Paul Ryan, Enemy of the Middle Class?

[Vylo]

That works all the way down the line.

Example:

I make more money than that homeless guy even if a greater % goes to taxes.. Oh noes, I can't buy the latest smartphone.

Yep.

 

[Dairy]

Well, as for the middle class and the Paul Ryan Medicare reform plan, the voucher program for those younger than 55 has received decent marks as being helpful at keeping healthcare costs down and providing choices.

Robert Samuelson had a write up on this recently about an article that was published in the medical journal, JAMA.

"Why The Paul Ryan Plan Might Be Right About Medicare"

The Health Care Delivery System Must Be Reorganized If Medical Costs Are To Be Controlled - Investors.com

snippet:

Overlooked in the furor surrounding Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal — a plan that wouldn't start until 2023 and even then would affect only new beneficiaries — is a just-published study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggesting that, well, Ryan might be right. The study finds that a voucher-type system might noticeably reduce costs compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

Three Harvard economists, including a prominent fan of the Obama health care overhaul, did the study.

The study compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucherlike program that now enrolls about 25% of beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009, the gap averaged 11% between traditional Medicare and voucher plans that, under the proposal by Ryan, would serve as a price benchmark.

The central issue here is whether the runaway cost of the health sector, comprising nearly one-fifth of the economy, can be controlled without eroding medical quality. Almost all agree that the delivery system — hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses — should be reorganized to lower the price and eliminate unneeded care. The question is how.

One group favors marketlike mechanisms. Consumers would receive vouchers — payments or tax credits — to buy coverage. The theory: As people shop for low-cost and high-quality plans, competition forces the delivery system to restructure. Hospitals, doctors, insurers create more efficient networks with more coordinated care than today's fee-for-service system.

By contrast, fee-for-service reimburses doctors and hospitals for services they perform; this encourages unneeded tests and procedure...

Additionally too, something to keep in mind is that taxes from the middle class pay for Medicare and many other health services. When more money is going into health care, that leaves less money available for other services.

I thought Matt Miller had a nice mention about that:

"What we can learn from Singapore's health-care model"

Matt Miller - What we can learn from Singapore's health-care model

snippet from his article:

...We obviously can't transplant Singapore's approach wholesale to the United States. But the reason we can't emulate even some of Singapore's success has to do with that iron law of health-care politics: Every dollar of health-care "waste" is somebody's dollar of income. As a stable advanced democracy, we're so overrun by groups with stakes in today's waste that real efficiency gains are perennially blocked.

Any hope for something better starts with tallying the price of today's paralysis. Think about that $2 trillion the next time you see states, citing budget woes, shut the door to college on tens of thousands of poor American students. Or when the next firm moves jobs overseas because health costs here are soaring. Or when the next bridge collapses. Thanks, Medical Industrial Complex!

We return now to our regularly scheduled political battle, which (no matter the outcome, according to some projections) will leave health costs headed to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2019.

 

[Thekla]

As Roberts observed, the Middle Class has been downsized and their jobs outsourced and offshored - find those who support this or its continuation, and you'll find the enemy of the Middle Class.

 

[Assuredcw]

That works all the way down the line.

Example:

I make more money than that homeless guy even if a greater % goes to taxes.. Oh noes, I can't buy the latest smartphone.

You might use a better example -- I think smartphones for the most part are made in China. But there are several domestically-produced items that would result in job losses domestically if enough people had to cut back on their purchases. That's fiscal policy in action -- tax cuts if possible for the people you need to SPEND. That's why the middle and lower brackets would keep their Bush tax cuts.

It's just Economics and Fiscal Policy. These are good things to look up in Wikipedia or elsewhere, if you aren't familiar with them. They are completely outside the realm of ideology, or at least they should be. Both Republicans and Democrats need to demonstrate the willingness to use the appropriate fiscal policy, regardless of the potential political fallout. Republicans refuse to do what prudent fiscal policy would indicate, only to please big donors. That's irresponsible.

 

[MachZer0]

You might use a better example -- I think smartphones for the most part are made in China. But there are several domestically-produced items that would result in job losses domestically if enough people had to cut back on their purchases. That's fiscal policy in action -- tax cuts if possible for the people you need to SPEND. That's why the middle and lower brackets would keep their Bush tax cuts.

It's just Economics and Fiscal Policy. These are good things to look up in Wikipedia or elsewhere, if you aren't familiar with them. They are completely outside the realm of ideology, or at least they should be. Both Republicans and Democrats need to demonstrate the willingness to use the appropriate fiscal policy, regardless of the potential political fallout. Republican refuse to do what prudent fiscal policy would indicate, only to please big donors. That's irresponsible.

Sorry if you missed my point

 

[Assuredcw]

Sorry if you missed my point

That's why Vylo said, "Yep." It really IS IT that you would have to cut back on your purchases. That's a big deal, because in the aggregate, that is how the economy would slow down, and unemployment would go up even higher. That's exactly how that happens.

 

[Rion]

No, I don't admit to it, and I don't think any of the other posters are guilty, either. Proof: we (civilly) refer to them by their actual names, and of course are only describing what they are actually voting for (and against) in Congress.

The proof is always in their voting records.

Look, my point, which you are so painstakingly trying to avoid, is that one can vehemently disagree with what a politician does and believes, and not hate them. You no more hate Ryan than I hate Obama or Holder.

As for your claim of civility, I'm not even going near that one.

 

[Assuredcw]

Look, my point, which you are so painstakingly trying to avoid, is that one can vehemently disagree with what a politician does and believes, and not hate them. You no more hate Ryan than I hate Obama or Holder.

As for your claim of civility, I'm not even going near that one.

But I'm nice to YOU, aren't I?

 

[Rion]

But I'm nice to YOU, aren't I?

No comment.

 

[Assuredcw]

I posted a video for you and RETS in RETS's Democratic Convention thread, Rion.

Seriously, it's a fun video from MSNBC, but you might find it informative, too.

 

[DarkManX1]

Just out of curiosity, if we were to raise the top income brackets taxes by 10% how much does the thread think the rest of societies taxes be raised?

I'm completely ok with raising taxes on the rich but not until we get the 50% of Americans not paying taxes contributing as well.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm completely ok with raising taxes on the rich but not until we get the 50% of Americans not paying taxes contributing as well.

There is no 50% of the population that doesn't pay taxes.

-Dan.

 

[DarkManX1]

There is no 50% of the population that doesn't pay taxes.

-Dan.

Your right, it's 46.4% according to the Tax Policy Center. I don't have the proper clearance to post a link but you can find it with Google. Also to be perfectly clear on what I'm saying I am talking about federal income tax.

 

[Thekla]

Just out of curiosity, if we were to raise the top income brackets taxes by 10% how much does the thread think the rest of societies taxes be raised?

I'm completely ok with raising taxes on the rich but not until we get the 50% of Americans not paying taxes contributing as well.

Everyone pays taxes - and most people have pay US as well as local and state taxes.

But as PC Roberts (cited earlier, Asst. Treas. Sec. under Reagan pointed out), the middle class is shrinking, and the bottom 50% are barely scraping by.

Increase their taxes, gut the economy more.

Part of the answer must be a sense of civic responsibility - as long as people like Romney outsource and offshore jobs (like having SLCity uniforms made in China and Burma, not the US, while being given 1.4 billion dollars by the US govt.), any taxes collected from a group with shrinking incomes and eviscerated wealth will be negligible.

 

[Assuredcw]

Your right, it's 46.4% according to the Tax Policy Center. I don't have the proper clearance to post a link but you can find it with Google. Also to be perfectly clear on what I'm saying I am talking about federal income tax.

This is no glitch. We have a progressive Federal income tax (most people have to pay state income taxes regardless), and some people earn too little and are therefore not required to pay it. I am sure there are any number of people who only make minimum wage, who end up getting some of their payroll taxes back as a refund, and don't have to pay anything additional. I myself got lots of refunds when I was in school. There are other Federal taxes other than income, and there are state and federal income and other taxes. These people aren't able to forfeit any more of their income to provide tax revenue, so there is no point even talking about how to get blood from a turnip.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Your right, it's 46.4% according to the Tax Policy Center. I don't have the proper clearance to post a link but you can find it with Google. Also to be perfectly clear on what I'm saying I am talking about federal income tax.

I know what you're talking about.

It is a lie to frame it the way you did and implying what you meant to imply by it.

-Dan.

 

[DarkManX1]

So, what I'm getting is that nobody can pay another dime in taxes except for the Top Quintile, whom according to the Tax Policy Center make an average of $251,746 a year and already pay 69.7% of federal income tax receipts.

If you look at the demographic makeup of the top quintile we aren't talking about a vast segment of society rolling around in Maybachs. We're talking about people who made their money from a variety of different ways, they are doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and people in finance. Many of them hold advanced degrees and work just as harder, if not harder, than the rest of the population.

There is an admitted need on my part for the government to collect more tax revenue but demonizing the people who already pay a hefty share of the federal income tax isn't going to solve anything.

So, since the first question went over so well let's pose a hypothetical. How about instead of jacking up the taxes on the wealthy we take away the Top Quintiles Social Security benefits when they retire, setting up certain parameters of course (i.e. earning $251,746 in only one year wouldn't constitute being in the top quintile.) Would this be acceptable to people in favor of more taxes on the wealthy?

 

[Thekla]

So, what I'm getting is that nobody can pay another dime in taxes except for the Top Quintile, whom according to the Tax Policy Center make an average of $251,746 a year and already pay 69.7% of federal income tax receipts.

If you look at the demographic makeup of the top quintile we aren't talking about a vast segment of society rolling around in Maybachs. We're talking about people who made their money from a variety of different ways, they are doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and people in finance. Many of them hold advanced degrees and work just as harder, if not harder, than the rest of the population.

There is an admitted need on my part for the government to collect more tax revenue but demonizing the people who already pay a hefty share of the federal income tax isn't going to solve anything.

So, since the first question went over so well let's pose a hypothetical. How about instead of jacking up the taxes on the wealthy we take away the Top Quintiles Social Security benefits when they retire, setting up certain parameters of course (i.e. earning $251,746 in only one year wouldn't constitute being in the top quintile.) Would this be acceptable to people in favor of more taxes on the wealthy?

It depends - tax increases now, or later ?

I don't think the lowest earners should make a significant tax contribution - because they essentially can't.

Raising taxes on mid-low through middle class incomes right now would be potentially problematic; to the extent that people are on the edge financially, this may add defaults to the housing sector and will certainly have ramifications in retail.

Europe should be a lesson here ...

 

[RedPaddy]

How about instead of raising taxes, we start with the elimination of all tax credits? This would ceratinly remove loopholes, loopholes being bad of course.

 

[MachZer0]

That's why Vylo said, "Yep." It really IS IT that you would have to cut back on your purchases. That's a big deal, because in the aggregate, that is how the economy would slow down, and unemployment would go up even higher. That's exactly how that happens.

Seems you really did miss the point