Funding 'Medicare-for-all' with taxes on the rich 'impossible,' study says

Again, it took a constitutional amendment to put a tax on income, a direct tax, in place, it will take the same for a wealth tax, a direct tax. You can't just wish that away.

And of course how do you enforce it, who is going to go out and assess the value of everything the people subject to it own? How fast do you think those assessment will be challenged in court. It can take YEARS for the inheritance tax to be levied on the estate of a wealthy person when they die because of all the accountants it takes to determine the value of that estate.

 

And Biden says the spending will be even higher, up to $60B, is he lying?

"The political vulnerability of all this isn’t lost on Ms. Warren’s Democratic competitors. A spokeswoman for Joe Biden said Saturday that Ms. Warren is “lowballing the cost of her plan by well over $10 trillion” and isn’t telling the truth about her taxes “that would come out of workers’ pockets.” The likeliest outcome, if her plan ever became law, would be a value-added consumption tax on the middle class."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-has-a-fantasy-plan-11572822962

 

When she is forcing sales of assets, the value of those assets will reduce, and that's our 401k's and retirement investments. As for her claim that all the folks out of jobs will sell auto insurance, you are right, she is being dismissive, essentially the Left's previous dismissing response of the "they will learn to code". Interestingly they also decided that this was a completely inappropriate response when we repeated it back to laid off media folks.

I'm horrified that she wants to take away Medicare Advantage plans from retired Seniors.

She exemplifies the self-entitled ignorant self-righteous totalitarianism that infects the Left. As Ben Franklin warned us, the price of keeping our Republic is eternal vigilance. This twisted maniacal personality type will forever be a threat that must be stood against in order to keep our Freedom and Liberty. It's interesting that at the same time the Democrat House is trying to render the presidency dependent on a bitterly hateful partisan majority in the House. Yet another attack on Separation of Powers that restrains Federal Power and preserves our Freedom.

 

Judges have made what should be a Constitutional Amendment level changes to our Constitution in the past, they could do so again. Congress, quite frankly, did next to nothing in the face of these usurpations.

 

Not with such a precedent as the 16th Amendment

 

Ideas don't have to be good ones to get passed.

 

And another article showing the folly of Warren and Sanders wealth tax scheme

Where Wealth Taxes Failed
Here’s a lesson from Europe that Warren and Sanders ignore.

Bernie Sanders often points to Europe as his economic model, but there’s one lesson from the Continent that he and Elizabeth Warren want to ignore. Europe has tried and mostly rejected the wealth taxes that the two presidential candidates are now promising for America.

Senator Warren’s plan sets an annual 2% tax on assets above $50 million, and the rate rises to 6% for billionaires. Bernie Sanders wants to tax joint filers’ wealth between $32 million and $10 billion at rates of 1% to 8%. His advisers brag that this could wipe out half a billionaire’s wealth in 15 years. The candidates say these taxes will deliver “justice” and revenue to finance their vast new spending plans. That’s also what Europe’s socialists said only to find it didn’t work:

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-w...xes/3B2B2AB5-9132-404D-8770-19DFAE7B8760.html

"
Bernie Sanders often points to Europe as his economic model, but there’s one lesson from the Continent that he and Elizabeth Warren want to ignore. Europe has tried and mostly rejected the wealth taxes that the two presidential candidates are now promising for America.

Senator Warren’s plan sets an annual 2% tax on assets above $50 million, and the rate rises to 6% for billionaires. Bernie Sanders wants to tax joint filers’ wealth between $32 million and $10 billion at rates of 1% to 8%. His advisers brag that this could wipe out half a billionaire’s wealth in 15 years. The candidates say these taxes will deliver “justice” and revenue to finance their vast new spending plans. That’s also what Europe’s socialists said only to find it didn’t work:...

..The best argument against a wealth tax is moral. It is a confiscatory tax on the assets from work, thrift and investment that have already been taxed at least once as individual or corporate income, and perhaps again as a capital gain or death tax. The European experience shows that it also fails in practice. The question is how much economic damage comes first."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-wealth-taxes-failed-11572910833

 

Here's more:

 

Medicare-for-All Insults Our Intelligence

 

Yes, further, the wealthy have no problem borrowing at less than 6%, so they simply need to load up with loans that offset their net worth, and the surge in loan demand will drive up borrowing costs for the Middle Class, a cost to the middle class that doesn't even fund her boon-doggle.

 

If health care is defined to be free band-aids to everyone and nothing more, sure, the government could fund it. Knowing how inefficient and corrupt the government is, the only way they'll be able to pay for it is to deny some people some services. Your life will be in the hands of a bureaucrat who will decide your fate. Rich people will still be able to get the care they want either by buying private services or, if banned, going outside the country. Poor people will just have to die.

 

All they have to do is
1. stop pandering to medical cartel, i.e. allow unlimited number of medical providers, drug re-import and excessive regulation.
2. lift an unconstitutional ban on Medicare.
That is it
The bad thing is that people do not understand what is going on, why health care cost is so high, so they demand nothing from the government.

 

I don't understand the right on this. If you tax corporations, the right says that we consumers pay that in pass along costs. How come we consumers don't pay the pass along costs that are imposed on business to provide health insurance for the employees? The nation spends 3 tril a year now, with medicare for all it will still spend 3 trill, whether it is tax dollars or premiums that are passed along in the price of consumer goods. The right seems to want it to appear that health insurance cost for employees is paid by the tooth fairy and not American consumers. Whether the tax is paid by American consumers hidden in the price of goods or added as a tax. malkes no diff to me as a consumer we pay 3 trill now and will pay 3 trill under medicare for all.

