The US fiscal cliff - would it really be a bad thing?

[Seth]

...

(Answer: because the Obamanation doesn't care about health care, it cares about government control of one-sixth of the US economy as a method of making voters dependent on government so that they will vote for Marxist Progressives out of a sense of self-preservation.)

Why would any Gubment "care" about some individual?

Good question. Government doesn't care about individuals, it cares about power and control and very little else.

It's a business deal. People give the gubment tax and the gubment provides reasonable care.

Except that it's not a "business deal" it's the jackbooted thugs of government coming around with machine guns and stealing money from people who don't want to pay and it's the government providing sub-standard, unavailable, incompetent, denied, rationed and expensive "care," not "reasonable" anything.

No need to keep brain dead grandma or Terry Shiavo on a ventilator for months or years. Extending a dying patient's life for two more weeks: pay out of your pocket.

No need for me to pay for antibiotics to keep you from dying of pneumonia or surgery to keep you alive if you have cancer. Just hurry up and die if you can't pay for your own care, I've got my own health to look out for.

But, religin is gonna save grandmas and fetuses. I'll be happy to pay tax to cover abortions.

And you're free to do so...as long as the majority decides that abortion is legal. If it doesn't, well, that's democracy for 'ya, and you're just fucked.

[Tero]

We will be happy to call off our jack boots if you have "do not apply government healthcare" tattooed on your wrist. All tea partiers can have that. No using my emergency rooms!

[Cormac]

The last resort, when people stop spending, is to tax assets.

There was a furious debate when income tax was originally introduced as a short-term measure.
It's ingrained in the system now. Sales taxes take the pressure off income tax and are easy to collect.

But an asset tax would be a great instrument for stability. The government could always guarantee to pay it's bills. And the asset tax could go up or down, depending on the financial situation.

If there was a deep recession, and the government decided to bring it in, people would start spending, rather than get taxed on assets, which would lift the economy out of recession, removing the need for taxing assets.

The fiscal cliff would be a great time to bring it in. Don't think it would get through the congress though.
Unless the government was broke and people weren't getting paid. Like Greece. But the greeks haven't resorted to it yet.

This is a fallacy.

Assets don't have any "cash". Therefore taxes levied on assets are paid out of money earned - therefore they are an additional income tax.

Ultimately, "asset taxes" a.k.a. "wealth taxes" force the sale of the assets, driving down prices. Meaning that people are doubly punished for investing their hard earned money in their own future.

Assets, for the most part, are acquired with money that has already been taxed as income, and taxed at the point of purchase. Then, for the temerity of actually converting effort into an asset, the state decides to levy additional income taxes.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

The notion that asset taxes create stable tax revenue is completely ludicrous. Not to mention that such taxes are fundamentally unfair, and a complete negation of property rights. They are economically destabilising.

[Cormac]

I would prefer, I guess, a single payer basic healthcare system, and then a private health insurance system on the side, so that those of us who want to get private health insurance (or pay cash for services rendered) can do so. Kind of like how the public school system works with public schools paid out of property taxes and state income/sales taxes and if people want to send their kids to private school, they can.

This Obamacare thing is doomed to failure, almost by design, I think.

That is more or less what we have.

[Tero]

It's only Canada that tries to stop the private side
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden

The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded and decentralized, although private health care also exists. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities.

Many people prefer to have the private practitioner to do the diagnosis, then wait for the public care system to pick up ther procedures etc

[Seth]

We will be happy to call off our jack boots if you have "do not apply government healthcare" tattooed on your wrist. All tea partiers can have that. No using my emergency rooms!

I'll apply that tattoo right after I get a check from the Treasury for the half-million dollars I've paid in taxes in my life, and I'll gladly pay my own way for medical care, just like I've always done, including visits to "your" emergency room.

[Seth]

I would prefer, I guess, a single payer basic healthcare system, and then a private health insurance system on the side, so that those of us who want to get private health insurance (or pay cash for services rendered) can do so. Kind of like how the public school system works with public schools paid out of property taxes and state income/sales taxes and if people want to send their kids to private school, they can.

This Obamacare thing is doomed to failure, almost by design, I think.

That is more or less what we have.

It would be far cheaper in the long run for the government to simply GIVE a gold-plated Congressional-level health care plan to the five million or so people who legitimately cannot get health care insurance than it is to burden the economy with Obamacare.

