Warren Buffett On GOP Tax Cuts & Consequences

[iluvatar5150]

And yet...... Mr Buffet uses every loophole available to avoid paying taxes and has millions of not billions in oversees accounts.

Sources?

 

[variant]

If business is stagnant why borrow money? I think you'll see more borrowing now that the economy is getting stronger.

We saw massive borrowing actually.

As pointed out earlier many ordinary wage earners are invested in long term cap gains instruments through their pension and other retirement plans, and will benefit the same as the rich do.

The small benefits for wage earners on the small percentage of income they make on capitol gains is nice but it is a massive and completely completely unnecessary giveaway to people with much more money that make all their money in capitol gains.

How you make your money shouldn't matter. Which means if you normalized the system you would pay less on your general wages and more on your capitol gains.

Yes, and it's great.

For a while, then the rich tend to eat their own young.

Right now they are doing a good job protecting and expanding their wealth at the expense of everyone else. They are good at shifting the costs and burdens of society onto everyone else and reaping most of the rewards. This will eventually kill the very system that protects and expands the wealth in the first place.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Latino Men hate going to doctors"

Basically, you're grasping at straws here to defend your opposition to single payer.

Really?

Latino men are much less likely to seek medical care. That worries doctors

Why Many Latinos Dread Going to the Doctor

Hispanics are less-likely to see a doctor, says Census

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In terms of Hispanic women who fall in either the "Overweight" or "Obese" Category...
View attachment 217116

I don't like your numbers. Here's mine.

Special Report: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Obesity

It should be noted that obesity has increased among all groups since this study.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We saw massive borrowing actually.



The small benefits for wage earners on the small percentage of income they make on capitol gains is nice but it is a massive and completely completely unnecessary giveaway to people with much more money that make all their money in capitol gains.

How you make your money shouldn't matter. Which means if you normalized the system you would pay less on your general wages and more on your capitol gains.



For a while, then the rich tend to eat their own young.

Right now they are doing a good job protecting and expanding their wealth at the expense of everyone else. They are good at shifting the costs and burdens of society onto everyone else and reaping most of the rewards. This will eventually kill the very system that protects and expands the wealth in the first place.

Actually from a Christian perspective 15 percent is pretty high (God only wanted 10 percent). And with falling rates for most people 15 percent isn't a bad take for the government.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What are the statistics regarding heights? I'd wager the non-Hispanic white males are also taller than their Hispanic male counterparts as well.

Almost 3 inches taller, so "stature" is a determinate of BMI.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is just one of many reports that reveal the purposeful proclivity for being or becoming overweight or obese by Latino(a) women. There is so much information on this one aspect of Hispanic health that I am dumbfounded that you have never heard of it. That's why I encourage you to read more widely on the topic.

I read this link you've provided, and I must say, I have some concerns with the methodology...but that aside, where is the evidence to support your original assertion, which was "single payer won't work here because we aren't homogeneous like the Euro countries and have a growing, unhealthy, hispanic population"... that's the claim that started this whole debate, and that's the claim that you've failed to support with any studies or links.

Seems like you've purposely sent this debate off in the weeds on a variety of unrelated topics to avoid having to talk about your original assertion and the fact that you have no citations for it.

So I'll ask one final time, and if you still insist on side-baring and avoiding the original assertion that YOU made, I'll assume you're just getting into semantics games to avoid admitting you were wrong and I'll move on to something else...

Where is your evidence to support your assertion that Single-Payer wouldn't work in the US due to lack of a homogeneous population?

 

[cow451]

I know, right? People are claiming the benefit they've gotten from the bill which isn't even law yet, just as people were complaining as to how Obamacare hurt them before its policies took effect. For the most part, it seems that it is largely the same people who claimed these future impacts happened before they could possibly have happened.

Didn’t you post that next month?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I read this link you've provided, and I must say, I have some concerns with the methodology...but that aside, where is the evidence to support your original assertion, which was "single payer won't work here because we aren't homogeneous like the Euro countries and have a growing, unhealthy, hispanic population"... that's the claim that started this whole debate, and that's the claim that you've failed to support with any studies or links.

Seems like you've purposely sent this debate off in the weeds on a variety of unrelated topics to avoid having to talk about your original assertion and the fact that you have no citations for it.

