2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

The Conformist wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Well nothing comes from the individuals pocket though correct? And if it's paid by the government does that not come out of our taxes?

Yes, depending on your situation. Based on the reddit summary, taxes on incomes over $200k go up 0.9% starting in January. Starting in 2014, it looks like there's additional taxes kicking in on Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and insurance companies. I assume this is to help pay for it. Plus there's the fine on people who don't have insurance but could[i] afford it (presumably this is validated at tax time like in MA).

I can honestly say that it doesn't really seem fair to tax the rich more than they already do. Many of those people earn that money from hard work. Also by taxing Pharmaceuticals, medical devices and especially insurance company's raise the cost of private health insurance? And in return force more people to drop that insurance and take up obamacare? Thus raising the taxes for individuals once again? I mean it seems like our nations taxes are going to be through the roof by 2015.

A little history lesson might illuminate things.

Recall that the income tax only goes back to 1913 and the passage of the 16th Amendment. It was originally quite small and levied only on the very highest earners. It skyrocketed for both world wars and has been as high as 92 percent. John Kennedy’s tax cut took it down only into the 70s. Even Ronald Reagan’s first set of cuts only took it down to 50 percent. Finally, late in Reagan’s second term, we saw it get into the 30s and–for two glorious years–the upper twenties. It’s been in the range of 31 percent to 39.6 percent for more than two decades now.
The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

I've got a question, in terms of Obama's health care plan. In all honesty I haven't really taken the time to read through exactly how it's executed, but from the bits and pieces that I do know is that it provides free health care to those who need it. Now my question is, won't private health care providers take a huge hit from this? Private health care costs will sky rocket and it will be harder for people and big corporations to afford it? And once people realize this won't they be forced to take up OHCP and from there taxes will be raised dramatically to compensate for the massive cost of so many people getting health care?

Subsidized, not free; the insurers & providers will be paid via the Federal Gov't, rather than not paid at all (ala Emergency room treat and run)

Well nothing comes from the individuals pocket though correct? And if it's paid by the government does that not come out of our taxes?

Some of it comes from an increase to the medicare tax on the wealthy, and there are a lot of funding sources - medicare is taking a big hit, insurance companies are paying for part of it (remember, now everybody has to be insured - so they're getting a lot of new customers), flex savings accounts are nerfed, etc.

The key thing to keep in mind is that looking solely at taxes doesn't tell the whole story at all. The cost of coverage itself is so high partially because insured persons have to subsidize the mandatory coverage for uninsured people in hospitals. Although an individual may pay more taxes initially (and premiums may rise as the insurance providers take the hit on their end), in the long run the overall cost of insurance will stabilize or actually go down (as those previously uninsured people use their subsidized insurance to seek much more cost effective preventative care, rather than the ungodly expensive emergency care which they are using now).

The net result is that health care is provided more efficiently. More people have better outcomes for less money. And even the people taking the tax hit will get at least some of that back by not having to pay more for insurance.

At the end of the day, something had to be done, because this was all kinds of busted. I don't love Obamacare, but... well, it is "something."

The Conformist wrote:

I can honestly say that it doesn't really seem fair to tax the rich more than they already do.

Just checked on something. 2003 Bush Tax Cut cut that bracket's tax rate by about 2+%. This claws back about half of that. Assuming Congress doesn't let those cuts expire at the end of the year, they're still paying less in taxes than they did a decade ago. If Congress lets the upper income rates expire, that's a debate for a different thread.

EDIT: Actually, even if the upper tier cuts expire, that still puts the rate at 39.5 which is slightly lower than the maximum of the last 2 decades as pointed out by Stele.

The Conformist wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Well nothing comes from the individuals pocket though correct? And if it's paid by the government does that not come out of our taxes?

Yes, depending on your situation. Based on the reddit summary, taxes on incomes over $200k go up 0.9% starting in January. Starting in 2014, it looks like there's additional taxes kicking in on Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and insurance companies. I assume this is to help pay for it. Plus there's the fine on people who don't have insurance but could[i] afford it (presumably this is validated at tax time like in MA).

