What a 15% corporate federal tax rate would mean...at the minimum $55 billion additional Taxes!

[The Derp]

The US has a much better cancer cure rate than these socialized medicine countries because the relatively more free market allows quicker treatment. Of course Obama did everything he could to change that.

Bullshit. First of all, the cancer survival rate is reflective of those who actually get cancer treatment. There are 25,000,000 people in this country with no access to that treatment (and millions more for whom that treatment is too costly). So what would their cancer survival rate be? Zero. So you say we have the highest cancer survival rates, yet you leave out the part that it's high because we exclude 25,000,000 people from the calculation whose survival rate is zero. So if you include those people and their zero survival rate, what does that then do to the overall rate? It drops it downward by 8%. Which would mean we are not number 1 when it comes to cancer survival.

 

[The Derp]

<Conservative Bullshit>

It's been 40 years, when is the trickle down supposed to start?

 

[Dragonlady]

[Q


Your comments on insurance would make some small amount of sense IF Americans didn't have the highest health care costs in the world. One Third of your health care costs are Administration. Single payer countries have better health outcomes, longer life expectancies, and universal health care coverage for half of the money Americans spend. So your notion that a free market is better or cheaper is completely false.

There are two components to the high cost of heath care. First is the technological boom. Most of the cost increases we saw in the 1980s and 1990s had to do with expensive technology which saved many lives. Those MRI machines that you see everywhere in the US cost money. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

After Obamacare the cost increases were due to stupid government interference in the free market and that is despicable. Tremendous increases in insurance premiums, deductibles and co payments because of ridiculous government requirements. On top of that you had all that filthy welfare shit for free health care and subsidies that the paying customers had to pay for.

Your comments on insurance would make some small amount of sense IF Americans didn't have the highest health care costs in the world. One Third of our health care costs are Administration. Single payer countries have better health outcomes, longer life expectancies, and universal health care coverage for half of the money Americans spend. So your notion that a free market is better or cheaper is completely false.

Where do you libwits get this utter nonsense holy shit. Everyone who can afford to do so travel to America for our healthcare not these socialist single payer government stupid shit care countries.

No they don't. That's a myth sold to you by the medical lobby. People who go to the US do so for last chance experimental treatments not available at home.

I know of a man who got sick while in the US and returned to Canada for treatment and had nothing good to say about the treatment they received in the US which was more focussed on how they would pay for his treatment, not getting him well. He is a Vice President of the largest medical insurance company in Canada and could have afforded to go anywhere in the world. He chose Sunnybrook in Toronto.

The only person I know personally to get treatment in the US, had terminal lung cancer. Being wealthy, he went to Boston for experimental treatment.

Stop believing the bullshit the medical lobby feeds you and look at facts for a change.

Lib please yank the liberal IV out of your arm. You obviously don't know what the wait times are in these countries with single payer healthcare, or the poor quality of care, or limitations. If government care is so awesome why did congress exempt themselves and their staff? OH SNAP!

I LIVE IN CANADA. I know EXACTLY what the wait times are. When I went to the hospital last month with chest pains, my wait time was under 5 minutes! I walked in handed them my card confirmed my address and phone number was was taken for treatment.

I am currently waiting for knee surgery but I could have had it a year ago and CHOSE to wait.

It's called TRIAGE. Look it up.

Canadian there's a shocker OMG you had to prove ID? Tell me why is the incidence of rape and alcoholism so much higher in Canada vs the US?

Canadians call all sex crimes, from unwanted touching, to forced penetration "sexual assaults" and every such crime is counted in their stats. Americans only count forced penetration in their stats so other forms of sexual assault, short of penetration aren't counted.

American crime statistics only count the most violent crimes, unlike most countries which count every crime. If two guys throw punches in a bar, it will be counted as a violent assault in Canada, Great Britain and most European countries. Unless one of the participants is killed or seriously injured, it will not be counted in the US.

Using the Fraser Institute stats is a waste of time and their data is spurious. They are a libertarian think tank with a mandate to provide data to undercut public spending on health care and eliminate public education. Their survey methods are dubious, at best.

The Fraser says that nearly 30,000 Canadians go to the US for treatment. But US data estimates the number to be under 2,000, and says that the vast majority of those 2,000 were in the US and got sick or were injured while visiting.