So I'll ask one final time, and if you still insist on side-baring and avoiding the original assertion that YOU made, I'll assume you're just getting into semantics games to avoid admitting you were wrong and I'll move on to something else...

Where is your evidence to support your assertion that Single-Payer wouldn't work in the US due to lack of a homogeneous population?

Here's my post......again. I added "For example", which should have been inferred by the reader. Text in black have been added for clarity.

"You answered your own question (by citing those countries you have automatically drawn the deciding distinction, To Wit) People in these other countries are smarter and more responsible than we are. They are also more culturally homogenous as well; they're all on the same page regarding national social policies. (For example) We have a large Latino population in the U.S. that eats traditional diets that are born out of historical scarcity* in their native lands. These diets are unhealthy, and unnecessary here, yet they persist in these communities, with the resulting health problems."

If you availed yourself of more information on the health of the Latino community you would realize that they will persist in their bad health habits regardless of the type of health insurance they have, thus single-payer, universal coverage won't significantly improve their health.

I used them as an example because I was already aware of much of these facts. I could have easily selected the black community but then the cry of racism would once again resound throughout the thread. Not good.

Side bar. Blacks have worse health habits than Latinos (but you can research that for yourself). Do you really believe they will change significantly with single-payer universal health insurance?

Side bar 2. Do you think whites will change?

If you think any group will change and the health of Americans will improve, you are dreaming.

As long as the different ethic groups are going to march off in different directions health wise changing our health insurance system isn't going to do squat, regardless of how many will then be covered.

* Interviews by 'weight control program personnel' with immigrant Latino women reveal that they are unable to resist pigging out on the fattening foods that are now widely available to them, foods unavailable or too expensive in their native countries.

Side bar 3. When something is obviously true on it's face it is up to the skeptic to offer contrary evidence. It is not the obligation of the originator to defend it.

 

[Almost there]

Regardless of who you've known (and for some reason, it always seems like you have a life anecdote for every thread...amazing how that works out), the reality is 88% of Americans stay in the same income bracket (adjusted for inflation) as their parents... and that the vast majority of people don't go from "nothing to millions, and vice versa". The scenario you're describing is actually very rare so if you've known many of them, your life experience is in no way a reflection of society as a whole.

...but that aside, you didn't address the primary part of my post...which is:

(re-posting)
Reality (from the last two times this has been attempted) has shown us that it's not the way it ends up working out.

For those who advocate this idea...in order to sell me on it, they would need to provide a detailed logical analysis of why it failed the previous two attempts.


If you're certain that this time around, cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy will help everyone, then you need to explain to me, with a logical analysis (not anecdotes), why it failed the last two times it was attempted, and why you think it'll be different this time.

It's funny you mention the number of anecdotes. I actually agree with you. The last few years it's caused me to say that human beings live a long time and, if they are not sitting at home watching TV all the time, they experience a lot of diverse stuff.

It may be that I'm being set up by God to enter the ministry. It's been on my mind a lot lately.

But about this tax bill, you and I actually agree. There is only one, single thing in this tax bill that I think will make a difference, and it is the one most important thing to me during the 2016 election. It is the reason I applaud this tax bill. And it isn't even about taxes.

Other than that, I see this tax bill as another attempt to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. And this video explains why I believe that:

Oh, and that one thing? Eliminating the individual mandate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Side bar. Blacks have worse health habits than Latinos (but you can research that for yourself). Do you really believe they will change significantly with single-payer universal health insurance?

I would agree on that...and had you used them as an example, 50% of the conversation would've never taken place.

Side bar 2. Do you think whites will change?

Most will not...

Side bar 3. When something is obviously true on it's face it is up to the skeptic to offer contrary evidence. It is not the obligation of the originator to defend it.

The claim you made was not "true on it's face". The burden of proof is always on the affirmative position. Had you made the claim about the black community instead of the Latino community, you could make that assertion as there's a multitude of well-known studies and data out there demonstrating that they have much higher rates of heart disease (the most prevalent killer in the US) than their counterparts among other demographic groups. However, I provided an abundance of citations and proof showing that Latinos do not have any unique health issues compared to their counterparts, and you simply refused to accept it and just kept insisting that I do more research until I come around to your way of thinking.

