BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #18701  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:00 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
The Chief's Canadian Ginger Ale
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 1,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Would you rather have universal health care for that $1T or let the big corporations keep their stock buybacks?
I don't see it as a binary choice. I'd have preferred cutting the military budget, which is where the bulk of the fraud and waste in the US government spending is coming from to cover the corporate tax rate cut. More income tax comes from individuals than corps anyways. I'd have left those rates alone in the lower bands, and increased them in the upper bands, but I'm also for fiscal responsibility; which is part of why I'm no longer a Republican. I know the move wasn't popular amongst Democrats, but our corporate tax rate was not competitive. It encouraged a lot of the bad behavior that Democrats rightly decry, the shifting of profits to lower tax jurisdictions, the treaty rate game playing, and corporate inversions and restructurings. Lowering the US rate lowered the incentive that companies had to pursue some of the more egregious envelope pushing. Capital acts like a liquid. It will flow wherever the conditions are optimal. That said, Republicans are either stupid or lying if they told you it would spur investment. Supply doesn't spur investment; demand does. That's like day one of Macro Economics. I know I'm preaching to the choir on that point.

As for the first piece of your choice, I'm not for Universal Health Care actually. I think a public option floor like Citizens homeowners insurance would be a more prudent solution. To cover anyone who the market refuses to cover, and provide a nuclear option so that costs aren't driven up by people who don't get routine maintenance because of lack of insurance. Will it eventually drive out private insurers? Probably for everything except boutique coverages. But it will do that more slowly than just wholesale changing the system. The US is a big ship, and it doesn't respond well to yanking on the rudder. The whole system is designed for gradual change. Universal Health Care isn't that, but a nuclear public option is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
And the funny thing is, over time, universal health care actually does lower the deficit.
Do you have a source for that? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just have no idea if it would or wouldn't. It's too byzantine a subject to make a blanket statement on though without some backup.
__________________
Ondrej Palat fan club member

Last edited by dannybolt; 07-18-2019 at 02:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18702  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:15 PM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 7,118
Default

So for a long time, I heard about cutting the corporate tax rate AND eliminating the loop holes. I never heard a word about any of the loopholes being eliminated. Were they addressed at all?
Reply With Quote
  #18703  
Old 07-18-2019, 03:36 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
The Chief's Canadian Ginger Ale
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 1,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnTHalO View Post
So for a long time, I heard about cutting the corporate tax rate AND eliminating the loop holes. I never heard a word about any of the loopholes being eliminated. Were they addressed at all?
Not to be obtuse, but define loophole. Most likely, the answer is it depends.

On the international side, a lot of tax structures were made irrelevant, but as long as countries set their own tax policy and rates and as long as tax treaties are a thing, there are going to be tax planning opportunities.

The layperson may view any tax planning as taking advantage of loopholes, when that isn't really the case. That's why the definition of a loophole is needed in order to answer.
__________________
Ondrej Palat fan club member
Reply With Quote
  #18704  
Old 07-18-2019, 03:55 PM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 7,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannybolt View Post
Not to be obtuse, but define loophole. Most likely, the answer is it depends.

On the international side, a lot of tax structures were made irrelevant, but as long as countries set their own tax policy and rates and as long as tax treaties are a thing, there are going to be tax planning opportunities.

The layperson may view any tax planning as taking advantage of loopholes, when that isn't really the case. That's why the definition of a loophole is needed in order to answer.
No idea what they meant to be honest. Just know that was always the talking point, that to get companies back here we had to lower the rate and eliminate the loopholes. Economics is about as far down my list of thinks I know as it gets, so I'm curious if that aspect was ever handled.
Reply With Quote
  #18705  
Old 07-18-2019, 04:17 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,151
Default

Here you go Dany:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...olding-us-back

Quote:
On 30 November, a team of economists with the Political Economy Research Institute (Peri) at the University of Amherst published a highly credible, nearly 200-page economic analysis of Senator Bernie Sandersí single-payer bill. The Peri study received essentially none of the media coverage lathered on the last such analysis Ė a flawed piece of work published by the conservative Mercatus Center last summer. But hereís the funny thing: though these two analyses came from economists from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they shared a similar finding: single-payer would reduce our nationís healthcare spending bill by trillions of dollars over a decade (around $2tn and $5tn, respectively).
Hereís your common sense check, too: if universal health care were such a fiscal loser, why does every other major industrialized nation have some form of it?
__________________
S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 02
Reply With Quote
  #18706  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:26 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
The Chief's Canadian Ginger Ale
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 1,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Here you go Dany:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...olding-us-back

Hereís your common sense check, too: if universal health care were such a fiscal loser, why does every other major industrialized nation have some form of it?
Thanks. Again, I wasn't arguing the statement, just hadn't seen any support for it (UHC is not a subject that I care deeply about).

As for common sense and other industrialized nations, our economic and political profile as well as fiscal priorities can vary wildly from most of the rest of the industrialized nations, for good and bad reasons. See: the military industrial complex. Hell, the simple geographic size of our country and related population spread makes those straight up comparisons fraught with peril, but now I'm just being argumentative.

I still think that when market competition is allowed and encouraged, it leads to the best overall outcomes, which a single payer might not provide to the same degree. That said, I also don't think healthcare should be left completely to the vagaries of the market, as I don't think life and death should be tied to a profit motive. I think a public "floor" option solves those two competing priorities, IE, people not dying needlessly vs. free market efficiency. I also think it's the most politically expedient as it would require less revenue to cover its cost. At any rate, I'll readily admit that healthcare isn't at the top of my list of things I'm agitated about. I might be in the minority on that one.
__________________
Ondrej Palat fan club member
Reply With Quote
  #18707  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:08 PM
Puckhead's Avatar
Puckhead Puckhead is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,233
Default

It's absolutely "anecdotal", but I've played hockey for 30 years in Tampa with good guys north of our border. They do complain about some "waiting times" for joint surgeries, and other non-life threatening afflictions (dermatology, and other specialties, etc) But, NONE of them would trade their health system with ours, with insurance companies in control of their health. Yeah, most of our workforce have decent private insurance thru their employer, and you cannot in one fell swoop remove that from their safety net. But, perhaps, if rationally presented and defended, we can move to a single payer system sometime in our lifetimes. To our detriment, we ignore the experience(s) of other wealthy, industrialized nations and brazenly assert our system of health care is superior to any other on the planet. For the wealthy, it is.
Reply With Quote
  #18708  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:42 PM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 7,118
Default

I had a mole come off once. Since my wife's family has a history of skin cancer she made me go to a dermatologist. Never been to one so I had to find one. The first told me they have no room to see me. The second said it is a one year wait. The last one in town told me they could get me in in 4 months. This myth that they have to wait forever up there while we can get right in is just that.
Reply With Quote
  #18709  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:54 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnTHalO View Post
No idea what they meant to be honest. Just know that was always the talking point, that to get companies back here we had to lower the rate and eliminate the loopholes. Economics is about as far down my list of thinks I know as it gets, so I'm curious if that aspect was ever handled.
A loophole is something in the tax code that someone else gets to take advantage of. Sounds sarcastic and cynical but thatís as close to defining it as I can get. Carried interest is a good example.
Reply With Quote
  #18710  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:04 PM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Marietta, OH
Posts: 7,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
A loophole is something in the tax code that someone else gets to take advantage of. Sounds sarcastic and cynical but thatís as close to defining it as I can get. Carried interest is a good example.
Yeah, I mean I get the overall concept, I just have no idea what these loopholes are or how/if they were closed with the breaks. Basically i get that definition, but i just dont know anything more specific than what a general loophole definition is if that makes sense.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.