Will physicians be taxed out the a** if Bernie Sanders is president?

[efle]

government is clearly not needed to negotiate terms for people with marketable skills as they do just fine, government clearly raises the bar of entry into labor for the unskilled which is harmful to them as well. Just look at how many people lost hours when the government "helped" them with a new insurance law.

Far more important than my belief that government makes it worse is the more basic truth that a voluntary agreement between to adults is not something the government should interfere with

This is a pretty bizarre axiology. Most people view labor, negotiations, trading etc as a means to an end in higher happiness. You actually view the process itself as intrinsically good, and would see it continue unmolested even at the cost of great suffering. With this as your fundamental value I certainly can't argue against your position. If I believed a company being able to maximize what it got per dollar of labor was intrinsically more important than the well being of said labor, I'd share your views.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

This is a pretty bizarre axiology. Most people view labor, negotiations, trading etc as a means to an end in higher happiness. You actually view the process itself as intrinsically good, and would see it continue unmolested even at the cost of great suffering. With this as your fundamental value I certainly can't argue against your position. If I believed a company being able to maximize what it got per dollar of labor was intrinsically more important than the well being of said labor, I'd share your views.

Both sides can maximize, labor wants more and employers want more. Neither interest should be more protected by government

 

[el_duderino]

government is clearly not needed to negotiate terms for people with marketable skills as they do just fine, government clearly raises the bar of entry into labor for the unskilled which is harmful to them as well. Just look at how many people lost hours when the government "helped" them with a new insurance law.

Far more important than my belief that government makes it worse is the more basic truth that a voluntary agreement between to adults is not something the government should interfere with

Sounds nice, but when one of the "adults" is a corporation, and the negotiating power is severely and consistently in the corporation's favor, leading to the consistent and severe exploitation of the workforce..... it's not quite so rosy as "hey it's two consenting adults, don't interfere!"

 

[skougess]

Let me step in for a moment and give something for everyone to think about. I majored in economics and things aren't always as simple as "the free market takes care of everything!" because people perpetually act irrationally on the macro level. Here's an example: Imagine you are selling something on craigslist just to get rid of it. You get a bunch of lowball offers, no shows, and dead leads. Finally, two weeks after you have posted, you get someone offering close to your asking price. You sell your item and all is well. Both parties are very satisfied, and you got a fair value for your item.

Now imagine instead of selling it just to get rid of it, you are selling it because you are in dire straights. You are broke and need to sell this item in order to put food on the table tomorrow. Now all of a sudden you start acting "irrationally" and considering the lowball offers. I mean you NEED to sell this item to live! Now you've sold your item to a lowballer at way below a "fair" price. Everyone seems to be better off, but it's hard to call the transaction that occurred "fair." It was more like a fire sale by a desperate seller.

But this is exactly what happens in the labor market. People looking for jobs NEED the job to live! People doing the hiring certainly want to fill the spots greatly, but it's not like they are going to be dumpster diving if the first guy they interview doesn't work out. This unevenness in bargaining created by the job market is why there is a need for government intervention.

 

[el_duderino]

This unevenness in bargaining created by the job market is why there is a need for government intervention imo.

Bingo.

 

[deleted480308]

Let me step in for a moment and give something you everyone to think about. I majored in economics and things aren't always as simple as "the free market takes care of everything!" because people perpetually act irrationally on the macro level. Here's an example: Imagine you are selling something on craigslist just to get rid of it. You get a bunch of lowball offers, no shows, and dead leads. Finally, two weeks after you have posted, you get someone offering close to your asking price. You sell your item and all is well. Both parties are very satisfied, and you got a fair value for your item.

Now imagine instead of selling it just to get rid of it, you are selling it because you are in dire straights. You are broke and need to sell this item in order to put food on the table tomorrow. Now all of a sudden you start acting "irrationally" and considering the lowball offers. I mean you NEED to sell this item to live! Now you've sold your item to a lowballer at way below a "fair" price. Everyone seems to be better off, but it's hard to call the transaction that occurred "fair." It was more like a fire sale by a desperate seller.

