday, April 28th, 2018 in a speech in Washington, Mich. No one argues helping others is bad. No one. They argue against giving the government more power -- especially over decisions like life and death -- than they already have. Why would you want to empower a government which you proved above wastes money on endless wars, spies on its citizens, and works to protect its political class over the people they're supposed to represent? You realize the political class -- which already enjoys too much power and is above the law we are all forced to abide -- only becomes more entrenched. More corrupt. And harder to remove if we swing away from the principles of our republic towards socialism. Socialism is antithetical to our system of government. By it's very design. Edited November 7, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Roseanne Barr supports Donald Trump. She of the racist ambien tweeting. Mike Tyson the convicted rapist supports Donald Trump Ted Nugent and his subhuman mongrel quote support Donald Trump. Tila Tequila and her craziness supports Donald Trump. None of it means jack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just now, section122 said: None of it means jack! On that we agree. But it's the best the left has to offer right now. Which is sad for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: .... what? Because they aren't socialist countries, by any measure. No one argues helping others is bad. No one. They argue against giving the government more power -- especially over decisions like life and death -- than they already have. Why would you want to empower a government which you proved above wastes money on endless wars, spies on its citizens, and works to protect its political class over the people they're supposed to represent? You realize the political class -- which already enjoys too much power and is above the law we are all forced to abide -- only becomes more entrenched. More corrupt. And harder to remove if we swing away from the principles of our republic towards socialism. Socialism is antithetical to our system of government. By it's very design. Strange you skipped over quoting all of the socialist programs that already exist in the US. To your bolded Currently, the Nordic countries have been described as being highly democratic. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government;[8] and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats), a mixed economy[9] and free trade.[10] The Social-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of Universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of citizen autonomy, limiting reliance on family and market.[91]:584 In this context, social policies are perceived as "politics against the market".[93] Social Democratic: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden links: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model Social Democrat. Hmmm where have I heard that before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, section122 said: So you won't be taking medicarewhen you come of age right? That is socialist programs! We should do away with farming subsidies. Those are socialist!!! Hope you or a loved one are never permanently disabled. That's a socialist program! I thought it was only dems that were afraid of the commies? America isn't looking at full socialism. With all the examples of failing countries why aren't Norway, Sweden, or Denmark mentioned? They combine socialism and capitalism and are thriving. I posted upthread about how 8 of the top 10 gdp countries have socialized medicine. Somehow they all make it work but it is the end of the US if we implement it. It isn't a bad thing to help out your fellow Americans especially when almost every would benefit from it themselves as well. I would much rather have my tax dollars go to healthcare than never ending conflicts. "We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East." — Donald Trump on Saturday, April 28th, 2018 in a speech in Washington, Mich. Are we to believe that if the US gubmint became the single payer/provider of healthcare in this country that the quality of care delivered will be the same? That they'll deliver and administer healthcare within a budget and as efficiently as its done privately today? That programs that run reasonably well in other countries of 5 milion people will simply scale to 350+ million? That everyone not just the rich will truly pay their fair share? That it won't be an additional burden on businesses of all sizes? That patients will still be able to get 2nd opinions from doctors when desired? Who do we turn to if government provides a bad service? The US government doesn't run any entitlements within budget or within the taxes raised, why are we to believe it will do so for this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 1 minute ago, section122 said: Strange you skipped over quoting all of the socialist programs that already exist in the US. There are plenty of programs within the US government which I disagree with. But the government is a democratic republic first -- not socialist in design, structure, or implementation. 2 minutes ago, section122 said: To your bolded Currently, the Nordic countries have been described as being highly democratic. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government;[8] and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats), a mixed economy[9] and free trade.[10] The Social-Democratic welfare state model is based on the principle of Universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of citizen autonomy, limiting reliance on family and market.[91]:584 In this context, social policies are perceived as "politics against the market".[93] Social Democratic: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden links: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model Social Democrat. Hmmm where have I heard that before... The people of Norway and other Scandanvian countries disagree. https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402682-nordic-nations-are-not-socialist-theyre-free-trade-lovers They're not socialists. Social democrat is a nonsense term designed to cloak socialists. Socialism wants to become communism. That's the goal. And not even you, I imagine, are advocating for communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts