Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

5 point plan for job growth

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:00:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is essentially a summary of a term paper I got a 100% on.

1.) Reduce Minimum Wage

Minimum wage causes a sticky real wage for lower incomes. Sticky wages create a gap between labor supply and labor demand. When minimum wages increase, the higher wages also go increase in order to appease higher salary employees.

If the higher wages didn't increase along with minimum wage fast food employees would be making an average wage, instead of minimum wage. People often judge their success by measuring it against others' success. This is why the US poverty line is drawn at $10.75 an hour, but the international poverty line is drawn at $2 an hour. We are measuring our wealth, against our own countrymen, rather than against those in other countries.

Since businesses compete for labor, and the best quality of workers, it would be best if we did not pay the more valuable labor, the same wages as the less valuable labor; if one's value of labor increases so would their raise, as businesses compete for labor, as well as customers.

By lowering the minimum wage to $5.15, we allow for a better adjustment of wages to the value of labor, and in turn increase employment. $5.15 an hour is better than unemployment. The last time minimum wage was $5.15 per was in 2006. Minimum wage has been gradually increasing since. The $5.15 minimum wage started in 2002.

2.) Abolish Payroll taxes

Payroll taxes increase the cost of hiring employees. The more employees and employer has, the more taxes he must pay. An example of this would be the FICA tax. With the FICA tax an employer must match the tax an employee pays. The FICA tax rate is 6.2% of the employee's income. So if an employer has 100 employers with a $30k salary, than he must pay $186,000 in taxes ($1,860 per employee) Instead of paying $186,000 in taxes, the employer could have hired 6 (6.2) more employees. We lose approximately 8,805,054 jobs in the US due to the FICA tax, because we lose 62 employees for every 1,000 hired, and there are 142,017,000 people employed in the US.
On top of this, payroll taxes add to the work of the employers, wasting more time, for each employee hired. Since time is money, they are wasting money by putting man hours into calculating, and filing payroll taxes.

3.) Abolish the capital gains tax

Capital gains are when you sell an asset or a share for more money than your purchased it for. Capital gains can be anything from your home and car to stock in the stock market. It includes factory equipment, office buildings, and more. A capital gains tax deters investments, as well as the selling of investments. It also increases the risk of investment, such as if one is forced to liquidate their assets to recovery money lost from the original investment. Higher risk means less investments, which means less job growth.

4.) Replace the income tax with a flat sales tax

The income tax, both corporate, and private hurts job growth. I have already mention how hurting the profits of a company hurts the ability to hire, but taxing personal income also hurts job growth. Since income taxes are a direct tax, rather than a indirect tax (like sales taxes), consumers cannot effectively manage their money. When consumers pay a certain amount in taxes they have less to spend on other things. Besides taxes consumers also have to worry about bills, and purchasing the essentials. With a indirect tax one can better manage their money, and with a sales tax the tax is added to the price of what the consumer is consuming. A flat sales tax would apply to local goods, as well as imported goods, giving no preference to one or the other.
With a direct tax people are more likely to save their money, the more they are taxed. With a indirect tax on consumption, one has better management of their money thus are more likely to consumer and are taxed as they consume.

5.) Right to work laws

Right to Work protects the worker's right to be hired, as well as protects the economy from industrial shut downs. In non-right to work states, if a industry goes on strike, replacements may not be hired. Further more a well qualified worker who has not joined a union, or paid union dues would be denied employment.
Not we see the drawbacks from this with the writer strikes between 2007 and 2008. When the writer strike ended it cost the Los Angeles economy $380 million. The writers voted to end the strike before it cost Los Angeles even more money; if it continued it would have cost their economy $2.5 billion.

Union strikes hurt the economy, and hurt the industry's ability to grow. A good remedy for this would be to allow a right for non-union members to work while the unions are on strike. This would dampen the economic blow, and allow for job growth. The main reason unions go on strike, is because they are pushing for more benefits, or higher pay. The writer's strike for example was pushing for more pay, as they were comparing their salaries to that of the actors. These financially motivated strikes also deter investments in hiring more workers, so that existing workers may be paid more. Unions thus inflate the value of labor. Allowing the right to work, would protect the job market against the inflation of the value of labor, because non-union workers may judge the wages' reasonability.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:01:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like all of these ideas. However, the biggest think that the government could do to spur job growth is repeal Obamacare.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:02:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:00:15 PM, DanT wrote:
This is essentially a summary of a term paper I got a 100% on.


1.) Abolish Minimum Wage


I like mine

Minimum wage causes a sticky real wage for lower incomes. Sticky wages create a gap between labor supply and labor demand. When minimum wages increase, the higher wages also go increase in order to appease higher salary employees.

