BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion What would you do as president to fix this mess

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-27-2015, 06:44 AM   #133
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
776
Rep
5,666
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASAP View Post
Well to be clear... I think it's fair.
Note:
The context from which I've asserted below that flat taxes are not fair issues from your description of "10% across the board," combined with the absence of any your having identified any provisions for incorporating equity into such a tax.


That you think "10% across the board" it is fair is something I was certain of before you explicitly told us that is what you think. You would not have advocated a flat tax model if you didn't think it fair; I don't think you seek to be deliberately unfair. Am I mistaken?

The questions that need to be answered are:
  • Do you prefer or not prefer regressive taxes? What is a regressive tax? Watch the video here.
  • What makes "10% across the board" anything but a regressive consumption tax?
The fact is that even though you think a "10% across the board" is fair, it is not. It is a form of regressive taxation because it has a greater impact on lower income people.
I'm not arguing whether the flat tax will achieve X or Y objectives. I'm saying that even if it achieves them, it will do so inequitably. Even as I will not advocate for a flat tax, if one gets implemented, odds are I will benefit financially from it. Nonetheless, I know that that my doing occurs on the backs of people who annually earn far less than I do. As I write my check to pay my taxes, I will enjoy that the tax rate is flat, but I will not approve of its having been implemented.

Now it can be that you genuinely don't have a problem with flat taxes. There's no question that they have their advantages. That said, it's not lost on me that even the most informed of flat tax advocates don't broach the equity issue when airing support for flat taxes. Why? Because even economists who advocate for flat taxes know they are unfair to lower income earners.

All the best.

P.S.
You'll note that in the AEI discussion the writer/speaker mentions "progressivity in the rates." To do that, one must have different rates, and the tax, no matter the general description for it, is no longer flat.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 1
      09-27-2015, 09:17 AM   #134
SenorFunkyPants
Brigadier General
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
United Kingdom
393
Rep
3,524
Posts

Drives: 2019 M5
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
Dems touted how great the Healthcare system is in Europe but no way you could sue there like you could here. Can't have it both ways.right now over half the cost of your Healthcare bill is to pay for doctors insurance.
One of the very few things that we are rightly proud of is the NHS.
Whats not to like about a medical care system that is free to all (residents and EU nationals) paid for out of direct and indirect taxation. If you don't like the NHS then you can opt to pay for private medical care as well.
And yes you can sue for medical negligence, to the tune of some 20 billion annually.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 10:28 AM   #135
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
Dems touted how great the Healthcare system is in Europe but no way you could sue there like you could here. Can't have it both ways.right now over half the cost of your Healthcare bill is to pay for doctors insurance.
One of the very few things that we are rightly proud of is the NHS.
Whats not to like about a medical care system that is free to all (residents and EU nationals) paid for out of direct and indirect taxation. If you don't like the NHS then you can opt to pay for private medical care as well.
And yes you can sue for medical negligence, to the tune of some 20 billion annually.
20% of the NHS' budget is being spent on lawsuit settlements. There are also reports of a "scheme" where lawyers will only charge a fee if the lawsuit is awarded to the patient - but they won't charge the patient if they lose; thereby greatly increasing the number of lawsuits. It's exploded in recent years, and is forecasted as unsustainable, and the NHS' costs are out of control.

In the US those are called contingency-based lawsuits - and we've had them forever. It's the reason daytime TV is full of lawyer ads, and we call them "ambulance chasers."
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 10:33 AM   #136
infamousdiz
Major
infamousdiz's Avatar
United_States
519
Rep
1,201
Posts

Drives: (17 X5M) (15 M3 YMB,)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Connecticut

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamousdiz View Post
you are going to have the cops run around with no union so when the shit goes down the city can jam it up there ass. I hope if your world happens and one day you need that cop to go above and beyond and you get to see what shows up....Paul blart (look at the latest crime stats for purple city...radio cop..when a city fails to stand behind the dept that's what you get) seems in your world you would rule with an iron fist...good luck with recruitment. you see the inflated salaries with OT but you don't under stand the stress.

Tort reform has good and bad points... I dont agree with it just because it takes tons of pressure off the insurance companies...with the bill of an injured person are larger than what is set as the ceiling the govt picks up the bill

Case in point: Hot coffee lady. staple of frivolous lawsuit.... many dont know she almost died and that the coffee was so hot it melted the cup which was between her legs. The PR compagin from McDonals was great spinning it as a woman who didnt know coffee was hot. The coffee machine was broken making the water hotter than intended

[IMG]http://i1374.photobucket.com/albums/...pskyftc2ns.jpg[/IMG]
I think body cams first off will help cops a ton. But second, you don't need a union to protect cops. Set up a body that represents cops but only in matters like being sued for police brutality, etc. Not negotiate salaries or benefits.

