Discussion on modern politics

[KingVamp]

Honestly, if they really wanted to move money around, basic income would be direct and more efficient than both tax cuts and some welfare. Automation aside.

 

[Deleted User]

Honestly, if they really wanted to move money around, basic income would be direct and more efficient than both tax cuts and some welfare. Automation aside.

Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.

I guess a similar question as before, but if human beings are wired in such a way that we want to stop working if we have "just enough" money to live a comfortable life, then why does anyone pursue higher-paying jobs? There's evidence to suggest that a UBI would actually stimulate the jobs market, because rather than feeling the pressure of trying to make rent every month, people would be free to quit their low-paying jobs, potentially go back to school, and then search for higher-paying jobs that are much more in line with their interests

 

[Deleted User]

I guess a similar question as before, but if human beings are wired in such a way that we want to stop working if we have "just enough" money to live a comfortable life, then why does anyone pursue higher-paying jobs? There's evidence to suggest that a UBI would actually stimulate the jobs market, because rather than feeling the pressure of trying to make rent every month, people would be free to quit their low-paying jobs, potentially go back to school, and then search for higher-paying jobs that are much more in line with their interests

It depends. For some people, getting thrown into the real world without any kind of safety net really gets their priorities straight. NTM but there are plenty of ways to go to school online for free. after that, there are plenty of ways to test out on most major universities for a degree.

 

[Attacker3]

Yeah, the American for-profit healthcare industry. Ignore the obvious bias for a second and just focus on the text of this opinion article for a second, because it raises some very crucial points: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

Edit: And something that said article doesn't address is that there's just... no profit in curing people. For profit hospitals make the most money out of an individual from end-of-life care, and that's just the cold, hard truth. No matter how cheap it is to produce a drug and how high they subsequently mark it up, it's just so much cheaper to charge families for keeping a loved one comfortable on a cot and morphine rather than curing them of the illness and just seeing them in a year or two for a physical, should they choose to come back

https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
haha oops I think I dropped this

 

[Deleted User]

Healthcare is by far the most nuanced issue in modern politics. Both sides have very strong arguments. Personally, I think a pure free-market system won't work. But by the same token neither will single-payer/free-healthcare.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
haha oops I think I dropped this

Wow, you're right, every country other than us spends so much on healthcare

I'm just... amazed that we as a country haven't figured out how to effectively price our healthcare industry. It's not socialized vs privatized that's the issue, it's literally just that our healthcare system takes advantage of the people that it's supposed to be helping; obviously people are being treated, but not at NEARLY the cost they should be

Source

 

[KingVamp]

Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.

But tax cuts for the already rich is?

But by the same token neither will single-payer/free-healthcare.

I guess you mean by itself? We already have examples of it working and working better than we have now.

 

[Attacker3]

It's not socialized vs privatized that's the issue, it's literally just that our healthcare system takes advantage of the people that it's supposed to be helping; obviously people are being treated, but not at NEARLY the cost they should be

Source

S
I think you missed the entire point of the essay I posted. The only reason it's so expensive it's because of corporatist policies and regulations preventing the flow of new doctors. I have another thing you could look at which explained what things were like, then what happened


You pinpointed the issue: people aren't being treated at the cost they should be. What you did not get correct is why that is. If the government cut all public funding to health care, that little private bar on the graph would stay the same size. Here's why.

Let's say that healthcare costs exactly 20 dollars. Let's also say that the average person has 50 dollars to spend on like healthcare and other expenses. This is too much for most people, and they goes and lobby for public health care. The government agrees to pay 10 dollars of the 20 required to get healthcare. Guess what happens next?

That's right, they raise the price by 15 dollars. What you need to understand is that government aid for anything is just guaranteed money in the eyes of companies. They can just raise prices because that's what they can get away with.

I hope this makes sense, I am very very tired.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If the government cut all public funding to health care, that little private bar on the graph would stay the same size. Here's why.

I... Uh... Hm... I really don't think that there's any evidence outside of anecdotes that supports that that's the case. Again, look at the social spending of virtually every other country vs private spending. Most of those countries have just as good, if not more comprehensive healthcare for the lower and middle class at a significantly lower price. There's nothing to suggest that privatizing the healthcare industry would do anything other than raise the upfront cost, especially for people with poor or no insurance coverage. The reason being, there is no guaranteed funding anymore, so either there would have to be specialty centers built to treat conditions requiring special equipment, or individual hospitals would have to pay for it with money that is no longer guaranteed. Plus, given how high of a markup many hospitals make vs what the cost of treatment actually is, I see no evidence to support that they'd do anything other than try to increase that gap given the opportunity, either by doing the bare minimum treatment or by charging to hell and back

 

[Deleted User]

But tax cuts for the already rich is?

