Medicaid

[Dr Wario]

There needs to be some sort of progressive scale for taxation because what is rational is to tax disposable income. The amount of disposable income for a person making $15k a year is not 30%. Not even close. For a person making $125 million...it's more like 99%. See how unfair that might be if everyone was taxed the same rate?

Plus it acts as a way to avoid the creation of a plutocracy.

Then why not do a flat sales tax with a certain dollar amount of standard deduction (to cover basic things like food/clothing). This way all "luxury" items are taxed and all the money that is earned under the table is also taxed.

Also eliminates the need for most of the IRS and tax code is massively simplified from the ridiculous mess it is now. Yes black market items and resells would avoid taxes, but people need to buy new stuff some time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I would work once I find a job that I like and want to secure a spot with them. Publix wants to hire me but I do not like retail at all.

Why would you even apply to Publix if you don't like retail? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[sleazye]

No it didn't. Taxes were raised to over 90% in the 40s...and were gradually lowered to under 70% by the time Nixon took over...he screwed up American monetary policy...and American manufacturing didn't begin to decline until the 70s. And it really, really picked up in the 80s when the marginal taxation rate for the highest group was lowered to 50%.

Stop making things up. The Laffer Curve is just stupid. The decline of American manufacturing had to do with the purchase of cheaper labor in the third world and the importation of goods from countries with cheaper labor. It had nothing to do with the taxation of people in the US....of which has declined ever since 1944, anyway.

If any sort of correlation (which is the case here...certainly not causation) can be drawn, it is that lower taxes decrease industry....and certainly not the opposite of that.

So you agree that it began to decline in the 70s? After decades of high taxes... Ever wonder why companies sought to do business elsewhere? Anything to do with better business climate, cheaper cost of operating? They jumped at the chance once it presented itself. The fact is, the world changes and the economy and competitive advantages change with it. We don't have a competitive advantage for manufacturing anymore in the global economy, which is why other countries are doing it; they can do it more efficiently. You can't ignore the economies in other parts of the world no matter how much nostalgia you have for the 'good ol days' of hopping down a mineshaft or into a foundry.

I guess I don't understand what is so controversial about something like the Laffer curve. Government tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0 and 100% taxation. That almost seems like a duh to the point I don't even know why someone why get credit for that idea, it seems almost universal.

 

[SHC1984]

Why would you even apply to Publix if you don't like retail? That doesn't make any sense.

I applied to a million places in May last year b/c I wanted to work during the summer to get my intern hours done. Publix called me in August a week before school started and asked me if I wanted to work every other weekend. WHY didn't they call me in May? I would have worked anywhere if it was in May. I need my hours DONE!!!!

 

[homeslice]

I applied to a million places in May last year b/c I wanted to work during the summer to get my intern hours done. Publix called me in August a week before school started and asked me if I wanted to work every other weekend. WHY didn't they call me in May? I would have worked anywhere if it was in May. I need my hours DONE!!!!

Work experience >>> grades

Should have jumped at the opportunity.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I agree with Gary. No one with teeth that awesome could ever be wrong.

 

[SHC1984]

Work experience >>> grades

Should have jumped at the opportunity.

If it was nuclear or hospital I would have said YES!!!! Retail I wasn't sure.

Also does working for nuclear or a hospital during school guarantee you a position when you graduate?? If the answer is YES, then you are right...it was worth getting the job. I heard some people say yes, working for a place during school will secure you a position upon graduation and I also hear some say, no it doesn't...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

So you agree that it began to decline in the 70s? After decades of high taxes...

Yeah. That's it. After having upper level tax rates over 70% since the 30s, they all of a sudden decided they had enough in the 70s immediately after it was lowered by Nixon. That makes sooooo much sense.

I guess I don't understand what is so controversial about something like the Laffer curve. Government tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0 and 100% taxation. That almost seems like a duh to the point I don't even know why someone why get credit for that idea, it seems almost universal.

The percentage of everything the is to know in all of existence is between 0-100%, too. Said curve is used to fuel stupid ideas by stupid people.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

If it was nuclear or hospital I would have said YES!!!! Retail I wasn't sure.

Also does working for nuclear or a hospital during school guarantee you a position when you graduate?? If the answer is YES, then you are right...it was worth getting the job. I heard some people say yes, working for a place during school will secure you a position upon graduation and I also hear some say, no it doesn't...

In the current economy, I don't think anyone is guaranteed a job upon graduation. But getting experience strengthens your chances. Not having any work experience or very limited experience really hurts your chances of getting ANY job, IMO. I would not hire someone without experience because in this economy, I don't have to. I will have a number of qualified, experienced candidates for every position and can be selective.