This is precisely why I say that the point of Obamacare is NOT to provide care to people who can't afford health care insurance, it's about the Progressive plan to take control of one-sixth of the US economy and very little more.

[Azathoth]

.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

Like a sub 1% tax on every share transaction? That would go a long way towards fixing a lot of things. I wonder why it doesn't happen

[JimC]

Lemmings, cliffs...

Just sayin'

[Seth]

.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

Like a sub 1% tax on every share transaction? That would go a long way towards fixing a lot of things. I wonder why it doesn't happen

Probably because capital gains are already taxed at the same rate that the vast majority of middle-class taxpayers pay on their earned income: 15 percent, and because it would be a costly and cumbersome task to assess and collect the tax when it's far easier and cheaper to simply tax the capital gains at the end of the year, and because the Congress wants people to invest in the economy by buying stocks because it's highly beneficial to the nation, so they want to make it as easy as possible for everyone, including middle income taxpayers, to invest part of their disposable income in the markets, which ends up generating far more wealth, and therefore taxable income than hammering investors with niggling taxes just because a bunch of greedy, jealous, envious boobs think it's not fair that people get to make money without punching a time clock.

[Cormac]

.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

Like a sub 1% tax on every share transaction? That would go a long way towards fixing a lot of things. I wonder why it doesn't happen

Such taxes will ultimately end up coming out of the pockets of the ordinary working man. People who think they won't don't understand taxation, or how businesses or economies run.

If people think that this will be a "tax on banks" or a "tax in the rich", they are sadly mistaken, and this is a mark of their ill-informed and emotive response.

But such a tax could be implemented, provided that it was implemented in ALL stock markets simultaneously.

[Cormac]

.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

Like a sub 1% tax on every share transaction? That would go a long way towards fixing a lot of things. I wonder why it doesn't happen

Probably because capital gains are already taxed at the same rate that the vast majority of middle-class taxpayers pay on their earned income: 15 percent, and because it would be a costly and cumbersome task to assess and collect the tax when it's far easier and cheaper to simply tax the capital gains at the end of the year, and because the Congress wants people to invest in the economy by buying stocks because it's highly beneficial to the nation, so they want to make it as easy as possible for everyone, including middle income taxpayers, to invest part of their disposable income in the markets, which ends up generating far more wealth, and therefore taxable income than hammering investors with niggling taxes just because a bunch of greedy, jealous, envious boobs think it's not fair that people get to make money without punching a time clock.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's only Canada that tries to stop the private side
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden

The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded and decentralized, although private health care also exists. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities.

Many people prefer to have the private practitioner to do the diagnosis, then wait for the public care system to pick up ther procedures etc

In Brazil it's the same way. People pay privately for health care. They go to state-funded medical facilities to die.

[Coito ergo sum]

.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

Like a sub 1% tax on every share transaction? That would go a long way towards fixing a lot of things. I wonder why it doesn't happen

They already tax capital gains. I.e. when you make money, you pay a tax on the capital gains.

A tax on every share transaction would fuck up the private equity market, mostly for the small time player. Those of us toying around in the area of thousands of dollars would have to weigh whether to sell or buy a stock against the additional factor of 1% immediate loss. So, I want to invest $1000 in my Scottrade account and buy a few shares of Widget Corporation, which is selling at $10 a share. I buy it, and immediately am down $10. Now, it has to go up $10 just for me to break even. If it goes down or stays the same, I lost money.

There is far more to be gained in terms of revenue to encourage personal investing in stock trading accounts than by discouraging it via a transaction tax. I'd prefer the government kick in 1% - such that if you invest in the market or in a 401k or something, that the government will give you $10 for every $1000 you invest, or even $100. I think I just hit on a great idea. For people making under $50,000 per year, the government should match X% of the investment (maybe provided the money is not cashed out until retirement, or something like that).

[Coito ergo sum]

.

Taxes should only be applied on things that move:

1. Income
2. Point of Sale
3. Transfer of Ownership

Like a sub 1% tax on every share transaction? That would go a long way towards fixing a lot of things. I wonder why it doesn't happen

Probably because capital gains are already taxed at the same rate that the vast majority of middle-class taxpayers pay on their earned income: 15 percent,

Middle class people don't pay anywhere close to 15% of their income in federal taxes. It's way lower. More like 5%, after credits, deductions, etc.