The fact is, you stated that the Latino community was growing, and with the way you worded your statement, implied that they had some uniquely bad health qualities that would negatively impact a single-payer system. I provided data that demonstrated that, if any group was going to tank a healthcare system, it certainly wouldn't be the Latinos as they have lower rates of cancer and heart disease, and longer life expectancy than any other group aside from the Asian Americans.

If "Latinos were just used as an example" as you're saying, then you picked a bad example you should've gone with the black community or Native American community if that was a point your were trying to make.


...but all of this is ignoring an important part of my post, which was that all things the same, single-payer is a more effective system due to the negotiating power. Even if nobody changed a single habit, it would still be cheaper for us, and the government, to use single-payer rather than allow insurance companies and provider to continue price gouging in the name of keeping 10-figure profits in tact.

Rates of disease didn't change among citizens in Canada, France, or Germany when they implemented their healthcare systems, yet, that didn't stop them from reaping the benefits of the vast negotiating power mentioned above. We spend the most per citizen yet are ranked around #36 in terms of healthcare grades when compared to the rest of the world.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Other than that, I see this tax bill as another attempt to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. And this video explains why I believe that:


Oh, and that one thing? Eliminating the individual mandate.

You and I would agree on the runaway debt issue in our country. There are times when deficit spending is a necessary evil, and there are times when, if the interest rates are low and the inflation rates are conducive, it makes sense to borrow the money in 2010, and pay it off in 2030 dollars. However, we've gone to that well too many times (which I'm sure you'd agree with me on)

However, if the individual mandate is the part you were opposed to (and even though I don't think ACA was the "evil marxist plot" that some claim it is, I was still opposed to the mandate on the grounds that if someone is already poor, you're not doing them favors by giving them a $2000 bill at the end of the year), it seems shortsighted to support something that's been demonstrated to have negative effects on two prior occasions, just because it contains a provision for something you support.

That's the bad part about having bill riders in our legislative process. These bill riders are usually unrelated (or at best, very loosely related) to the topic of the bill, yet the riders are often what motivate people to vote for or against the entire bill. Not too different from when there were numerous democratic congressmen trying to attach their pet project funding to the Katrina relief bill, and then accusing the GOP members of being "heartless" for threatening to vote against it.

 

[Almost there]

You and I would agree on the runaway debt issue in our country. There are times when deficit spending is a necessary evil, and there are times when, if the interest rates are low and the inflation rates are conducive, it makes sense to borrow the money in 2010, and pay it off in 2030 dollars. However, we've gone to that well too many times (which I'm sure you'd agree with me on)

However, if the individual mandate is the part you were opposed to (and even though I don't think ACA was the "evil marxist plot" that some claim it is, I was still opposed to the mandate on the grounds that if someone is already poor, you're not doing them favors by giving them a $2000 bill at the end of the year), it seems shortsighted to support something that's been demonstrated to have negative effects on two prior occasions, just because it contains a provision for something you support.

That's the bad part about having bill riders in our legislative process. These bill riders are usually unrelated (or at best, very loosely related) to the topic of the bill, yet the riders are often what motivate people to vote for or against the entire bill. Not too different from when there were numerous democratic congressmen trying to attach their pet project funding to the Katrina relief bill, and then accusing the GOP members of being "heartless" for threatening to vote against it.

I'm with you, but it seemed to be the only way to kill the individual mandate, which will, in short order, kill obamacare.

I was against the mandate solely for philosophical reasons. The idea that you should be forced to buy a thing simply because you are a citizen is repugnant to me. It is also textbook fascism.

On a side note, I've not had health insurance (I'm now 64) since 1/1/2014, and have discovered that health care is really cheap when you don't have insurance. When you pay by visa card or cash it is 70-90% cheaper.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

On a side note, I've not had health insurance (I'm now 64) since 1/1/2014, and have discovered that health care is really cheap when you don't have insurance. When you pay by visa card or cash it is 70-90% cheaper.

That might be the case in some regions...unfortunately I live in northeast Ohio which is a region that's literally dominated by 3 of the nations largest hospital systems (and one powerhouse regional one) and they pretty much have a monopoly on healthcare in this area as they've bought up all of the smaller ones,
Cleveland Clinic System
University Hospitals System
MetroHealth
SummaCare (the powerhouse regional one)

Between those 4, they pretty much own almost every medical facility in the area.
...and the difference between the "cash rate" and insurance rate is negligible I've found...or at least negligible enough that it's not worth paying the cash rate. (it's usually like a 25% difference in price give or take)...they price it just right so that it makes more sense to use the insurance for it.