The Fraser sent a survey to doctors asking them what percentage of their patients went to the US for treatment. 0% was not an option on the questionnaire. The lowest number available was "under 1%". From these survey results, the Fraser extrapolated that 30,000 Canadians (under 1%), went to the US for treatment.

 

[imawhosure]

<Conservative Bullshit>

It's been 40 years, when is the trickle down supposed to start?

You are just diverting the questions I asked. Explain how taking MORE is better, and how that creates jobs.

If taking MORE is better, then lets tax at 100%-)

 

[The Derp]

The filthy ass Federal government shells out $10 billion a year in education and gets jackshit for it.

What makes you say that? All the Federal Government does is offer up grants that are wholly voluntary via the Department of Education. So what the fuck are you talking about, moron?

You are really confused about the concept of insurance. Insurance suppose to be a risk pool where the cost includes the projected outlays of the pool plus the cost associated with running the system and profit for the company doing the business

What business? All those companies do is administration. When you say "risk pool", what does that mean to you? Because a risk pool is exactly that, people pooling together their money to protect from the risk of financial ruin from medical bills. So why exactly does the administration of that risk pool have to be privatized and how does having it privatized improve or enhance health care delivery? The answer is that it doesn't, because what an insurance company actually, physically does occurs after you've already received the treatment. All an insurance company does is move money while taking a cut for themselves. As much as 20%. So that's 20% not spent on your health care, that goes right into the pocket of the insurer for what? Administration. To this day not one of you goofballs has been able to make the case that a private company administrating payment to providers is better for the patient than having Medicare do it.

You are paying in when you don't need the care and drawing out when you do. It is fine when you have choices and companies competing for your business.

But they're not competing for your business because the insurance company has nothing to do with health care delivery. They are just the administrators for how your provider is reimbursed for your care. In fact, the transaction isn't even one you're a part of! It occurs after you get your treatment, and is between the insurer and the provider. You aren't in that equation, yet you're paying for it. Why?

What is not fine is when the filthy ass government interferes with that free market by imposing stupid requirements that you neither need or want and drives up the cost. Obamacare was the ultimate interference of that market and that is why premiums, co payments and deductibles rose so much for the paying customers while the shithead welfare queens got their subsidies.

Bullshit. If what you're saying is true, there would be fewer insured people than pre-ACA and that simply isn't the case. And I thought you people wanted patients to have "more skin in the game", what achieves that if not higher premiums and deductibles???? You realize half your arguments contradict the other half?????

I m not afraid of the free market. The free market provides me with the best restaurant to eat, the best car to buy, the best computer to buy, etc. If the government would leave it alone the free market would provide us with the best health care at the lowest possible price like it does for almost every other commodity.

You don't seem to know what a free market even is, let alone what a free market health care system looks like. What do you think a free market health care system looks like?

 

[The Derp]

You are just diverting the questions I asked. Explain how taking MORE is better, and how that creates jobs.

You tax more, you spend more building infrastructure...for example.

There, that was easy.

If taking MORE is better, then lets tax at 100%-)

How about instead of being a sophist, we have a real conversation. Is that too much to ask.

 

[Dragonlady]

[Q

Lib please yank the liberal IV out of your arm. You obviously don't know what the wait times are in these countries with single payer healthcare, or the poor quality of care, or limitations. If government care is so awesome why did congress exempt themselves and their staff? OH SNAP!

The US has a much better cancer cure rate than these socialized medicine countries because the relatively more free market allows quicker treatment. Of course Obama did everything he could to change that.

No it doesn't. At best, it's cure rate for cancer is 2 or 3 percentage points higher for some forms of cancer.

In Canada your treatment doesn't end because you reach some arbitrary cap in dollars expended. Those with mental illnesses aren't tossed out of the hospital after 30 days because that's all insurance will pay for. Last but not least there are no copays for doctor visits or hospital stays, but you can pay to upgrade to semi-private or private rooms, if you choose.

The US has the highest rate of infant mortality and maternal mortality during child birth, in the first world. Your overall health care ranking is 34th and sinking.

 

[imawhosure]

You are just diverting the questions I asked. Explain how taking MORE is better, and how that creates jobs.