But this is exactly what happens in the labor market. People looking for jobs NEED the job to live! People doing the hiring certainly want to fill the spots greatly, but it's not like they are going to be dumpster diving if the first guy they interview doesn't work out. This unevenness in bargaining created by the job market is why there is a need for government intervention imo.

you clearly aren't that good at economics, timing is part of value and nothing has a monetary value apart from what you can get a buyer to pay. If you have 6months, it's value might be different than if you only have 6 minutes. Both are well within the principles of economics

 

[skougess]

you clearly aren't that good at economics, timing is part of value and nothing has a monetary value apart from what you can get a buyer to pay. If you have 6months, it's value might be different than if you only have 6 minutes. Both are well within the principles of economics

Right. So I guess I assumed that everyone wants to live in a society where people are given a fair market value for their labor instead of fire sale pricing. The willingness to pay higher wages is there, but this bargaining imbalance spirals wages downwards across the board.

 

[efle]

you clearly aren't that good at economics, timing is part of value and nothing has a monetary value apart from what you can get a buyer to pay. If you have 6months, it's value might be different than if you only have 6 minutes. Both are well within the principles of economics

You do at least agree that there's a huge imbalance in the negotiations though yes? Walmart doesn't need Crystal like Crystal needs Walmart.

That's definately crystals fault for being unskilled labor, but hey what's she gonna do since she's been working 60 hours a week doing unskilled tasks since the age of 13! Or wait which hypothetical universe are we in? One with government regulation that gave her a shot at becoming educated or skilled? Or one where all that matters is she consented to work at 13, since she needed food and clothes a lot more than she needed to know about biology.

 

[deleted480308]

Right. So I guess I assumed that everyone wants to live in a society where people are given a fair market value for their labor instead of fire sale pricing.

their fair market value is determined by what someone will pay them that week for work, nothing else.

pulling a number out of the sky and enforcing it with the police is not fair market value

 

[efle]

their fair market value is determined by what someone will pay them that week for work, nothing else.

pulling a number out of the sky and enforcing it with the police is not fair market value

The problem is having zero protection for your ability to improve your bargaining position/be worth more.

 

[el_duderino]

their fair market value is determined by what someone will pay them that week for work, nothing else.

pulling a number out of the sky and enforcing it with the police is not fair market value

I like how you completely ignore the reality that the unbalanced nature of employee-employer relations drives compensation and benefits for the more vulnerable down to practically nothing.

 

[deleted480308]

You do at least agree that there's a huge imbalance in the negotiations though yes? Walmart doesn't need Crystal like Crystal needs Walmart.

That's definately crystals fault for being unskilled labor, but hey what's she gonna do since she's been working 60 hours a week doing unskilled tasks since the age of 13! Or wait which hypothetical universe are we in? One with government regulation that gave her a shot at becoming educated or skilled? Or one where all that matters is she consented to work at 13, since she needed food and clothes a lot more than she needed to know about biology.

your implication that no one learned skills before the government paid for them to do so is incorrect

 

[skougess]

their fair market value is determined by what someone will pay them that week for work, nothing else.

pulling a number out of the sky and enforcing it with the police is not fair market value

I knew using that term was going to get me flack, so let me rephrase. I want to live in a society where the fair market value for labor is a wage that people would otherwise take if they weren't near homelessness than one that is consistent with desperate fire sale pricing on the side of the laborer.

 

[deleted480308]

I knew using that term was going to get me flack, so let me rephrase. I want to live in a society where the fair market value for labor is a wage that people would otherwise take if they weren't near homelessness than one that is consistent with desperate fire sale pricing on the side of the laborer.

It is not reality based. I might as well say that employers should use the police to lower payscales to a place they would pay if they could still profit without having the employees. It's silly and you know it. The employer needs to offer enough that someone acceptable in skill shows up to work, the employee demands enough that it's worth leaving their home to go to work. Both will move on to a better deal within reason if offered a better deal.