As for coffee lady, I didn't say it was silly. But there are far too many BS cases that get settled that jack up insurance. For example, why not introduce the ability to collect legal fees to cover your defence if the person suing you was found to be doing it frivolously and without merrit. Why should a doc have to pay tens of thousands for defending themselves against someone who just is trying to get a payday? This happened to me and my insurance company and is super common. And reform wouldn't help the insurance companies.in the least. They just pass the added costs onto the insurance purchaser. Same with "sticking it to the banks" I don't get how people are happy about things that force banks to discount something or fine them. The banks just jack up fees to cover it and move on screwing us.
You can't have it both ways, what would you pay a police man 15 an hour with a 401k....in a city budget police and fire make up less that %15 most of the time... Volunteer fireman are becoming extinct...cost of doing business.. The pensions should not be grossly over inflated but they should have us pay more into it if it's a concern.... Pension funds have been raided over and over again to fill city budget deficits then cry when market crashes and it becomes underfunded.
__________________
I didn't know I couldn't do that. But I did know I couldn't do that.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 10:39 AM   #137
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
What's the max temp water can reach? If handed a cup past that temp and melting the cup do you snuggle it between your legs? What happens if passed the max temp? Lot of conspiracy bs here.
In this particular instance I agree. Mcdonaldso keeps there coffee at 180 degrees. Anything higher is a malfunction or loll event. The individual franchise owner should have been responsible, not corporate. And zero chance any water based liquid can reach a temp to melt a cup. The rest if the world laughs at our culture of frivolous lawsuits. Dems touted how great the Healthcare system is in Europe but no way you could sue there like you could here. Can't have it both ways.right now over half the cost of your Healthcare bill is to pay for doctors insurance.
FWIW, as I remember, the McDonald's where this happened had been getting complaints from customers for weeks that their coffee had scalded their mouths, etc., but the store had ignored everyone. The cup didn't melt, but the lid came off and severely burned the lady. Turns out the coffee pot temp was turned to the full maximum setting (vs. 180 degrees) - something like 220 (past boiling). The store was negligent, and I think McDonald's got hit because why would you have that high a temp setting on the device in the first place - it was an accident waiting to happen.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 10:58 AM   #138
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Edit: here are the facts - I was a bit wrong:

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

Net/net; McDonald's knew for years this was a problem, and had been repeatedly sued yet did nothing. Their own QA Director said it would cause burns. The lady offered to settle for the cost of her medical bills, but McDonald's refused.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 05:57 PM   #139
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Note:
The context from which I've asserted below that flat taxes are not fair issues from your description of "10% across the board," combined with the absence of any your having identified any provisions for incorporating equity into such a tax.


That you think "10% across the board" it is fair is something I was certain of before you explicitly told us that is what you think. You would not have advocated a flat tax model if you didn't think it fair; I don't think you seek to be deliberately unfair. Am I mistaken?

The questions that need to be answered are:
  • Do you prefer or not prefer regressive taxes? What is a regressive tax? Watch the video here.
  • What makes "10% across the board" anything but a regressive consumption tax?
The fact is that even though you think a "10% across the board" is fair, it is not. It is a form of regressive taxation because it has a greater impact on lower income people.
I'm not arguing whether the flat tax will achieve X or Y objectives. I'm saying that even if it achieves them, it will do so inequitably. Even as I will not advocate for a flat tax, if one gets implemented, odds are I will benefit financially from it. Nonetheless, I know that that my doing occurs on the backs of people who annually earn far less than I do. As I write my check to pay my taxes, I will enjoy that the tax rate is flat, but I will not approve of its having been implemented.

Now it can be that you genuinely don't have a problem with flat taxes. There's no question that they have their advantages. That said, it's not lost on me that even the most informed of flat tax advocates don't broach the equity issue when airing support for flat taxes. Why? Because even economists who advocate for flat taxes know they are unfair to lower income earners.

All the best.

