Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[Flash]

BWAHAHAHA!!! God, are you ever gullible.

Here's your Cuban healthcare:


View attachment 123907

I use to post a mostly Brit forum. One of the Brits talked about checking into a hospital for surgery the next morning and having to spend the night in a gurney in a broom closet. That was after waiting nine months for the surgery appointment. LOL!

Don't the Brits suppose to have the crown jewel of socialized medicine?

I'm not sure your anonymous chat board second hand anecdote outweighs tons of studies by various agencies such as the WHO, JAMA, etc. If you do, nevermind.

"Studies" by communist propaganda organs like the WHO and special interest organizations?

That WHO article about US health care that was put out a few years ago was very flawed and extensively debunked.

Of course all of these Moon Bats that quote that sorry shit get their news from The Daily Show on Comedy Central and from Rachael Maddow so you can expect them to be dumber than a door nob.

There are plenty of others, and there are plenty of other nations who do healthcare much more efficiently, with far less cost, with better outcomes, and at a much higher level of societal sustainability than do we.

We trail the rest of the advanced post industrialized world; that's pretty darn "exceptional".

Before you go quoting stupid studies by Left Wing assholes like WHO you need to educate yourself a little bit Moon Bat. That way you won't look like a fool when you post your ignorant garbage.

I guess we know who is being fooled. Idiot Moon Bats like you.


https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf

WHO’s Fooling Who?

The World Health Organization’s Problematic Ranking of Health Care Systems

 

[Montrovant]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

Your OWN link shows the same facts, just using different constant dollars, 1996 for my data and 2009 for your data.

Man up and admit your Right-wing sources made a SUCKER out of you, as they ALWAYS do!

Well no.. $1.3 trillion is less than $1.5 trillion. Man up and admit your a mathematical illiterate dimwit.

According to your link, in 1981 the government had $1364.8 billion in income. In 1982 that dropped to $1308.5 billion. In 1983 that dropped again to $1211.5 billion. That is two years of revenue dropping, which is what edthecynic said. Here, I'll quote his post:

Your own chart using constant 2009 dollars in billions shows a DROP in revenue from 1981, when the Carter rates were last used minus 5%, to 1982 and 1983. So your OWN link exposes your lie, but as a CON$ervoFascist you will continue to lie.

From your own link:
1981 $1,364.8
1982 $1,308.5
1983 $1,211.5

Those are the numbers for receipts given in the Federal Receipt and Outlay link you provided. That seems to be what ed said.

Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from 71% to 28%. It was also made retroactive, so yeah the first couple of years there was a slight decline. Over the course of his presidency this was not the case. Nor is it ever the case when top marginal tax rates are cut. You must give the new rates time to effect the market. What this amounts to is leftist demagoguery and clever parsing of data.

I'm not trying to argue for his position, just pointing out the numbers he brought up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

The claim that Republicans are no different than Democrats is obviously a fiction. Would we have anything like Obamacare if a Republican had been elected with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Not a chance.

Nobody wanted Obamacare. The liberals wanted single payer and the conservatives wanted poor people to die in the street.

Those aren't the only alternatives, dumbass.

If no one wanted Obamacare, then why did the Democrats in Congress vote for it? Obviously, they wanted it.

You are talking about the paid for politicians. I am talking about the people,

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're aware that entire approach to "healthcare" in america came from the Heritage Foundation, yeah?

Jesus son, you are sooooooooooooooooooo lost in illusion.

Heritage did not invent the mandate. There are countries that have been practicing the mandate one form or another.

Oh, other countries you say?

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

Wow! I just read through this mountain of left wing socialist propaganda and suddenly became totally convinced by it! I mean, I've always been a free market capitalist who rejects government controlling my life but you posted this and something magical happened! A little light bulb went off in my head and I realized it's far superior to have a system where the government takes care of you and you have nothing to worry about anymore. Not only that but I feel totally confident allowing you and the sleazebag politicians you elect to call all the shots! I'm certain you have my best interests at heart and there is nothing to fear at all.

Stick with what ya got and watch pard, I'm all for it.

Well what we have now is a fucked up mess thanks to Obamacare. What would be best would be a combination of public and private health care where free markets could thrive and we could meet the needs of the less fortunate. But you're hell bent on Nationalized health care that has failed wherever it's tried, and no one can talk any sense into you. It's like your brain only works one way... Socialism!