 

[efle]

your implication that no one learned skills before the government paid for them to do so is incorrect

No, my implication is that MANY people, not all, had no ability to learn skills until protected by the government. Such as 12-13 year old children working in factories all day. Those with resources had plenty of options to continue growing their resources. You see where this is headed...and I'm still waiting to hear if, why and how things would have gotten better in industrial America if we'd taken out more government instead of bringing it in.

 

[el_duderino]

Both will move on to a better deal within reason if offered a better deal.

If only it actually worked that way in the real world.

 

[deleted480308]

No, my implication is that MANY people, not all, had no ability to learn skills until protected by the government. Such as 12-13 year old children working in factories all day. Those with resources had plenty of options to continue growing their resources. You see where this is headed...and I'm still waiting to hear if, why and how things would have gotten better in industrial America if we'd taken out more government instead of bringing it in.

I've already told you that child labor laws would keep those students in school/training

If only it actually worked that way in the real world.

how is that not how it works now? If the person at one store finds a job with better hours/money somewhere else they leave. If a store finds that can staff just as well at $11 instead of$12, they offer $11. (i.e. universities transitioning to cheaper adjuncts)

 

[el_duderino]

how is that not how it works now? If the person at one store finds a job with better hours/money somewhere else they leave. If a store finds that can staff just as well at $11 instead of$12, they offer $11. (i.e. universities transitioning to cheaper adjuncts)

There's an enormous amount of government regulation in employment, from compensation to benefits to hourly limits etc etc etc. That's not how it works now.

 

[efle]

I've already told you that child labor laws would keep those students in school/training
how is that not how it works now? If the person at one store finds a job with better hours/money somewhere else they leave. If a store finds that can staff just as well at $11 instead of$12, they offer $11. (i.e. universities transitioning to cheaper adjuncts)

what's the argument for child protection laws when they're old enough to understand and consent at 13ish?

 

[el_duderino]

I've already told you that child labor laws would keep those students in school/training

Oh, school! Should school be offered gratis by the government, or should children of poor people simply stay at home alone all day while their parents go to work just to make enough money for them to have a bed and food?

 

[skougess]

It is not reality based. I might as well say that employers should use the police to lower payscales to a place they would pay if they could still profit without having the employees. It's silly and you know it. The employer needs to offer enough that someone acceptable in skill shows up to work, the employee demands enough that it's worth leaving their home to go to work. Both will move on to a better deal within reason if offered a better deal.

It's not silly at all, nor is it outside our reality. When unions come into play the bargaining is leveled because the company feels the heat just as much as the laborer. When this happens, what a surprise, wages are much higher.

 

[Banco]

My neighbors fridge wasn't filled in a vaccum either, but I don't have a right to barge in and make a sandwich

No one said your fridge would be under attack, if that's what you're really worried about. Your money simply wouldn't even be yours if it wasn't for the countless amenities, opportunities, and resources that tax dollars and the government provided you with throughout your entire life.

sb247 I understand your stance on politics and your moral compass, but you honestly live in a bubble. You have stated that income is your main motivator for medicine as well - this is not wrong or anti-medicine, but it does put your posts into a context. Your "moral stances" don't mean much to me when I know that the only reason you hold them is so you can pocket as much money as possible.

 

[efle]

No one said your fridge would be under attack, if that's what you're really worried about. Your money simply wouldn't even be yours if it wasn't for the countless amenities, opportunities, and resources that tax dollars and the government provided you with throughout your entire life.

Not the best argument, he could just say his parents would've paid it directly instead of through taxes.

 

[Banco]

Not the best argument, he could just say his parents would've paid it directly instead of through taxes.

He could say that, but that's not reality.

 

[allantois]

Not the best argument, he could just say his parents would've paid it directly instead of through taxes.

And we would have a caste system where no one moves up or down the social class they are born into.

That's the paramount of libertarian "freedom".

 

[InsertMemberNameHere]

The short answer to the question: No.