I can honestly say that it doesn't really seem fair to tax the rich more than they already do. Many of those people earn that money from hard work. Also by taxing Pharmaceuticals, medical devices and especially insurance company's raise the cost of private health insurance? And in return force more people to drop that insurance and take up obamacare? Thus raising the taxes for individuals once again? I mean it seems like our nations taxes are going to be through the roof by 2015.

Considering that tax rates on the rich are some of the lowest they've been in the history of the country and deficits are the highest, why would you keep temporary tax cuts in place? (Unhelpful tax cuts are just subsidies/expenses by another name.)

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oaQrkmOxApI/Th5u8DwpNPI/AAAAAAAAOLg/mAkjL_w545E/s1600/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg)

Also consider that many of the richest individuals in the nation, Romney included, are paying significantly reduced taxes in the form of long term capital gains rates, currently at 15%. Less than an upper middle class taxpayer with no loopholes at 35%.

The Conformist wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Well nothing comes from the individuals pocket though correct? And if it's paid by the government does that not come out of our taxes?

Yes, depending on your situation. Based on the reddit summary, taxes on incomes over $200k go up 0.9% starting in January. Starting in 2014, it looks like there's additional taxes kicking in on Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and insurance companies. I assume this is to help pay for it. Plus there's the fine on people who don't have insurance but could[i] afford it (presumably this is validated at tax time like in MA).

I can honestly say that it doesn't really seem fair to tax the rich more than they already do. Many of those people earn that money from hard work. Also by taxing Pharmaceuticals, medical devices and especially insurance company's raise the cost of private health insurance? And in return force more people to drop that insurance and take up obamacare? Thus raising the taxes for individuals once again? I mean it seems like our nations taxes are going to be through the roof by 2015.

Obamacare isn't some separate single-payer option. For most people who currently get insurance via their employer, 'Obamacare' is exactly the same thing they have now. For people who don't have insurance (or their company drops insurance coverage), 'Obamacare' is the ability to buy insurance from a private insurer via a public exchange. So someone who decided to drop their coverage to buy Obamacare would just be wasting time, as they'd end up buying it from a similar private company (or even the same one).

Johnvanjim wrote:

Also consider that many of the richest individuals in the nation, Romney included, are paying significantly reduced taxes in the form of long term capital gains rates, currently at 15%. Less than an upper middle class taxpayer with no loopholes at 35%.

No kidding. I'd love it if my primary form of income was only taxed at 15%.

Farscry wrote:

No kidding. I'd love it if my primary form of income was only taxed at 15%.

Pfft, look at that 7% rate back in the 1910's!

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

Farscry wrote:

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

They also conveniently leave out that was the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. Oops.

Farscry wrote:

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

The interesting fact that the chart leaves out is that during the highest tax rate times, the income taxable was the modern day equivalent of over $75,000,000 per year (1936-42) and then later income over $2,300,000-$2,800,000 per year. (1942-64) Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Income tax history

Nomad wrote:

Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Huh, that is interesting. I could've sworn the top bracket started significantly higher than that (which I would not find objectionable).

Also interesting on that page (among a whole SLEW of interesting stuff; geez, information density is at a high level there) is seeing that the effective corporate tax rate has hit an all time low during the Obama administration.

Nomad wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

The interesting fact that the chart leaves out is that during the highest tax rate times, the income taxable was the modern day equivalent of over $75,000,000 per year (1936-42) and then later income over $2,300,000-$2,800,000 per year. (1942-64) Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Income tax history

From your link, the highest marginal tax rate in the US was 94%, which was in 1944 and kicked in at $200,000 (roughly $2.54M in today's dollars).

But let's take the tax rate from 1946-1964. Highest marginal tax rate was 91%, and also kicked in at $200,000 (roughly $2.30M in today's dollars, based on 1946 values). When we adjust the incomes to take inflation into account, someone earning the equivalent of $379,150 would have fallen into the 65% marginal tax rate bracket.

Values taken from the Tax Foundation's U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) paper (warning, PDF).