That is true. I can't think of anything worse that Obamacare.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Look up the "Laffer Curve" to find your answer.

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

Laffer curve - Wikipedia

 

[mamooth]

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

The US economy is way, way on the left side of the Laffer curve. That's why cutting taxes cuts revenue. Only the most delusional supply-side cultists have faith that, contrary to all evidence, the economy is somehow magically on the right side of it.

Now, a major tax cut does bring in a quick surge of revenue, as rich people rush to cash in assets at the new reduced tax rate. Long term, tax cuts will cut revenue.

 

[bripat9643]

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

The US economy is way, way on the left side of the Laffer curve. That's why cutting taxes cuts revenue. Only the most delusional supply-side cultists have faith that, contrary to all evidence, the economy is somehow magically on the right side of it.

Now, a major tax cut does bring in a quick surge of revenue, as rich people rush to cash in assets at the new reduced tax rate. Long term, tax cuts will cut revenue.

Bullshit. The peak of the Laffer curve is probably somewhere around 15%.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama had him smoking three packs a day, moron. That would make your analogy more accurate.

Obama cut the deficit by more than 60%, Trump wants to start increasing the deficits again. Even though Trump promised to eliminate the deficits, and Trump even promised to pay off the national debt. Of course Trump reversed himself on any fiscal responsibility.

Obama tripled the deficit, moron.

Conservatives and math

Like oil and water

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, that does piss me off.

And cutting spending is the other half. Zero the budget, give more to what is effective, cut what's ineffective.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

Kansas’s tax cut disaster explained in five charts

The law of the Laffer curve is known very well by even leftist Democrats. Even Obama knew about it as he said in one of his speeches when being interviewed that lowering taxes usually increases government revenue, "that while this is true, this is not about revenue, but rather fairness."

The left are NOT interested in creating more revenue, they are interested in class warfare! Without that and racism, they would have lost 1200 seats the last 8 years, instead of 800.

Now I read the Laffer curve expose' quite a while ago, and throughout modern history, it has been very, very, accurate on the behavior of tax rates on the people. I don't remember what the sweet spot was, but I believe it was somewhere in the teens, and from that point, moving it up or down gives diminishing returns and rather quickly turns negative, or a loss. If you read it with all the tables, (and the leftists aren't going to like this) no matter what the tax rate was, the % of GDP (I think that was what the denominator was) never moved more than 1 % or so. But what did change was the size of the economy that % came from. The reason this worked was, when taxes are high, people with money tend to hold it as well as assets because they do not want to pay the tax. When tax is lower, they spend more, and every place that dollar flows through, it is taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.

Now, when I talk about the sweet spot is in the teens, that is over all tax rate of the country as far as on its income. It does not take into account all the hidden taxes that the government has hiding. People do not know about these taxes, so they see it as the cost of buying/selling something, because the price is built in to the product. This is also why every leftist worth his/her salt wants a VAT tax, and would demand that instantly, over an income tax.

Why? Because as I said, most intelligent, leftist, politicians are aware of the Laffer curve. With a vat tax, you would basically receive all of your money that you make, but the prices of all goods would go up appreciably. The tax would not be separate from the product, and they could tweak it easily and you would never know what you were actually paying in taxes.

By the way, in case I didn't make myself clear.........the Laffer curve is NOT based or proved out using an economic principle. What it is based on is human behavior, and how/why they avoid taxes, and how much they are mentally willing to pay before they start fighting tooth and nail to avoid them. It should also tell you why you see disagreements on here so vociferously. One person is getting hosed with a heft of % tax that the Laffer curve says they should, and the other......well the other person is paying less, or none, so doesn't understand the problem, nor care, and insists somehow you are greedy! To balance the Laffer curve effect, go to a flat tax, and now you have virtually ALL Americans united; which is exactly why the Democrats can NEVER let that happen..........and yes, read the Laffer curve and you to, will know it to be true!

For what it's worth the Laffer curve works against taxes being too low as well as too high.

There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative.

Of course there is
Society has certain functions to provide

Taxes pay the bill

You are talking about government, not society. There are no government functions that justify theft.

We the people formed the government and authorized it to raise revenue

 

[mamooth]

The peak of the Laffer curve is probably somewhere around 15%.