Well... Yeah.

Spoiler

Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).

Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).

Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).

These all say that raising taxes hurts the economy, while cutting them helps.

No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.

I guess you mean by itself? We already have examples of it working and working better than we have now.

Yeah, but our healthcare system is such a botched mess of compromises that literally anything is better. It's like saying you're better at running then the guy who lost his legs.

 

[Xzi]

No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.

Measuring how good the economy is doing by how much money corporations are making is extremely problematic. The economy doing well means absolutely nothing if we don't use the opportunity to raise wages and pay down national debts.

 

[Deleted User]

Measuring how good the economy is doing by how much money corporations are making is extremely problematic. The economy doing well means absolutely nothing if we don't use the opportunity to raise wages and pay down national debts.

How exactly would you raise wages? Genuinely curious.

Also in regards to national debt:

EDIT: if you also want a hard study, here: Randall Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004).

 

[Xzi]

How exactly would you raise wages? Genuinely curious.

How? You mean other than the obvious increase in minimum wage to keep pace with inflation? Currently we have to subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees because those corporations refuse to pay their workers a living wage, so the taxpayers foot the bill.

As for Reagan's national debt:

During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Reaganomics

Trickle-down fucked us hard.

 

[Deleted User]

How? You mean other than the obvious increase in minimum wage to keep pace with inflation? Currently we have to subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees because those corporations refuse to pay their workers a living wage, so the taxpayers foot the bill.

As for Reagan's national debt:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Reaganomics

Trickle-down fucked us hard.

Spoiler

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES, WAGES, AND LOW-WAGE EMPLOYMENT: EVIDENCE FROM SEATTLE
Ekaterina Jardim Mark C. Long Robert Plotnick Emma van Inwegen Jacob Vigdor Hilary Wething

I agree with the sentiment, but it's not gonna work.

In regards to Reagan:

What exactly does trickle-down have to do with debt? The policy worked. We were gaining tons of tax revenue.

Not to mention, but the reason it ballooned was because of the Volcker Disinflation.

 

[KingVamp]

Well... Yeah.

Spoiler

Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).

Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).

Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).

These all say that raising taxes hurts the economy, while cutting them helps.

No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.

Putting aside how helpful "trickle down" economies is, how is giving free money to the rich helpful, but not giving enough free money directly to the people that actually need it not? If the already rich people can possibly make more money with free money, so could everyone else.

Yeah, but our healthcare system is such a botched mess of compromises that literally anything is better. It's like saying you're better at running then the guy who lost his legs.

If we are going to fix it, which we should, it would be best to model it after the better healthcare, such as the Nordic countries or even Canada. Just because the person without legs isn't doing so hot right now, doesn't mean they shouldn't eventually get bionic legs.

 

[CallmeBerto]

All increasing the min wage will do is fuck over those on the min wage. This is an ESTABLISHED economy fact.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/13/minimum-wage-madness

 

[Deleted User]

Putting aside how helpful "trickle down" economies is, how is giving free money to the rich helpful, but not giving enough free money directly to the people that actually need it not? If the already rich people can possibly make more money with free money, so could everyone else.

We're not giving free money. I don't understand what you mean. Lower tax rates=Higher Tax revenue. Also, what makes you think I don't want to give money the people who actually need it? I firmly believe a social safety net is a good thing.

If we are going to fix it, which we should, it would be best to model it after the better healthcare, such as the Nordic countries or even Canada. Just because the person without legs isn't doing so hot right now, doesn't mean they shouldn't eventually get bionic legs.

Eh, more studies should be commissioned before we can come to any kind of serious conclusion imo.

 

[Xzi]

I agree with the sentiment, but it's not gonna work.

National minimum wage has been raised several times already. It "worked" just fine every time. Localized minimum wage increases are something different entirely.

What exactly does trickle-down have to do with debt? The policy worked. We were gaining tons of tax revenue.

Clearly not enough tax revenue to offset economic policies which put us much further into debt.

 

[Subtle Demise]

quite frankly i am a middle class person making a decent wage. If the extra 100 buckos im getting per paycheck (and i am not saying this to be an ass) is gonna make the debt go up 1 trillion, yeah hell no.
I know why some people are happy. they are hurting. However its like these people were given so little and others will make out a ton due to the cuts.

Just a good reason the 1% need 99% of the tax burden.

 

[Deleted User]

Minimum wage has been raised several times already. It "worked" just fine every time.

Look inside my posts spoiler.

Clearly not enough tax revenue to offset economic policies which put us much further into debt.

I'm sorry, what? Either the economic policy works or it doesn't. We got higher tax revenue and some of the highest GDP in a long time. It's not the free markets fault Reagan overspent on military and the banks went nuts with interest rates.