You tax more, you spend more building infrastructure...for example.

There, that was easy.

If taking MORE is better, then lets tax at 100%-)

How about instead of being a sophist, we have a real conversation. Is that too much to ask.

Why tax more, why not less? And if you want more tax, how much do you want in %, and who is going to pay it?

Are we FAIR? Are we really? Then shouldn't the people who pay NO tax that work and make money, have to at least pay 1 dollar? Don't they get benefits from what the government does? Should not everyone PAY their fair share? That is a Democratic saying, is it not! Notice, the keyword is PAY, not COLLECT because you do not make enough.

Minimum tax if you work= 1 dollar, not get 5000 or 10,000 dollars as a reward for NOT paying in!

 

[Dragonlady]

You are just diverting the questions I asked. Explain how taking MORE is better, and how that creates jobs.

You tax more, you spend more building infrastructure...for example.

There, that was easy.

If taking MORE is better, then lets tax at 100%-)

How about instead of being a sophist, we have a real conversation. Is that too much to ask.

Why tax more, why not less? And if you want more tax, how much do you want in %, and who is going to pay it?

Are we FAIR? Are we really? Then shouldn't the people who pay NO tax that work and make money, have to at least pay 1 dollar? Don't they get benefits from what the government does? Should not everyone PAY their fair share? That is a Democratic saying, is it not! Notice, the keyword is PAY, not COLLECT because you do not make enough.

Minimum tax if you work= 1 dollar, not get 5000 or 10,000 dollars as a reward for NOT paying in!

Not paying federal income tax is the sop the Republicans have given to the working poor in place of raising the minimum wage. Adding in "earned income credits" gives Corporation the added benefit having taxpayers subsidize the wages of low income workers. So Republicans can tell the middle class that the working poor are mooching off them. Fools like you don't even notice the wealthy and corporations making off with all the wealth.

 

[Thinker101]

You are just diverting the questions I asked. Explain how taking MORE is better, and how that creates jobs.

You tax more, you spend more building infrastructure...for example.

There, that was easy.

If taking MORE is better, then lets tax at 100%-)

How about instead of being a sophist, we have a real conversation. Is that too much to ask.

 

[healthmyths]

The US has a much better cancer cure rate than these socialized medicine countries because the relatively more free market allows quicker treatment. Of course Obama did everything he could to change that.

Bullshit. First of all, the cancer survival rate is reflective of those who actually get cancer treatment. There are 25,000,000 people in this country with no access to that treatment (and millions more for whom that treatment is too costly). So what would their cancer survival rate be? Zero. So you say we have the highest cancer survival rates, yet you leave out the part that it's high because we exclude 25,000,000 people from the calculation whose survival rate is zero. So if you include those people and their zero survival rate, what does that then do to the overall rate? It drops it downward by 8%. Which would mean we are not number 1 when it comes to cancer survival.

AND BULLSHIT you are repeating! Where did you get 25,000,000 with CANCER and more ignorantly have no access to TREATMENT?

"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions.
This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.

One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Kaiser Foundation.
And one in four cancer patients or their families said they used up all or most of their savings to pay for treatment.
The Cost of Cancer Treatment: Why Cancer Patients Can't Afford Treatment - AgingCare.com
ONE in eight fit your statement! So out of 11 million diagnosed with CANCER... 1 of 8 or 12.5% or 1.375 million!
DUMB shit!!! THAT is 94% EXAGGERATION! 1.375 million turn down and YOU stupidly said without ANY proof 25 million!
GEEZ are guys really that dumb that you can't even do a simple search on the internet?
HEY dummies... there is a service called GOOGLE!!! Type in "how many people have no access to cancer treatment"!
AND YOU'll get your answers...geez how f...king dumb!

 

[thereisnospoon]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are never going to see a 15% corporate tax rate.

And here's why: "If people wanted to drop the corporate rate from 35 to say 33, 32, maybe 30, we could probably do it. But if you go back to several years that we looked at doing just that, the goal was to get to 25 percent, and by the time every lobbyist, every special interest group in town, representing every major corporation in this country, the tax rate was automatically all the way back above 30 by the time you put everybody's special loophole in."

yeah..We are........

