We've discussed this before Adav8s28. I far prefer something like Singapore's Central Provident Fund for medical care, including drugs, and Australia's superannuation scheme for retirement. The employee and employer have to pay more into the system. But the programs are far superior to what we've got. Benefits are better. And they don't run up huge entitlement liabilities. Do a site search with username Tiny, or adav8s28, with keyword "provident," "superannuation," or "Ponzi." You might recall that we got into it over whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
See short answers in red text below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28
@Tiny, I will agree with paragraph #1. I think paragraph #2 is over simplified. Questions for you.
1. Do you think FDR was right to implement the Social Security program? No. I far prefer something like the Australia's superannuation scheme, where people have their own retirement accounts. That's better than participating in a Ponzi scheme, i.e. Social Security
2. Do you think Bush43 was right to implement Medicare Part D subsidy? No. He was doubling down on a failed health care system.
3. Do you think Obama was right to implement the ACA (AKA Obamacare)? No. He was doubling down on a failed health care system.
All three of the above are examples of redistributive policies. Does that make the USA socialist? Keep in mind when Bush43 left office Jan. 2009 the DJIA was 7,000 points it is now above 45,000 points. Capitalism is alive and well in the USA. Guys like Larry Ellinson, , Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Bill Gates have more money than they can count. I am okay with that. I just want them to have the same tax rate percentage that I have. The tax rate table says their tax rate percentage is higher. The reality is they are not paying what's in the tax table. Have a nice day.
|
David Splinter, an economist with Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, came out with a piece recently that's worth a look.
https://www.davidsplinter.com/Toptax.html
Your perception of how much tax the highest income earners pay is clouded by deceptive work by socialist economists, which gets picked up by MSNBC and the like and incorporated into talking points of many progressives. They don't count taxes paid by businesses owned by the wealthy. They include unrealized capital gains in income. And they don't deduct charitable donations from income.
Splinter and his frequent co-author, Gerald Auten, who works for the U.S. Treasury, have published papers where they go back and correct for bogus assumptions made by far left economists like Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez.
Anyway, if you take a look at Figure 2 in the link above, you'll see that the U.S. tax system is sharply progressive. People in the lowest quintile pay all taxes (federal, state, local) at an average rate of about 2%. People in the top 0.1% pay at 45%. People in the top .01% pay at 45% too. But when you take a look at the 400 wealthiest Americans, the rate goes down, to "only" 38%. If you're in the top 1% of income earners, then you indeed might be paying at a higher rate. If you're not, then you're probably paying less.
What's going on? Well a part of it is that the billionaires are giving away a lot of what they make to charitable causes. Taxes plus charitable giving eat up around 59% of the Forbes 400's income. If you add end-of-life giving (bequests to charities spread out over the last 30 years of life), then it goes to 73%.
Now, for Saez, Zucman, and many Progressives, who believe the chief end of man is to serve government, I guess it makes sense to ignore charitable contributions. I on the other hand would a hell of a lot rather people like Bill Gates and Charles Koch hand over money to charitable causes instead of the federal government.
With the estate (aka death) tax, the federal government is going to end up with 40% of whatever the billionaires have left after everything that the government stole from them during their lifetimes anyway.
I'd like to see the billionaires keep more of their money and use it to invest and build businesses, instead of paying it to a federal government that's largely going to flush the money down the toilet.
