Obama vs. Ryan's plan to Reduce Federal Debt

Post Reply New Topic

I am glad to hear that coverage is guaranteed under the plan, but at this point in time there is no guarantee that a voucher will cover the full amount required to get the equivalent coverage that medicare provides. It would be a serious issue for those that did not have the ability to pay for the coverage they needed. I am open to hear more details of the plan as they arise.

There are many suggested, researched ways to prevent Cancer, but no guaranteed method to eliminate the risk and stop Cancer. The problem I allude to is when someone has a serious condition and does not have the full coverage they require for treatment. It is a risk if someone is not sure they will be able to afford full coverage.

Per the link the only sure way of knowing someone is deficient in these Vitamins and minerals is through a blood test. Too much vitamin D or Calcium can also cause problems if bloodwork is not properly monitored.

There is no reason why Medicare cannot also improve it's outreach to provide information for healthy lifestyles and preventive measures. A good Doctor will also provide this information to their elderly patients.

The tax revenue generated by letting these limited brackets return to as they were is in the Hundreds of Billions. And by far, is generated by those people that are extremely rich, with no concern over childcare expenses or whether or not a spouse works.

This particular women has already decided that she wants to work more than she wants to stay home with her children, regardless of the current financial reward, and with the time and investment put into a medical career, she can't be blamed for this, nor can anyother woman that makes this choice.

Once the children are in school, and her practice continues, she will eventually reap a larger financial award from her practice as a Doctor.

Jobs come and go, but a three percent decrease in net pay, is not going to be a deciding factor for a significant number of people to quit their jobs; there are too many other factors that influence a decision like this.

There's this theory that claims that the Rich and the Job Creators all got together and refused to hire people until their tax cuts were renewed... and now they're taking this as proof of that. This feeds into the Rich as Gods religion that unfortunately has taken hold, that leaders lead by more effectively praying to the rich and sacrificing to the rich and not use their name in vain nor doing anything else to offend them lest Wrath be rained down, that the good leaders are those with a more effective channel to the gods and the bad ones are those who offend the gods. That's why "voodoo economics" is so apt to describe it.

It's also nonsense. People don't conspire to not hire because they aren't getting tax breaks, they don't hire because of a lack of demand.

Not necessarily so. Since the Democrats had everything in 2008, wealthy people and small businessmen knew that the government was very hostile to them. They might have had need, but there was uncertainty about what government would do regarding regulation, taxation, etc. Any business expert can tell you that uncertainty is an investment/business killer. These are risky fields to start with...the more uncertainty, the less inclined risk takers are to actually move forward. The changeover in 2010 restored some confidence so some people started hiring.

As much as I don't like to say the wealthy and businessmen should have the power, we must recognize that you don't bite the hand that feeds you. It might seem unfair that corporations or businessmen get special considerations, but in an economic model (global) where they can pack up and move wherever they get the best treatment...taking their payroll/jobs with them, it is insanity to think that policies that burden these people is a good thing. Why should China, India, Pakistan, etc. get new jobs over the USA just because they are more "business friendly?"

The Democrats, at the very least, are short-sighted and want a Pyrrhic victory. Americans in poverty, business fleeing America to do stuff elsewhere and ship in cheap goods, etc. Not that Republicans are blameless here...any politician subscribing to "globalism" has embraced policies that encourage the transferring of good jobs overseas regardless of the domestic impact. They do what they think is the "right" thing even though it ultimately harms everyone.

Globalism, is happening regardless of what any politician does. The general public, both Republican and Democrat want to see Big Business lose their loopholes and have to pay taxes. The loop holes are of much more concern to Big Business than miniscule tax increases.

In the general public, the only real concern, is that taxes may be raised. For a family that makes $250,000, in adjusted gross income, they get to keep the average $6500 tax break that was afforded to them in 2001. For those families that actually do make $250,000 per year in adjusted gross income, their average total income is $315,000. So, on average people that make $315,000 in total income will still get the same average $6500 tax break that they have received since 2001 and no increase in the tax bracket they are in.

For someone that makes $400,000 a year, on average, in total income, and $335,000 in adjusted gross income, on average, they will see an average tax increase, from the new 36% tax bracket, of $2550 per year. Not likely an amount like this is going to significantly impact a small business generating total income for the owner of $400,000 a year.

If people were really concerned about impacting big business and biting the hand that feeds them there would be more fear in the general public about closing the loopholes. I see no evidence of this concern; do you see any?

The closing of loopholes and small increases in tax for big business and the truly rich is where most of the tax revenue is generated. Any tax increase is an impact; but this one is small and reasonable for small business.

Most people, in the general public, left and right, hate big business; and the truth is business is business; it doesn't care about people on a personal level, and if there is more money to be made by moving jobs and operations overseas it is going to happen regardless of what we offer them here.

Avoiding a small tax increase isn't going to provide motivation for companies to keep their business here much more than it is going to be the reason they take their business elsewhere.

Closing loopholes may be a larger consideration; this is the way they avoid paying taxes altogether. If they can avoid paying taxes altogether because of loopholes, why should small increases in tax brackets be of any concern to them in the first place?

Last edited by aghogday on 15 Apr 2011, 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Obama hostile to business? Don't make me laugh.

Want to reduce the federal debt? Increase taxes on the top 10%, close loopholes and cut taxes for the bottom 90%.

It'd also help if money went into things that actually helped society rather than indebt it further to private organizations. Maybe spend money on universal healthcare instead of universal credit/debt.

That will hardly make a dent on our accumulated national debt. And it will also cause any productive businessman to leave the country. Why stay and be looted?

ruveyn

Yeah...it hurt us so much in the 1950s and 60s to not have robber barons in our society.

The producers will also leave and to to places where they are appreciated and rewarded. Why should a top engineer bust his butt just be taxed into penury.

ruveyn

They find plenty of engineers from India and other such places any way because they can be paid less. So much for that.

Top engineers don't get paid top banker money. The top engineers might barely scrape the bottom of the top bracket but that's more reason to shift the brackets given there's such a huge difference between the 250k-ers and the 1m+ club.


But let's say that someone at 250 is taxed 90%. That leaves them at $25,000. Not penury. Certainly not fair but not penury, either. I think 60% would be fair for a 250k-1m bracket then 90% for 1m+.


But most engineers (even top ones) don't earn 1,000,000 annually. That's for wall street people and other bankers, mostly.

Closing loopholes, I think, would go further in raising tax revenue than any further tax increases that are currently proposed. I don't see it happening, though, because of Corporate influence in politics.

I thought the example that Psychoist presented was not an average one on the issue that those that make around 300K have, in consideration of the proposed increases in the top two tax brackets, but I think it is reasonable that Doctors and other highly paid health professionals might leave the profession or even not consider it if taxes were 60% in the 250K to 1M range.

Taxes were that high back in the 50's and 60's, but 1M meant alot more then, than it does now. And, malpractice insurance, is a big deterrent for anyone to go into private practice as it stands now.

In my youth, I considered all Doctors to be rich, but have seen examples in the last ten years, of good doctors that quit their practice because of financial issues.

So what you're saying is that minimum wages need to be increased as well as taxes. I agree.

That will cost even more jobs, what we need to stop is the insane spending.

You mean like farming subsidies, social welfare for corporations, insane tax cuts for the rich, and every other which way that the federal government bleeds money to the top while robbing the majority of the population of their money?