Farscry wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Huh, that is interesting. I could've sworn the top bracket started significantly higher than that (which I would not find objectionable).

Also interesting on that page (among a whole SLEW of interesting stuff; geez, information density is at a high level there) is seeing that the effective corporate tax rate has hit an all time low during the Obama administration.

All Republicans need to do is suddenly shift socially liberal and fiscally liberal (they're halfway there!) and we'll have a name-ideal switch like we did decades ago!

It's also important to look at the idea of 'hard work'. If tax were proportionate to effort, then manual labourers should be paying the least.

And Romney concedes FL. 332-206

While I know Republicans have stated that they're looking at long-term strategies to adjust to the changing demographic I'm not entirely certain they really see a problem with the core of their platform. Here's the thing, while they lost the White House they still maintain control of the House and within states and counties I believe I read an article that said Republicans have around 61% control of elected offices nationwide (though it's quite possible I'm completely making that up because I couldn't find a link to verify that). Either way, they're still getting almost half of the popular vote and they're certainly not hurting on the local level. I don't know that I would describe that as a "thumping". They've still got plenty of power, right now, and I have a feeling the party leaders are going to be talking more about tweaking their message to appeal to this or that subgroup but they're certainly not going to talk about radically redefining or splitting the party.

I wonder how much of the control of the House can be attributed to successful gerrymandering.

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

I think people are pointing to this or that and I just know it is not the complete story. I think you just can't lump a single cause for an election that saw: marijuana legalized in some states, a president reelected with 8% unemployment, record number of women elected, gay marriage triumphant in a handful of states, people in long lines to vote when their homes had just been destroyed by a vicious hurricane, etc.

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

DSGamer wrote:

I wonder how much of the control of the House can be attributed to successful gerrymandering.

I'd say Most.

fangblackbone wrote:

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

Minnesota is probably one of the least gerrymandered states. Our last redistricting was done by a court-appointed panel due to disagreement between the DFL Governor and the GOP legislature. At the very least we don't have any of the squiggly districts that you see in North Carolina, Texas, etc. They're all about as rectangular as you can get while having equal populations.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

Minnesota is probably one of the least gerrymandered states. Our last redistricting was done by a court-appointed panel due to disagreement between the DFL Governor and the GOP legislature. At the very least we don't have any of the squiggly districts that you see in North Carolina, Texas, etc. They're all about as rectangular as you can get while having equal populations.

Bachmann's district is the most gerrymandererd, though; the other districts are pretty solid blocks, hers curves pretty creatively around the east, north, and west of the Cities.

fangblackbone wrote:

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

I think people are pointing to this or that and I just know it is not the complete story. I think you just can't lump a single cause for an election that saw: marijuana legalized in some states, a president reelected with 8% unemployment, record number of women elected, gay marriage triumphant in a handful of states, people in long lines to vote when their homes had just been destroyed by a vicious hurricane, etc.

It boggles my mind that someone like Bachman can be elected period. It scares me.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

Damn, I could only make it through about 3 minutes of that.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bachmann's district is the most gerrymandererd, though; the other districts are pretty solid blocks, hers curves pretty creatively around the east, north, and west of the Cities.

It's not really creative districting when it's just the shapes of the counties.

ranalin wrote:

It boggles my mind that someone like Bachman can be elected period. It scares me.

Her district is pretty much the definition of exurban white flight.

Agent 86 wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

Damn, I could only make it through about 3 minutes of that.

Man, the sound of ice clinking in the glass really seals the deal on this video.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

Wow. That was awesome.
The huge levels of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy were unfathomable but truly entertaining. Makes me want to friend her on Facebook just to not share her posts and drive her into another turrets-like episode.

I made through four minutes of it... But when she said Britain was trying to get rid of their healthcare service, I turned it off.

weswilson wrote:

I made through four minutes of it... But when she said Britain was trying to get rid of their healthcare service, I turned it off.

The government is trying to get rid of the healthcare service. Not because it's bad, but because they're portioning it up and handing it to private providers. Providers that limiting services and lying about nunbers, including how many doctors they have on call.