 

[cow451]

I'm with you, but it seemed to be the only way to kill the individual mandate, which will, in short order, kill obamacare.

I was against the mandate solely for philosophical reasons. The idea that you should be forced to buy a thing simply because you are a citizen is repugnant to me. It is also textbook fascism.

On a side note, I've not had health insurance (I'm now 64) since 1/1/2014, and have discovered that health care is really cheap when you don't have insurance. When you pay by visa card or cash it is 70-90% cheaper.

What’s the most expensive procedure you’ve had?

 

[Almost there]

That might be the case in some regions...unfortunately I live in northeast Ohio which is a region that's literally dominated by 3 of the nations largest hospital systems (and one powerhouse regional one) and they pretty much have a monopoly on healthcare in this area as they've bought up all of the smaller ones,
Cleveland Clinic System
University Hospitals System
MetroHealth
SummaCare (the powerhouse regional one)

Between those 4, they pretty much own almost every medical facility in the area.
...and the difference between the "cash rate" and insurance rate is negligible I've found...or at least negligible enough that it's not worth paying the cash rate. (it's usually like a 25% difference in price give or take)...they price it just right so that it makes more sense to use the insurance for it.

Yeah. The region may matter. I have noticed a bunch of brand new buildings being built in small towns on my commute (It's 75 miles one way) and discovered they were all "Health clinics". You can go there instead of an emergency room. I did that when my daughter broke her arm back in the mid-90's and I had $10,000 deductible health insurance. The total bill, including return visit for cast removal and examination, was less than $280. That was less than the difference in two months' health insurance premiums between my deductible plan and HMO.

It was my first hint at how health insurance could be improved.

 

[Almost there]

What’s the most expensive procedure you’ve had?

Shoulder surgery. $30,000.

One of the problems with obamacare is that it covers things I don't need. e.g. if I get cancer, I will use holistic methods as two of my friends did, both of whom are now cancer free. Both had stage four (one breast and one lymphnode) and the former is now cancer free for 7 years and the latter for two years.

I'd love to be able to get a $10,000 deductible plan that doesn't cover cancer. I'll bet it would be pretty cheap in a free market.

 

[cow451]

Yeah. The region may matter. I have noticed a bunch of brand new buildings being built in small towns on my commute (It's 75 miles one way) and discovered they were all "Health clinics". You can go there instead of an emergency room. I did that when my daughter broke her arm back in the mid-90's and I had $10,000 deductible health insurance. The total bill, including return visit for cast removal and examination, was less than $280. That was less than the difference in two months' health insurance premiums between my deductible plan and HMO.

It was my first hint at how health insurance could be improved.

I spoke with a hospital CEO about his facility doing just that. He said they are able to do this now because Obamacare has brought in cash since they are getting paid for services. IOW so many previously uninsured patients are covered the hospital is providing much less uncompensated care.

 

[cow451]

Shoulder surgery. $30,000.

One of the problems with obamacare is that it covers things I don't need. e.g. if I get cancer, I will use holistic methods as two of my friends did, both of whom are now cancer free. Both had stage four (one breast and one lymphnode) and the former is now cancer free for 7 years and the latter for two years.

I'd love to be able to get a $10,000 deductible plan that doesn't cover cancer. I'll bet it would be pretty cheap in a free market.

Nice that you had $30,000 available. What would you have done otherwise?

 

[Almost there]

I spoke with a hospital CEO about his facility doing just that. He said they are able to do this now because Obamacare has brought in cash since they are getting paid for services. IOW so many previously uninsured patients are covered the hospital is providing much less uncompensated care.

Yep. I think the silver lining brought to us by obamacare is high deductibles forcing people to shop price.

There are a lot of facilities now ADVERTIZING a fill CAT scan with some sort of results interpretation for $399 and even less.

I remember when pocket calculators came out. A simple calculator with crude memory was $199 at Radio Shack. People just saw them as worth that much. Why should some of these proceedures cost tens of thousands when they involve two or three people working an hour or so? Sure, some of them have to pay for an expensive education, but still. Why should it cost that much more than an oil change and tuneup? How about $2,500 instead of $25,000?