 

[Ty1219]

There needs to be some sort of progressive scale for taxation because what is rational is to tax disposable income. The amount of disposable income for a person making $15k a year is not 30%. Not even close. For a person making $125 million...it's more like 99%. See how unfair that might be if everyone was taxed the same rate?

Plus it acts as a way to avoid the creation of a plutocracy.

You really think it's fair for someone making $125 million to be taxed at 99%?? I think that's ridiculous. If you look at a small business that has maybe $1-$5 million, or maybe more, that is not all cash on hand. That includes equipment and money that goes towards salaries for employees. It seems to me the government doesn't understand this whole concept. The money is not the cash they have on hand. It is all tied up in their business. If you tax a $125 million at 99%, what incentive do they have for keeping their business running??? They could downsize their business, fall into a smaller tax bracket and perhaps keep more of their hard-earned money. But downsizing results in people out of jobs. I think you have to look at taxing even the lowest class, even if it is 2%. We have to stop this sense of entitlement that has been created. The "poor" hate the "rich" (even though many aren't even rich), while the wealthy are supporting the lower classes. It's rather ridiculous. Nobody is entitled to other people's money. I also believe a federal sales tax rather than some of these current taxes would be a good idea because it would affect everyone.

 

[Ty1219]

I really like it. Sure, we've had some professors that are absolutely useless, but I think every school has those. And it seems that as we progress into our later years, the crappy ones are fewer and far between in our courses.

Pollock is still there. And will always be there, he is eternal. And I get that he's super polarizing, but as far as I'm concerned he's a great teacher, because I can differentiate "this stuff is hard and I can't easily get it" from "It's your fault I can't ace this test."

Everyone always says it was better back then about everything, so I can't take prior anecdotes about anything. For example, in ten years this year's elementary schoolers will be reminiscing about how great their Saturday morning cartoons were, when in actuality they pale to what I had.

Also, I die a little bit inside every time SHC prefaces a statement with "Ask anybody who works in a pharmacy," as I'm pretty confident every single person who has posted in this thread has logged more hours than she has, being as she's made it a point to proclaim that she will not work during the school year because grades are too important, so her month and a half with target and whatever six months of part-time experience she got with Walgreens obviously gives her enough experience to speak for every area of the country, regardless of your twenty years of RPh experience...

I'm glad all of you like it. Pollock was one of our favorites, and thank God he stayed when all of the good ones left. We had a couple profs who were more concerned with their research, so teaching really wasn't a priority. And then there were 3 or 4 female profs who taught a topic for the first time. Boy, that was fun. One of them had trouble pronouncing hormones like estradiol, which made us all cringe. It was kind of scary that she was teaching us. Several of us had strange issues with the dean of student affairs, but I know his job is safe. Sounds like things are better, so good luck to you!

 

[All4MyDaughter]

You really think it's fair for someone making $125 million to be taxed at 99%?? I think that's ridiculous. If you look at a small business that has maybe $1-$5 million, or maybe more, that is not all cash on hand. That includes equipment and money that goes towards salaries for employees. It seems to me the government doesn't understand this whole concept. The money is not the cash they have on hand. It is all tied up in their business. If you tax a $125 million at 99%, what incentive do they have for keeping their business running??? They could downsize their business, fall into a smaller tax bracket and perhaps keep more of their hard-earned money. But downsizing results in people out of jobs. I think you have to look at taxing even the lowest class, even if it is 2%. We have to stop this sense of entitlement that has been created. The "poor" hate the "rich" (even though many aren't even rich), while the wealthy are supporting the lower classes. It's rather ridiculous. Nobody is entitled to other people's money. I also believe a federal sales tax rather than some of these current taxes would be a good idea because it would affect everyone.

1. He wasn't proposing a 99% tax rate. He was using that figure to illustrate that for the super rich, the majority of what they earn is disposible income, so flat taxes are a heavier burden on the poor.

2. Even the poorest of the poor in this country pay taxes in one form or another. The idea that some pay no taxes is a myth.

3. I think it's debatable to say that the "poor" hate the rich. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But we've seen PLENTY of derision in this thread. Derision from those who do (or will) have money towards those that don't. So it clearly works both ways, at minimum.

 

[sleazye]

Yeah. That's it. After having upper level tax rates over 70% since the 30s, they all of a sudden decided they had enough in the 70s immediately after it was lowered by Nixon. That makes sooooo much sense.



The percentage of everything the is to know in all of existence is between 0-100%, too. Said curve is used to fuel stupid ideas by stupid people.

Haha, again, since you don't use any sort of real counter points, I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about it. Costs in the form of high taxes have to be recouped elsewhere, either higher prices or lower operating costs. Remember that there are many other factors for the decrease as well, the overwhelming factor being increased productivity through technological advances, but high taxes certainly do not help.

As far as the Laffer curve, you still haven't given any specifics or even used logic at any point. The idea is just plain ol' "stupid". I concede, you win.