P.S.
You'll note that in the AEI discussion the writer/speaker mentions "progressivity in the rates." To do that, one must have different rates, and the tax, no matter the general description for it, is no longer flat.
A "fair tax" is fair by definition but not necessarily correct to impose. Progressive tax is not fair but probably better than fair to impose. My tax is a based on consumption. So it is fair and at the same time slanted towards the rich. I also gave exemptions for basic needs and extra tax on the megarich. More than equitable.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 06:53 PM   #140
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
One of the very few things that we are rightly proud of is the NHS.
Whats not to like about a medical care system that is free to all (residents and EU nationals) paid for out of direct and indirect taxation. If you don't like the NHS then you can opt to pay for private medical care as well.
And yes you can sue for medical negligence, to the tune of some 20 billion annually.
20 billion is a joke. Insurance costs for doctors is I'm the trillions on the US.And British Healthcare is known for its high quality. Just look at your teeth.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 07:01 PM   #141
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

McDonald's did a survey years ago to find out what people wanted most in a cup of coffee. Number one answer over taste was to be hot. McDonald's stupidly interpreted this to mean extra hot vs not cold. So they raised temp to 180 degrees from the 170 everybody else does. This particular location must have been finning more like 210. No water can't melt foam cups. Case In point you boil raiment noodles in the same cup. Wives take. But you can be scalded badly. Now because of this stupid example it gets thrown out there all the time. Did McDonald's lower the temp of their coffee? No. So "sending a message" to corporate McDonald's was BS. Does it show how stupid our tort system is? Yes. Should she have gotten medical and pain and suffering? Yes. Sad but reality everyone lost on this case. Most of all us.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 02:33 AM   #142
SenorFunkyPants
Brigadier General
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
United Kingdom
393
Rep
3,524
Posts

Drives: 2019 M5
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
It's exploded in recent years, and is forecasted as unsustainable, and the NHS' costs are out of control."
Health care costs what it costs.....people are living longer so of course the price of NHS healthcare is going to rise, as it will worldwide.
I would have thought that despite being state run the NHS is still a fairly financially efficient form of health provision given that there are less profit elements involved.

Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 09-28-2015 at 03:10 AM..
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 06:46 AM   #143
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Healthcare costs are high due to two factors. Doctor insurance costs and lack of competition. Fixing these would stop the spiraling costs and lower the existing ones by a third or more. Instead of doing this the costs now are going up even faster due to Obama care. This is because you are now required to buy insurance you don't need. It's a windfall for insurance companies aND protection for tort lawyers. Terrible deal for everyone except Democrat donors.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 07:28 AM   #144
Taskmaster
Banned
Japan
2331
Rep
9,157
Posts

Drives: M235i 6MT / E92 328 Msport 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Florida

iTrader: (6)

Poor McDonalds.

Poor Poor Poor tort reform which solves nothing.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 07:55 AM   #145
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAxiom View Post
Poor McDonalds.

Poor Poor Poor tort reform which solves nothing.
Why would you say that? If you're an obgyn now for example over half your costs are malpractice insurance. Here it is in comments from obama, Howard dean, etc proving my point. I wonder why the number one Obama donor in Florida was John Morgan of ambulance chasing Morgan and Morgan?
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/updat...care_2009.html
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 09:10 AM   #146
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAxiom View Post
Poor McDonalds.

Poor Poor Poor tort reform which solves nothing.
Typical liberal response. Swoop in. Disagree. Don't read the posts before. Post unsubstantiated comment. Swoop.out.

1 tort reform is the biggest thing needed to lower Healthcare costs
2 democrats get huge amounts of campaign donations from tort lawyers vs republicans for a reason. Protection of their scamming the system
3 Europe does not allow tort suits like the US and laughs at us for our system
4 McDonald's lawsuit wasn't a Healthcare lawsuit
5 McDonald's didn't even notice the impact of the suit
6 I have no problems with the McDonald's suit as expressed earlier
7 medical malpractice suits are the driving factor of health care insurance going up which is also the driving factor of heal care costs going up. It now accounts for almost half a physicians costs.

Hmmmmmm
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 09:11 AM   #147
sped3
Enlisted Member
5
Rep
45
Posts

Drives: 135is
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: San Antonio

iTrader: (0)

Doctors spend trillions on med mal insurance? I think that's a SLIGHT exaggeration.
Appreciate 1
      09-28-2015, 09:15 AM   #148
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

I also love the fact that democrats say Healthcare insurance should be the same price for everybody even though Healthcare costs vary by age, health condition, sex etc. We all need to share the burden for everyone so I pay for myself to get pregnancy tests, mamograms, etc. If that's the case how come other insurance types aren't fair also? Please make car insurance the same for my teenage son as my mother, my property insurance on my McMansion the same as someone in a 2 bedroom house, and my life insurance the same as a 21 year old nonsmoker woman.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 09:18 AM   #149
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sped3 View Post
Doctors spend trillions on med mal insurance? I think that's a SLIGHT exaggeration.
No it isn't. Average nerosurgeon pays about $75,000 a year on malpractice insurance.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 09:19 AM   #150
sped3
Enlisted Member
5
Rep
45
Posts

Drives: 135is
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: San Antonio

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
No it isn't. Average nerosurgeon pays about $75,000 a year on malpractice insurance.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...n-a-year-in-us

Cost in the US of med mal is $55 billion. $45 billion of that is in defensive medicine. So, total payouts+legal expenses total about $10 bil/yr. That's a far FAR cry from trillions.