 

[The Derp]

AND BULLSHIT you are repeating! Where did you get 25,000,000 with CANCER and more ignorantly have no access to TREATMENT?

25,000,000 people don't have health insurance, which means they don't have access to cancer treatment. Those people aren't included in your wondrous "cancer survival rate" because that survival is predicated on access to treatment, which someone without insurance doesn't have.

"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions.This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.

Diagnosed...the key word here. If you're not enrolled in an insurance plan, you don't go to the doctor, therefore you aren't diagnosed with cancer. How are you to be diagnosed with something if you don't go to the doctor?

 

[The Derp]

here are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.

No. Wrong. There exist no examples of this. In fact, all that exists are deficits and debt that cutting taxes causes. We just saw this very thing play out in Kansas...they cut taxes, promising growth, the growth didn't happen anywhere except for the debt and deficit, and those tax cuts were repealed this year. Bush cut taxes more dramatically than any other President before him, and the result was a net loss of 460,000 jobs, a housing bubble, and the worst economic growth in 80 years. Take out the economic activity from people using their homes as ATMs and living on credit, and Bush's economy certainly does look like shit:

See below, clearest evidence that tax cuts create deficits...the KS State Budget with the tax cuts, and without (SB 30). You tell me what you see in those final balance lines:

 

[The Derp]

Why tax more, why not less? And if you want more tax, how much do you want in %, and who is going to pay it?

Since the wealthy aren't trickling-down like you all promised they would, it makes sense to tax them more because they didn't hold up their end of the trickle-down bargain. I don't know what the top tax rate should be, but I know it's definitely too low right now if you are concerned with deficits and debt. Most economists think it should be between 50-70%, back when "America was great".

Are we FAIR? Are we really? Then shouldn't the people who pay NO tax that work and make money, have to at least pay 1 dollar?

They don't pay federal income taxes because you cut their taxes. So are you now admitting your tax cutting bullshit ideology was foolhardy? Because it sure seems like it. They do pay sales, payroll, and excise taxes...and those rates & fees are what is increased to make up for the drop in revenue from income tax cuts. Because, math.

Don't they get benefits from what the government does? Should not everyone PAY their fair share? That is a Democratic saying, is it not! Notice, the keyword is PAY, not COLLECT because you do not make enough.

Not everyone does pay their fair share. The wealthy definitely don't. They got a tax cut under the premise that it will "trickle down" on everyone else by way of increased economic activity by the wealthy. Only, that doesn't ever happen. The Conservative belief they would has been proven bunkum time and time again. We just saw it happen 15 yeas ago with the Bush Tax Cuts. Taxes were cut, and the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, while everyone else went into debt.

This is a problem of your doing. This is what happens when Conservatives monkey around with the economy and tax rates. So you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Dragonlady]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

 

[healthmyths]

AND BULLSHIT you are repeating! Where did you get 25,000,000 with CANCER and more ignorantly have no access to TREATMENT?

25,000,000 people don't have health insurance, which means they don't have access to cancer treatment. Those people aren't included in your wondrous "cancer survival rate" because that survival is predicated on access to treatment, which someone without insurance doesn't have.

"Over 11 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with cancer and it is one of the five most costly medical conditions.This forces many patients to make decisions about their health care and cancer treatment based on finances not on what is best for their health," says Dr. Richy Agajanian, M.D. of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation.

Diagnosed...the key word here. If you're not enrolled in an insurance plan, you don't go to the doctor, therefore you aren't diagnosed with cancer. How are you to be diagnosed with something if you don't go to the doctor?

AND there never WERE 25 million people that wanted health insurance but don't have it!!

PLEASE use FACTS NOT guesses which Obama did when he LIED "I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today"

 

[healthmyths]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

 

[The Derp]

AND there never WERE 25 million people that wanted health insurance but don't have it!!

There were more, and now there are 25,000,000 people uninsured. What would be the cancer survival rate for someone with no access to treatment? Zero. So you have to factor in those people into your total survival rate. Your totals neglect to take them into account, which is why your post is inaccurate.

PLEASE use FACTS NOT guesses which Obama did when he LIED "I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today"

Gallup measures the number of folks without insurance and pre-ACA, that figure was roughly 45,000,000. It's now at about 25,000,000 which is an historic low. Thanks, Obama.