Also, check out the Vegas odds for the 2016 Presidential Election. Hillary Clinton is currently 10/11 odds, and the next closest is Jeb Bush at 10/3 odds.

Donald Trump is 50/1 odds, behind Michael Bloomberg (40/1 odds) and tied with Mitt Romney (50/1 odds), both of which are not even running for president.

Tl;dr: It's very most likely going to be Jeb or Hillary. Trump and Sanders don't really stand a chance. And both Jeb and HIllary will most likely keep the financial infrastructure of this country relatively the same (for better or worse), so don't expect much, if any, change in the way physicians are paid based on who the US President will be in 2016.

Source: http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149

 

[efle]

And we would have a caste system where no one moves up or down the social class they are born into.

That's the paramount of libertarian "freedom".

well the poor would certainly be perpetually ****ed. Unless sb has in mind a way for poor kids to receive an education if their parents cant pay for it?

 

[el_duderino]

Unless sb has in mind a way for poor kids to receive an education if their parents cant pay for it?

Charity and goodwill.

No, I'm not joking.

 

[efle]

Charity and goodwill.

No, I'm not joking.

Really? He thinks if we let people keep their tax money they'll give it to charities to educate poor kids?

 

[allantois]

Really? He thinks if we let people keep their tax money they'll give it to charities to educate poor kids?

I doubt that someone who is okay with watching their neighbor's house burn to the ground will be willing to donate money to educate the poor. They should also not be surprised when that neighbor comes to rob his house for the lack of charity shelters in the area.

 

[deleted158872]

Will physicians be taxed out the a** if Bernie Sanders is president?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, duh. Please read up on Bernie's positions. What he wants to attack is the billionaire class who actually pay less taxes than the rest of us (and lobby for themselves & advocate for stagnant minimum wages for everybody else) AND the big corporations who have cheated and moved their HQ overseas to avoid taxes -- the 0.1%. Doctors aren't in this bracket.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/

 

[deleted393595]

You talk like money is a god-given right... Money is federal property. Its part of the whole social contract thing. Sure your paystub may say 1 million or 1 dollar, but that's not accurate. Obviously individuals have no claim to each others money, but the government has a true claim to it. If you want to be in the 1% of salary, you gotta pay back for all the things you use in the government.

Wut. Does that mean that the govt owns all of us? Should we bow down to King Obama, the First of his name and rightful ruler of the Americas?

I'm fairly certain we shot stuff at the British because we were against this principle.

What are you going to say next? That rights are derived from the government?

 

[deleted393595]

Do you really believe so heavily in the free market, knowing all the crap it comes with? Medicine is one of the few almost perfectly inelastic services, a lot of people will and do go bankrupt without medicare/aid and die. Are you so selfish and callous? Do you think your right to hoarding property comes before your duty to the rest of humanity?

Medicine only becomes an inelastic market if there's one supplier. There will always be a plethora offering their services.

And sure, emergency care is fairly inelastic. But lets talk about elective procedures, which are highly elastic since people have time to shop around for them.

Yes

*facepalm* You walked right into that one.

 

[efle]

Medicine only becomes an inelastic market if there's one supplier. There will always be a plethora offering their services.

And sure, emergency care is fairly inelastic. But lets talk about elective procedures, which are highly elastic since people have time to shop around for them.



*facepalm* You walked right into that one.

But, there are major issues other than elasticity that **** up views of healthcare as anything resembling a free market. See: Arrow and everything written about his points for decades

 

[ChillDawg]

Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, duh. Please read up on Bernie's positions. What he wants to attack is the billionaire class who actually pay less taxes than the rest of us (and lobby for themselves & advocate for stagnant minimum wages for everybody else) AND the big corporations who have cheated and moved their HQ overseas to avoid taxes -- the 0.1%. Doctors aren't in this bracket.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/

That's a nice thought and all, it really is,but do you actually think it would work?

 

[deleted480308]

*facepalm* You walked right into that one.

didn't walk into anything, I don't believe health care is a right

 

[efle]

That's a nice thought and all, it really is,but do you actually think it would work?

Wouldn't exactly be hard to implement just put a new tax bracket for everything earned after the first five million !

 

[efle]

didn't walk into anything, I don't believe health care is a right

Do you consider life a right?

 

[ChillDawg]

Wouldn't exactly be hard to implement just put a new tax bracket for everything earned after the first five million !

That's assuming that the ultrarich have income the way everyone else does. (They really dont)

 

[efle]

That's assuming that the ultrarich have income the way everyone else does. (They really dont)

Sure so raise cap gains tax past a low level, even easier

 

[skougess]

That's assuming that the ultrarich have income the way everyone else does. (They really dont)

Which makes it even more absurd how low the capital gains/inheritance tax is. Money that is made through little to no blood, sweat, and tears but rather through compounding interest is taxed minimally. As a country, we need to stop vilifying the "rich" who make $100k-$1m/yr in W-2 or 1099 income. It's a scapegoat for those who make $10m year through passive investments.

 

[ChillDawg]

Aside from the fact that the capital gains tax is a double tax (the money was initially taxed as income at some point), but raising the capital gains tax just stifles investment, which is bad for growth. Nobody wins.

 

[deleted480308]

Do you consider life a right?

You have a right to not have others end your life. You don't have a right to steal what you want to extend your life.

Much like you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to demand front page of my newspaper without paying the rate I require

Which makes it even more absurd how low the capital gains/inheritance tax is. Money that is made through little to no blood, sweat, and tears but rather through compounding interest is taxed minimally. As a country, we need to stop vilifying the "rich" who make $100k-$1m/yr in W-2 or 1099 income. It's a scapegoat for those who make $10m year through passive investments.

Inheritance tax should not exist and neither should capital gains. it's no one's business what money I gift to my children and anything I invest, I already paid taxes on

 

[skougess]

You have a right to not have others end your life. You don't have a right to steal what you want to extend your life.

Much like you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to demand front page of my newspaper without paying the rate I require



Inheritance tax should not exist and neither should capital gains. it's no one's business what money I gift to my children and anything I invest, I already paid taxes on

I can understand the counter argument to inheritance tax, but your capital gains tax logic is flawed. Yes you already paid taxes on your principal, which is why it doesn't get taxed again. Only the INCOME you make from investing (which is new income) gets taxed. I never understood the "double tax" argument.

I'm also extremely wary of the point that high capital gains tax stifles investment. Obviously at an extreme it does, but I believe you could triple the capital gains tax and you wouldn't see very much difference.

 

[el_duderino]

Inheritance tax should not exist and neither should capital gains. it's no one's business what money I gift to my children and anything I invest, I already paid taxes on

You seem to be designing a system that is specifically created to create a hereditary nobility.

 

[jqueb29]

Didn't want to read all the other posts and just wanted to say, no matter how stupid our country is, it will never be dumb enough to elect a ***** like Bernie. He's even worse than Obama and Hillary.

 

[jqueb29]

You seem to be designing a system that is specifically created to create a hereditary nobility.

Which is much better than a system where every generation gets set back to zero

 

[skougess]

Which is much better than a system where every generation gets set back to zero

I thought this was the basis for the American Dream? Everyone has an equal chance and all that? No?

 

[deleted480308]

I thought this was the basis for the American Dream? Everyone has an equal chance and all that? No?

equal rights.....not equal chances

I don't have the same chances as Bill Gates' kids and I don't have a right to steal their money to try to make my chances equal. I do have the same rights as Bill Gates' kids

 

[skougess]

equal rights.....not equal chances

I don't have the same chances as Bill Gates' kids and I don't have a right to steal their money to try to make my chances equal. I do have the same rights as Bill Gates' kids

Going to have to disagree with you again. I believe it is more aimed at chances. The whole "if you work hard enough you can achieve success" thing speaks more about chances than rights.

Edit: I also wanted to say I appreciate that this discussion from everyone has remained non-personal. While I feverishly disagree with some posters, I'm really impressed it has stayed civil. Thanks guys!