 

[type b pharmD]

Haha, again, since you don't use any sort of real counter points, I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about it. Costs in the form of high taxes have to be recouped elsewhere, either higher prices or lower operating costs. Remember that there are many other factors for the decrease as well, the overwhelming factor being increased productivity through technological advances, but high taxes certainly do not help.

As far as the Laffer curve, you still haven't given any specifics or even used logic at any point. The idea is just plain ol' "stupid". I concede, you win.

Ok , I'll bite.

Here's the translation. The laugher curve is a way of thinking conceptually about a relationship between the government and taxation rates, in a fictional economic universe that most people call economic theory. As you have pointed out, surely, at some point in life, raising taxes to the moon, (somewhere), people will stop working. A 5th grader could tell you that people would stop working if they werent making any money. That's *some* theory isnt it!!

WVU, Old Timer, and the other respectable people on this forum with a head on their shoulders are trying to tell you that the laffer curve is wrong IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED.

Any statistical economic tool can be applied incorrectly. It just so happens that the laffer curve was one of the most laughable applications in economic theory of all time. We're not blaming statistics for being wrong (statistics themselves are never 'wrong'), all he's trying to tell you is that the laffer curve is a useless tool for the type of things that 95% of armchair economists want to use it for. Even when applied diligently a lot of theoretical inference sets just do not end up working out to actually help DO anything.

I'm sure the smart people here will agree with you , and I, that once marginal taxation reaches a certain level, it becomes sub-optimal to increase taxes. That's what we can take from the laffer curve.

Btw we're just not there yet, regardless of what the capitalists would have you believe.

 

[sleazye]

Ok , I'll bite.

Here's the translation. The laugher curve is a way of thinking conceptually about a relationship between the government and taxation rates, in a fictional economic universe that most people call economic theory. As you have pointed out, surely, at some point in life, raising taxes to the moon, (somewhere), people will stop working. A 5th grader could tell you that people would stop working if they werent making any money. That's *some* theory isnt it!!

WVU, Old Timer, and the other respectable people on this forum with a head on their shoulders are trying to tell you that the laffer curve is wrong IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED.

Any statistical economic tool can be applied incorrectly. It just so happens that the laffer curve was one of the most laughable applications in economic theory of all time. We're not blaming statistics for being wrong (statistics themselves are never 'wrong'), all he's trying to tell you is that the laffer curve is a useless tool for the type of things that 95% of armchair economists want to use it for. Even when applied diligently a lot of theoretical inference sets just do not end up working out to actually help DO anything.

I'm sure the smart people here will agree with you , and I, that once marginal taxation reaches a certain level, it becomes sub-optimal to increase taxes. That's what we can take from the laffer curve.

Btw we're just not there yet, regardless of what the capitalists would have you believe.

I agree completely. See previous post: "Government tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0 and 100% taxation. That almost seems like a duh to the point I don't even know why someone why get credit for that idea, it seems almost universal." Like you said, even a fifth grader would tell you that. The misuse of the "theory" by some doesn't mean that it isn't without some truth when applied correctly.

The whole point I was trying to make is that increasing taxes may not make the economy collapse, but there are negative economic effects. That's it. When your tax burden increases, you have less to spend and invest. Moving on...

 

[confettiflyer]

And, if you're poor, you actually do pay a larger percentage of your income in taxes than the middle class and rich. A lot of our taxes, like sales tax and government fees, are very regressive. Do you really think a $100 speeding ticket is very much to a millionaire? Or the $55 or whatever fee it is to get a driver's license/register your car?

The problem with this idea is that once you start going down that road of pairing a crime/punishment (speeding) with someone's income level, you basically start equating the intensity of the action to someone's net worth--basically, if I'm rich and you're poor and we both rob someone with a knife, this proposal would mean that my actions were worse than yours by virtue of the difference in punishment.

This runs counter to the idea that all are equal before the law. We should not be in the business of legislating to correct for differences in income/education level/etc... it's inherently immoral, kind of like Affirmative Action.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

The problem with this idea is that once you start going down that road of pairing a crime/punishment (speeding) with someone's income level, you basically start equating the intensity of the action to someone's net worth--basically, if I'm rich and you're poor and we both rob someone with a knife, this proposal would mean that my actions were worse than yours by virtue of the difference in punishment.

This runs counter to the idea that all are equal before the law. We should not be in the business of legislating to correct for differences in income/education level/etc... it's inherently immoral, kind of like Affirmative Action.

Oh, I don't think we should start charging higher fees for tickets or whatever. It wasn't the best example. But fees are a higher percentage of someone's income if their poor. Think about car registration, driver's license fee, passport fees, etc. Now some of the car registration depends on the value of the car, but some of it is just a flat amount.

I do wish our criminal justice system was more equal, but that's another topic and about as useful as wishing for world peace.

 

[confettiflyer]

Oh, I don't think we should start charging higher fees for tickets or whatever.

Yeah I just noticed you didn't, haha sorry...you took that argument right to edge and didn't make the next logical jump (apparently I did that for you).

But yes, I think that's the whole point of being in that state of richness or not, you can afford things comfortably. If you can't, then that's your incentive to be able to. I mean, I like pharmacy, but I wouldn't be here if I didn't have that drive for self-preservation in seeking out a career that will insulate me from various problems associated with the base of Maslow's hierarchy. That drive comes from knowing I have no substantial safety net and that being poor really really sucks (I know, being obvious).

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You really think it's fair for someone making $125 million to be taxed at 99%?? I think that's ridiculous. If you look at a small business that has maybe $1-$5 million, or maybe more, that is not all cash on hand. That includes equipment and money that goes towards salaries for employees. It seems to me the government doesn't understand this whole concept. The money is not the cash they have on hand. It is all tied up in their business. If you tax a $125 million at 99%, what incentive do they have for keeping their business running??? They could downsize their business, fall into a smaller tax bracket and perhaps keep more of their hard-earned money. But downsizing results in people out of jobs. I think you have to look at taxing even the lowest class, even if it is 2%. We have to stop this sense of entitlement that has been created. The "poor" hate the "rich" (even though many aren't even rich), while the wealthy are supporting the lower classes. It's rather ridiculous. Nobody is entitled to other people's money. I also believe a federal sales tax rather than some of these current taxes would be a good idea because it would affect everyone.

I'm comparing the percentage of income that is truly expendable, Mr failboat. Over 99% of those making hundreds of millions is expendable and, frankly, money they dont need to survive. The majority of money made by people making $15k a year isn't required to survive.

I.E. ... 100 * [1 - (Income - true cost of living)]/income

That's the entire point of a progressive income tax, anyway.

If I was in charge, income taxes for those making over some huge amount...say $5 mil..,all income over that would be taxed well over 60%. No person actually earns that much money. They use economic and capital leverage to take a larger share of money generated by the mixture of capital and labor than they really deserve. The working classes in this country have been fed **** for going on three decades now. The entire system of out of whack. That level of wealth stratification always tends to lead to stagnation when a recession hits. That's why we can't currently get out of this one. There is no aggregate demand from what used to be our middle class and the wealth class is holding onto their money.

Or, more simply...I wouldn't want a putocracy to form. (Oh, wait, we already have one of those, don't we?)

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Haha, again, since you don't use any sort of real counter points, I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about it.

What doesn't make sense about it? Um...the ridiculous assertion that the upper tax bracket being over 90% in 1940...and then slowly declining over severl decades...then all of a sudden decided to cause the decline of American manufacturing due to taxes being too high in the 1970s? You don't see how ridiculous that is? Why the hell were all of these scared capitalists afraid of US manufacturing during the late 40s, 50s, and 60s when it blossomed?

You ain't makin' no dang sense.

As far as the Laffer curve, you still haven't given any specifics or even used logic at any point. The idea is just plain ol' "stupid". I concede, you win.

I suppose you have a point...its not this theory that annoys me, its the idiots that use it for the forces of stupidity. Nevertheless, the reality is that the wealth class has been GREATLY undertaxed since about 1980. And that taxes for the top 0.5% needs to go back to well over 50%.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

So do we want to talk about Medicare now as well?

 

[All4MyDaughter]

So do we want to talk about Medicare now as well?

Aren't Medicare and Medicaid the same thing??? Or is Medicare the program that pays you cash and gives everyone free food?

 

[rxlea]

Aren't Medicare and Medicaid the same thing??? Or is Medicare the program that pays you cash and gives everyone free food?

No, you're thinking of the one that offers 1 million a year and a 50K sign on bonus + new igloo + an associate Dean position at a diploma mill in an oversaturated area and no taxation so you don't have to pay for crack babies that were born because their mothers were denied Plan B at SHC's CVS.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

I agree with the last 2 posts.

Medicare at least has a different set of issues since premiums are paid, it's an entitled thing given to people over a certain age (or have certain disabilities) and the government is pushing more about medicare reimbursements for doctors and re-evaluating the formulas used to pay doctors.

And then the issue goes into the complexity of the program; lets give THE MOST COMPLICATED program to the MOST SENILE age group and see what happens. Plus, this becomes a different issue since it's not based as much on income as medicaid would be.

Unless someone wants to disagree or add something to this?

 

[meister]

No, you're thinking of the one that offers 1 million a year and a 50K sign on bonus + new igloo + an associate Dean position at a diploma mill in an oversaturated area and no taxation so you don't have to pay for crack babies that were born because their mothers were denied Plan B at SHC's CVS.