Three Charts that Will Infuriate Taxpayers

[Belk]

Don;t assume it can not get worse.

No worries, I don't assume that.

 

[DieHappy]

Three Charts that Will Infuriate Taxpayers - Deroy Murdock - National Review Online

Your New Health Care System

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8

Who got Stimulated

Since the Recession, Private Sector Employment Tumbled While Federal Employment Grew | The Heritage Foundation

excellent stuff. Right click, save as

The reason companies are posting profits and not hiring is simple, and they've been asked by multiple sources and all given the same answer - they're scared. The dems won't talk taxes until after thanksgiving and all sub-S corps route profits to their personal taxes, which look to be going up. Even going up isn't as bad as just not knowing. And the health care thing, will the insane 1099 clause be repealed, or made even more complicated because Obummer won't allow a repeal and wants even more clauses added to exempt certain companies. And what will they be forced to do for employee health care? Mcdonalds got a waiver, but I didn't get a waiver.

It's a pretty scary thing to think about growing but not wanting the feds to come knocking simply because they desire it.

Simple? You have obviously never talked to someone from billing in a doctors office. I guarantee you that the current level of insurance bureaucracy is anything but simple. Heck, trying to figure out what is covered under your own plan can be anything but simple.

Which is the fault of the government, mostly. They redesign the 1500 at will and force it upon the insurance companies. They write rules about what needs to be covered and what can't be covered. Now they're writing rules about doing it electronically - we have no choice in the matter. We will listen and obey, master.

 

[chaz345]

Simple? You have obviously never talked to someone from billing in a doctors office. I guarantee you that the current level of insurance bureaucracy is anything but simple. Heck, trying to figure out what is covered under your own plan can be anything but simple.

And how much of the complexity in insurance billing is the direct result of government regulation?

 

[lordbt]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know who comes up with the "Tags" for these threads? They have "fail charts," and "right-wing noise machine" for this one. The charts are accurate as far as I can tell, and what 'right-wing' noise are they talking about here? Truth?

 

[JustOneWay]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know who comes up with the "Tags" for these threads? They have "fail charts," and "right-wing noise machine" for this one. The charts are accurate as far as I can tell, and what 'right-wing' noise are they talking about here? Truth?

Yep. The person who posted the tag, and CF staff know who comes up with them. If you or I cannot determine who actually posted one, that simply means it is none of our business.

Are you going to debate a tag? I added my own tag just to put it into perspective....

 

[Belk]

And how much of the complexity in insurance billing is the direct result of government regulation?

None that I am aware of. Most of it is directly related to the fact insurance is very complex and there is no standardization between companies and little standardization internal to different plans inside insurance companies.

 

[Belk]

Which is the fault of the government, mostly. They redesign the 1500 at will and force it upon the insurance companies. They write rules about what needs to be covered and what can't be covered. Now they're writing rules about doing it electronically - we have no choice in the matter. We will listen and obey, master.

Uh, no. Not that I am aware of. I admit I only know about this third hand (My wife works for an eye doctor and I know a couple of the billing people) but my understanding is the vast majority of the complexity is the fact that there are so many different insurance companies with so many different types of plans.

 

[DieHappy]

Yep. The person who posted the tag, and CF staff know who comes up with them. If you or I cannot determine who actually posted one, that simply means it is none of our business.

Are you going to debate a tag? I added my own tag just to put it into perspective....

And of course the person who put the fail tag in is obviously addicted to japanese pedophilia, since that's where the whole "fail" meme came from.

Uh, no. Not that I am aware of. I admit I only know about this third hand (My wife works for an eye doctor and I know a couple of the billing people) but my understanding is the vast majority of the complexity is the fact that there are so many different insurance companies with so many different types of plans.

Well, I know first hand, being a doctor who did his own billing until about 2 years ago. You're right that there are tons of plans and it's complex, but the whole thing gets worse with each new federal statute. New codes, new laws about what information is required, new laws about what has to be covered and what can't be covered. It would be complex without the feds because of all the different companies involved but you could learn the system and be fine, now it's complex and gets even worse every year, thanks to the government.

 

[JustOneWay]

And of course the person who put the fail tag in is obviously addicted to japanese pedophilia, since that's where the whole "fail" meme came from.

I have used the "fail" thingy a few times yet never knew anything about it being associated to Japanese pedophilia. I guess I will stop using it for fear of being labeled....

 

[Belk]

Well, I know first hand, being a doctor who did his own billing until about 2 years ago. You're right that there are tons of plans and it's complex, but the whole thing gets worse with each new federal statute. New codes, new laws about what information is required, new laws about what has to be covered and what can't be covered. It would be complex without the feds because of all the different companies involved but you could learn the system and be fine, now it's complex and gets even worse every year, thanks to the government.

Hey, someone with first hand knowledge, excellent! So how much complexity does the government regulations add to the billing process? Can you give us an idea of what Federal statutes you ran into and how they made things worse?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And of course the person who put the fail tag in is obviously addicted to japanese pedophilia, since that's where the whole "fail" meme came from.

I can see the observation I made in the other thread was correct.

 

[Chajara]

Has anyone got the ones showing the income disparities between classes? The one where the bottom like 20% or something ridiculous doesn't even show up because they have so little wealth?

I should see if I can find those. Those are some charts worth getting mad at.

 

[MichaelHelp]

Has anyone got the ones showing the income disparities between classes? The one where the bottom like 20% or something ridiculous doesn't even show up because they have so little wealth?