Not sure where you're getting your stats from.
Appreciate 1
      09-28-2015, 09:27 AM   #151
Taskmaster
Banned
Japan
2331
Rep
9,157
Posts

Drives: M235i 6MT / E92 328 Msport 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Florida

iTrader: (6)

I say that because a simple Google search about the subject reveals that it's simply false:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...19-column.html

Quote:
A new study led by Michael B. Rothberg of the Cleveland Clinic and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association aimed to measure how much defensive medicine there is, really, and how much it costs. The researchers' conclusion is that defensive medicine accounts for about 2.9% of healthcare spending. In other words, out of the estimated $2.7-trillion U.S. healthcare bill, defensive medicine accounts for $78 billion.
and

Quote:
As Aaron Carroll observes at the AcademyHealth blog, $78 billion is "not chump change ... but it?s still a very small component of overall health care spending." Any "tort reform" stringent enough to make that go away would likely create other costs, such as a rise in medical mistakes generated by the elimination of the oversight exercised by the court system.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 10:13 AM   #152
Kidscollege$
First Lieutenant
Kidscollege$'s Avatar
337
Rep
396
Posts

Drives: 2015 MW M4
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NE

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 Toyota  [0.00]
2016 Lexus RX350  [0.00]
2015 BMW/M4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundguy1 View Post
Taxes. Lower corporate taxes by half.
Create a 10% consumption tax on everything except basic essentialstuff such as food and clothing, etc. and eliminate I federal income tax on the bottom 90% of earners.
Put additional income tax on top 10% of earners of 30%.

I would agree with you on everything but the personal income taxes. I think EVERYONE should pay Fed Income taxes. This is what I consider to be a division in the country. EVERYONE needs to have some skin in the game! An equal percentage to be exact!

If you make $1 million/yr and your friend makes $100k/yr and you both go by an $80k M4. You both have to pay the same sales tax? right? So why is income taxes any different?

I might be able to go with the first $20k-$30k tax free. but everyone should pay something. I, myself, would prefer a flat fed income tax. I dont know what that number would be? 10%-15% on ALL income, including dividends, interest etc. Eliminate all deductions. If you are a millionaire, you pay $150k. If you make $100k, you pay $15k. If you make $15k you pay $0.00 in fed taxes.

I have not done any research on consumption taxes, but just off the top of my head, would that further our manufacturing problem? would people stop buying new and start buying used? Thus lowering the number of washer and dryers built, etc?
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 10:24 AM   #153
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9599
Rep
8,240
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

In our little town of 22,000 we are currently struggling to balance our budget. The Police Depart is on the order of 62% of the General Fund budget.

My father, as a lawyer, pays north of $100K/year for malpractice insurance, and he is a sole-proprietor. I STILL can't convince him to convert the old boxes of paper cases starting from 1971 that he keeps in the office attic to digital, and have is all shredded. The only people who have ever sued him were divorcees who later thought they deserved more money. . .
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 12:08 PM   #154
Fundguy1
Major General
Fundguy1's Avatar
1992
Rep
8,339
Posts

Drives: 335 e93
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, fl

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidscollege$ View Post
I would agree with you on everything but the personal income taxes. I think EVERYONE should pay Fed Income taxes. This is what I consider to be a division in the country. EVERYONE needs to have some skin in the game! An equal percentage to be exact!

If you make $1 million/yr and your friend makes $100k/yr and you both go by an $80k M4. You both have to pay the same sales tax? right? So why is income taxes any different?

I might be able to go with the first $20k-$30k tax free. but everyone should pay something. I, myself, would prefer a flat fed income tax. I dont know what that number would be? 10%-15% on ALL income, including dividends, interest etc. Eliminate all deductions. If you are a millionaire, you pay $150k. If you make $100k, you pay $15k. If you make $15k you pay $0.00 in fed taxes.

I have not done any research on consumption taxes, but just off the top of my head, would that further our manufacturing problem? would people stop buying new and start buying used? Thus lowering the number of washer and dryers built, etc?
Consumption tax is just a flat sales tax on what you buy. I don't think it would hurt manufacturing, but unlike income tax, it would force people to pay taxes who have been skirting them till now. Illegal aliens, people gaining money from illegal activities such as prostitution, drug sales, etc.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST