hill2016
hill2016's Journaldifference between upper class and rich
since my previous thread was so well received...
what I consider upper class: can live off your own investment, able to open a private banking account (assets of at least $5 million), have your own relaionship manager you can call.
the truly rich though have their own family office (if you have to ask what this is, you can't afford it).
the truly truly rich have their own foundations.
so that's why I support Clinton's proposal not to raise taxes on the middle class. because there are people with much more assets who can afford to pay more first. Sanders on the other hand wants to raise taxes on the middle class. i just wish he would discuss his proposal more during the debate so everyone is aware of this.
Middle class is when you have to go to work
Upper class is when you can live off your investments and you don't have to work (you can choose to).
In some cities, $250k is hardly upper class. After taxes, you're left with about $150k.
Assuming mortgage or rental at $4 - 5k a month, that's easily another $50k gone.
With a couple of kids in private school ($20k / year), nanny, housekeeper, groceries, vacations, car, clothes, dining, etc. you're barely breaking even.
Sanders supporters think he is the most honest politician. Why doesn't he talk about taxes needed?
In the last debate he was asked very directly how much he would raise the marginal rate on the highest tax bracket.
He said he hadn't worked that out yet. To be this is astonishing, that he is running on a platform of raising taxes on the rich but hasn't quite worked out that part yet.
Two months to the Iowa caucus and he hasn't even bothered to nail that down?
Socialism means sharing in both the costs and benefits (free health care, free education, infrastructure, etc). He keeps point at Denmark but does he talk about the taxes there as well? Why isn't he upfront about how much taxes he needs to raise from the middle class?
what limits would you have on the free public university thing?
all countries which have free university impose limits.
many students can't even pass high school frankly.
what limits would you place on
- how long you can take to graduate
- who qualifies? is it entirely merit based? what about minority students?
- what degrees are allowed?
- are living expenses covered?
- do you cover professional and graduate degrees?
- do you have to maintain a minimum GPA during your studies?
- is there any lifetime limit to how much you can use?
- do you have to contribute back to society in any way after you graduate eg. higher taxes, public service, etc?
pipe dreams (ponies) just that until I see sensible debate on cost controls, limits, and policy objectives.
On free speech: consider if the Charlie Hebdo episode happened here. Whose fault is it?
Magazine publishes an article satirical/offensive/blasphemous to a religion. Member of said religion gets offended and shoots up the office of the magazine.
Whose fault would you say it is:
- the magazine for publishing the article, even though it was protected free speech
- the gunman
- the religion
The point about protecting speech is that especially when it is hateful or offensive to you that it needs protection most (other than a few limited exceptions e.g. incitement to violence).
Hopefully we can have a rational, fact-based analysis/discussion. Emotions tend to color one's perception of the matter at hand.
If single payer health care saves so much money, why didn't Vermont adopt it?
Just curious.
Bernie supporters could make a lot of money betting on Bernie winning the nomination
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016demnominationSanders is at 5%. If he wins the nomination, you can make 20x your money.
Just in time to donate to the general election.
Hillary has been fighting for health care reform since the early 1990s
Remember that? She was skewered and roasted by the Republicans and the health care industry, so much so that no one tried to tackle health care reform for a decade.
You may not agree with the destination but at least she tried to move the country to a better system. Even that didn't manage to pass.
Now, why in the name of * does anyone think she's in the pay of the health care industry now? Do you really think she went through that experience for fun?
I have NEVER seen any serious proposals from Bernie on where he wants to move the health care system. By serious proposal I mean policy details, transition plans, sources of funding, etc.
But just because he says "single payer healthcare" or "Medicare for all" his supporters get so excited without asking for more details.
Here's a socialistic program I'm willing to pay more taxes on: free lunches for all school children
no exceptions or stigma. Paid by the federal government without conditions on the states.
Does this make me a social darwinism or libertarian?
The US spends $3 trillion a year on health care. How much goes to health insurance companies?
Anyone want to take a wild stab at how much goes to health insurance companies in aggregate as profits (yes, profits), administrative costs, underwriting, etc?
This is the amount that would be saved by going to a single payer model (before talking about negotiating prices, which would be my next question: how much of the $3 trillion is actually spent on drug prices).
And don't forget that in a single payer model, average number of procedures per person will go up so total expenditure will increase.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayCurrent location: New York City
Member since: Fri May 29, 2015, 07:51 PM
Number of posts: 1,772