I should see if I can find those. Those are some charts worth getting mad at.

old data (2007), but one of the first that came up on google. It really shows how much since taxing the low-end of the spectrum makes. There's very little there to tax

 

[DieHappy]

I'd like to the same chart but with job creation numbers figured in as well. I'd bet the bottom 50% creates about 2.5% of the jobs and the top 1% creates 33.8% of the jobs.

I can see the observation I made in the other thread was correct.

Huh? You made an observation that you weren't sure was correct and had to wait to see if it would eventually be right?

Kinda makes me wonder about the rest of your observations around here...

 

[kiwimac]

Yep and once the public sector vampire drains all of the blood out of the taxpayers we turn out the lights.

I hear the Mexican drug cartels are hiring.

As a former Civil Service employee, I find your comments both demeaning and simply plain wrong.

 

[drstevej]

My post has nothing to do with you, Kiwimac.

 

[rambot]

I'd like to the same chart but with job creation numbers figured in as well. I'd bet the bottom 50% creates about 2.5% of the jobs and the top 1% creates 33.8% of the jobs.

I'm pretty sure those individual billionaires don't create jobs with their OWN money so much as use the wealth of their companies to create jobs.

But I would love to see data that indicates that wealthy individuals use their own personal wealth to create scads of jobs.

 

[Zlex]

I don't exactly see the problem in here unless you assume that people getting jobs in the federal government is somehow a fundamentally bad thing.

It is a fundamentally bad thing.

There is a fundamental economic difference between public and private employment, and that has to do with the discipline of risk. With more than some irony, it has been the fat fingering of possibly well meaning public policy that has been monkeying with the discipline of risk in the (once) private marketplace, resulting in some half-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] soft fascism of half-is/half-isnt public/private entities, monopolists with guns perverting marketplace(financial markets) after marketplace(health care.)

The Tribe is on a bender, attempting to nullify risk, and along with it, the discipline of risk.


There are two fundamentally different modes of participation in our economies: Return on investment at risk, and ROI guaranteed. 'For wages' is an example of ROI guaranteed. You work and make an effort, and at the end of the week, you are guaranteed a predetermined ROI, win or lose. You might lose your job, but when you do, you immediately stop working, and you have a cause for action should your employer try to stiff you for your wages.

The other mode is ROI at risk. You can work all year long, and at the end of the year, there is no guarantee that you get any positive return for your efforts.

Who guarantees ROI for wages? Ultimately, it is folks with ROI at risk.

The 'risk' in public emnployment is not as clear. There is the clear political risk of political positions and political appointments at will, but the vast majority of public employment is not elected. It is like a massive public union, in fact, it is a massive public union. Ultimately, those getting paid in public positions are getting paid via taxation of those in the private economy, and ultimately those in the private economies, in our model, depend on ROI at risk to create circulation of effort in our economies.

By deliberately targeting risk, public policy is in effect dampening the engine that drives circulation in our economies, as in, exactly what we see today.

As in, who in their right mind is going to risk skin in this crazy tribal 'free-for-some' that the tribe is attempting to throw, a crazy model that in extremes is characterized as "the first shift is taxed to pay the wages of the second shift, the second shift is taxed to pay the wages of the third shift, the third shift is taxed to pay the wages of the first shift."

You don't see a problem with moving ever closer to that model of a risk averse, largely socialized 'the economy?' There is a reason that such puddingheadedness breaks long before we get to Nirvana.

When it comes to the discipline of risk in our economies, we are moving in precisely the wrong direction. It is what people do when they are drifitng at a great height at the end of a period of once powered flight, clueless as to how they got to that great height. They got there by letting success succeed and failure fail. Sure, along the way were all kinds of attempts to ameliorate failure.

Anyway, that is what is fundamentally wrong with too large an influence of public employment in our economies; we become culturally risk averse, with some irony. (There is no argument that government workers are scared to death of wasting the people's money on risky ventures. What is missing is the discipline of risk, felt as, peril to ones own skin when taking that risk.)

Nothing sharpens up the focus quite like the threat of pain of failure. Nothing. Not benevolence towards our fellow man, not years of subsidized existence in a university Disneyland, not calouses on our knees from years of praying in church.

 

[DieHappy]

I'm pretty sure those individual billionaires don't create jobs with their OWN money so much as use the wealth of their companies to create jobs.

But I would love to see data that indicates that wealthy individuals use their own personal wealth to create scads of jobs.

Usually those sorts of charts showing how wealthy the top people are depend on rather blurred lines between personal wealth and corporate wealth. Because the two are very interchangeable. Remember when Turner said the top few riches guys could pay a one time 10% tax and pay off the debt? But none of them actually had that much money. 10% of what they were worth was completely inaccessible because it was tied up in stocks and company balance sheets.

And here's the top google result:
Connecting the Dots: How New Job Creation, IPO’s, and Venture Capital in America Are Intimately Linked | Pascal's View

I just skimmed it but it says this:
“Since 1999, over 60% of IPOs have been VC-backed. This is an extraordinary percentage considering that only 1/16th of 1% of all companies are VC-backed.”“… it is highly unlikely that a company that does not take venture capital ends up going public. … Consistent with this success, venture capital has fueled many of the most successful start-ups of the last thirty years. … Four of the twenty companies with the largest market capitalization in the U.S.—Microsft, Apple, Google, Cisco—have been funded by venture capital.”

And of course venture capital comes from personal wealth, and appears to be essential in job creation.