And what does the population size have to do with it. medical costs are per capita.

 

We are denying it to 30 mill now. Right now your life is in the hands of some insurance exec if they decide to cover your treatment.
You tell your insurance company you want to go to mass general or the Cleveland clinic or John Hopkins. And get back to me.

 

Because right now medical costs are not visually in your face. You have no idea of what your getting billed for or what some other provider charges. You buy stuff without knowing the price.

 

That is where the root cause of the problem, government funnels money to corporations in form of tax breaks, so corporations can buy health care insurances for their employees (i.e. enslave their employees). It is just outright theft of public money. That is exactly why ban on Medicare should be lifted. If Medicare become available to everyone than government will not have to pay tax break to businesses, as a result those 20 trillions will be actually may be 3 trillions or even less.

 

That is why nobody on the right disputes that the nation is already paying the 2 trill now, it is just that they can't see it so they don't think it is "realy there and being paid by them selves" same as fed withholding, if they paid you the full wages and made you right a check out every week, you would be much more hesitant and more likely to vote for yourself.

 

I dunno, according to dumb Bernie and the Squaw the rich can pay for everything and anything, I mean they are democrats they wouldn't lie to us would they?

 

Both parties are for themselves and their ilk more than they are for everyday type Americans. But I do agree that the rich should pay a percentage of their income much closer to the historical percentage, Hell just go back to the rates after Reagans 8 years adjusted for inflation..

 

And the WSJ offers another critique of the "wealth tax" which everything Warren is promising depends on.

First they note the claim that it would "only" apply to the very wealthy giving comfort to the masses noting that the progressives use that same line on the income tax which was only going to apply to the top 2% of income earners. Does it only apply to the top 2% of income earners now?

"“Gullible” is inadequate to describe anyone who believes Ms. Warren and other progressives would resist the temptation to apply a wealth tax to a much broader swath of savers."

Then the problem as I have noted elsewhere of assessing the wealth to be taxed as 9 of the 12 European countries to institute one soon found out the impracticability of doing so. Do little research on large estates and the years and years it takes to finally assess the value of those estates for the estate taxes. The cost involved and the court cases etc etc. And the problem that most wealthy people do not have large swatches of cash sitting around their wealth is in illiquid assets. Mrs. Warrens answer to that is to allow the taxpayer to turn over illiquid assets and then the government would sell them, as if the government bureaucrats are experts at such liquidations. And that means if the assets are in a private business soon the business own will have lots of partners they neither know or even want. There goes the family business. The family land. The family houses.

" Is it any wonder that, as our European friends learned, wealthy people flee to other countries to avoid the tax?"

And then

"The wealth tax would also increase the cost of capital across the economy because investors subject to the tax would require a higher rate of return for the same level of risk. The need to seek higher returns could discourage investments in factories, equipment and other job-creating projects that might have been viable without the surtax.


The 10-year Treasury note currently yields less than the 2% drag Ms. Warren wants to impose on savings. So investors subject to the wealth tax, unable to preserve capital by investing in Treasurys, would require higher-yield investments, making it harder for Washington to fund its deficits."

And all those wealthy people would be seeking illiquid assets which could be undervalued and removing capital for the equities and securities markets making less capital for investment into new or expanding businesses. Who will that hurt with equities fall in prices. How about your 401k or IRA or pension fund?

And they "just 2 cents" canard?

"The line has worked as political marketing, but it’s either dishonest or mathematically illiterate. On Sunday, Ms. Warren retweeted a statement that misrepresented her wealth tax as an income tax, saying it would apply to people who earn $50 million a year. It actually applies to a much larger group—those whose net worth exceeds $50 million."

And

"Perhaps the worst consequence for the economy would be the siphoning of savings from smart investors to bureaucratic spenders. America prospers in the long run when the market allocates capital to the companies and technologies of tomorrow, not when the government centralizes capital in Washington to be wasted or redistributed. Contrary to Keynesian mythology, living standards are increased by savings and investment, not consumption."

It's a horrible idea being promoted by and economic illiterate on the unknowing masses playing off jealousy and envy which will never produce the revenues she claims and will have HUGE negative effects on the economy and everyone's future.

Warren’s ‘2 Cents’ Come at Your Expense
https://www.wsj.com/articles/warrens-2-cents-come-at-your-expense-11573515899

 

They do now effective rates have hardly changed. How about those in the bottom 50% paying what they used to pay?

 

Are you claiming they deny insurance at those clinics? Are those the only clinics that provide adequate care? You policy pays what you agree to pay for.

 

No, I am saying there are 30 mill americans that don't have insurance at any one time.

No, they provide emergency services, they patch you up and get you out the door. They don't provide ongoing care. They don't provide fill prescriptions for medicine, they don't give follow up visits. If you need a stent after a heart attack to prevent further attacks they don't give you one, have another and you can rest again in the hospital for another 3 days. But you are not going to get Plavix to take at home. They provide emergency services, not ongoing care.

 

Yeah, I think they should pay the same also. And what do you mean they hardly changed? Reagans last year they were 15 and 28 percent All taxable income up to 19 grand (equal to 45,000 grand now as $1 dollar then is worth $2.20 now) And all income above that was 28%, or go by the last year the budget was balanced
in 1999 these will have to be adjusted for inflation to about 150%
$0.00+ 15% adjusted
$34,550.00+ 28% 50,000
$89,150.00+ 31% 140,000
$144,400.00+ 36% 225,000

 

Who is "we" and how are they denying healthcare to those 30 million? Healthcare is available. I have it. I pay for it.