Clinton raised taxes that were already way past 15%. Your Sacred Dogma says revenue should have gone down. Indeed, every Republican of the era loudly predicted exactly that, along with predicting the economy would crash.

Instead, revenue went up, and the economy boomed.

How does the Holy Scripture of your Supply Side Cult explain that?

I know you cultists often invoke the ghastly specter of "The Dot-Com bubble", even though it makes no sense a all, and is an obvious red herring. Got anything better?

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from 71% to 28%. It was also made retroactive, so yeah the first couple of years there was a slight decline. Over the course of his presidency this was not the case. Nor is it ever the case when top marginal tax rates are cut. You must give the new rates time to effect the market. What this amounts to is leftist demagoguery and clever parsing of data.

Except over the course of his regime St Ronnie RAISED taxes repeatedly, except the top marginal rate, on everything from gas to even social security benefits, that's right not only did Reagan raise payroll taxes he was the one who started taxing you when you collected your benefits, too. Only after he raised taxes did revenue and the partisan Right-wing demagoguery is leaving that fact out!!!

 

[edthecynic]

There was also a massive recession at the beginning of his term. Those tend to reduce government revenues

Yeah, the recession St Ronnie started!

 

[edthecynic]

Obama tripled the deficit, moron.

No that was Reagan,

 

[P F Tinmore]

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

The US economy is way, way on the left side of the Laffer curve. That's why cutting taxes cuts revenue. Only the most delusional supply-side cultists have faith that, contrary to all evidence, the economy is somehow magically on the right side of it.

Now, a major tax cut does bring in a quick surge of revenue, as rich people rush to cash in assets at the new reduced tax rate. Long term, tax cuts will cut revenue.

Bullshit. The peak of the Laffer curve is probably somewhere around 15%.

That would only be true if there was a shortage of investment capital. Now there is a glut, so right of center would be appropriate.

 

[bripat9643]

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

The US economy is way, way on the left side of the Laffer curve. That's why cutting taxes cuts revenue. Only the most delusional supply-side cultists have faith that, contrary to all evidence, the economy is somehow magically on the right side of it.

Now, a major tax cut does bring in a quick surge of revenue, as rich people rush to cash in assets at the new reduced tax rate. Long term, tax cuts will cut revenue.

Bullshit. The peak of the Laffer curve is probably somewhere around 15%.

That would only be true if there was a shortage of investment capital. Now there is a glut, so right of center would be appropriate.

The Laffer curve has no connection with the relative abundance of investment capital

 

[bripat9643]

Obama tripled the deficit, moron.

No that was Reagan,

Wrong. It was Obama. The deficit went from $500 billion to $1500 billion after he ascended the throne.

 

[danielpalos]

Look up the "Laffer Curve" to find your answer.

Every time I looked up Laffer, it would ask "do you mean LAUGHTER?"

We are "on the wrong side of the curve" if our debt keeps going up.

 

[danielpalos]

The Government needs to make cuts FIRST.......before they lower the tax rate

do both at the same time

That is the way it is supposed to be done

You don't go to your boss and ask him to cut your hours and then try to figure which bills will get paid

You cut your bills first and then decide you can work less hours

that works great when you are earning your own money but government doesn't earn its own money it TAKES money from us. If we say it has to take less then that's how it is going to be

First, the drug war, right wingers.

do you have a short and long term memory deficiency?

I have told you multiple times that I think all drugs should be legalized

then, stop complaining about taxes until we abolish the drug war.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives believe that the government IS the economy, that's why they have a 100% Fail guarantee

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from 71% to 28%. It was also made retroactive, so yeah the first couple of years there was a slight decline. Over the course of his presidency this was not the case. Nor is it ever the case when top marginal tax rates are cut. You must give the new rates time to effect the market. What this amounts to is leftist demagoguery and clever parsing of data.

Except over the course of his regime St Ronnie RAISED taxes repeatedly, except the top marginal rate, on everything from gas to even social security benefits, that's right not only did Reagan raise payroll taxes he was the one who started taxing you when you collected your benefits, too. Only after he raised taxes did revenue and the partisan Right-wing demagoguery is leaving that fact out!!!

Where were taxes when Reagan entered office, where were they when he left?