If the higher wages didn't increase along with minimum wage fast food employees would be making an average wage, instead of minimum wage. People often judge their success by measuring it against others' success. This is why the US poverty line is drawn at $10.75 an hour, but the international poverty line is drawn at $2 an hour. We are measuring our wealth, against our own countrymen, rather than against those in other countries.

Since businesses compete for labor, and the best quality of workers, it would be best if we did not pay the more valuable labor, the same wages as the less valuable labor; if one's value of labor increases so would their raise, as businesses compete for labor, as well as customers.

By lowering the minimum wage to $5.15, we allow for a better adjustment of wages to the value of labor, and in turn increase employment. $5.15 an hour is better than unemployment. The last time minimum wage was $5.15 per was in 2006. Minimum wage has been gradually increasing since. The $5.15 minimum wage started in 2002.

2.) Abolish Payroll taxes

Payroll taxes increase the cost of hiring employees. The more employees and employer has, the more taxes he must pay. An example of this would be the FICA tax. With the FICA tax an employer must match the tax an employee pays. The FICA tax rate is 6.2% of the employee's income. So if an employer has 100 employers with a $30k salary, than he must pay $186,000 in taxes ($1,860 per employee) Instead of paying $186,000 in taxes, the employer could have hired 6 (6.2) more employees. We lose approximately 8,805,054 jobs in the US due to the FICA tax, because we lose 62 employees for every 1,000 hired, and there are 142,017,000 people employed in the US.
On top of this, payroll taxes add to the work of the employers, wasting more time, for each employee hired. Since time is money, they are wasting money by putting man hours into calculating, and filing payroll taxes.

3.) Abolish the capital gains tax

Capital gains are when you sell an asset or a share for more money than your purchased it for. Capital gains can be anything from your home and car to stock in the stock market. It includes factory equipment, office buildings, and more. A capital gains tax deters investments, as well as the selling of investments. It also increases the risk of investment, such as if one is forced to liquidate their assets to recovery money lost from the original investment. Higher risk means less investments, which means less job growth.

4.) Replace the income tax with a flat sales tax

The income tax, both corporate, and private hurts job growth. I have already mention how hurting the profits of a company hurts the ability to hire, but taxing personal income also hurts job growth. Since income taxes are a direct tax, rather than a indirect tax (like sales taxes), consumers cannot effectively manage their money. When consumers pay a certain amount in taxes they have less to spend on other things. Besides taxes consumers also have to worry about bills, and purchasing the essentials. With a indirect tax one can better manage their money, and with a sales tax the tax is added to the price of what the consumer is consuming. A flat sales tax would apply to local goods, as well as imported goods, giving no preference to one or the other.
With a direct tax people are more likely to save their money, the more they are taxed. With a indirect tax on consumption, one has better management of their money thus are more likely to consumer and are taxed as they consume.

5.) Right to work laws

Right to Work protects the worker's right to be hired, as well as protects the economy from industrial shut downs. In non-right to work states, if a industry goes on strike, replacements may not be hired. Further more a well qualified worker who has not joined a union, or paid union dues would be denied employment.
Not we see the drawbacks from this with the writer strikes between 2007 and 2008. When the writer strike ended it cost the Los Angeles economy $380 million. The writers voted to end the strike before it cost Los Angeles even more money; if it continued it would have cost their economy $2.5 billion.

Union strikes hurt the economy, and hurt the industry's ability to grow. A good remedy for this would be to allow a right for non-union members to work while the unions are on strike. This would dampen the economic blow, and allow for job growth. The main reason unions go on strike, is because they are pushing for more benefits, or higher pay. The writer's strike for example was pushing for more pay, as they were comparing their salaries to that of the actors. These financially motivated strikes also deter investments in hiring more workers, so that existing workers may be paid more. Unions thus inflate the value of labor. Allowing the right to work, would protect the job market against the inflation of the value of labor, because non-union workers may judge the wages' reasonability.

6. repeal obamacare
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I recently went to a MYIG conference, and one of the bills passed would've made Michigan a right-to-work state. Everybody around me when we heard this was angry, myself not excluded.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:05:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

good, they die too
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:06:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:05:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

good, they die too

Even Medicare? Why this program? I could support a forced private account, but getting rid of Medicare?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

It extorts money from me.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:19:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:14:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

It extorts money from me.

But you get health insurance after you turn 65 (or about that age).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:22:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:19:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:14:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

It extorts money from me.

But you get health insurance after you turn 65 (or about that age).

I don't want it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:22:06 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:19:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:14:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

It extorts money from me.

But you get health insurance after you turn 65 (or about that age).

I don't want it.

Fuckin this!
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 9:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


The least efficient health care payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. Their administrative costs range from 20-30%, not including the costs of advertising, marketing, and profits, while administrative costs for Single-Payer HC nations are lower. With Medicare, ad. costs are about 5-6%. With a SP system, we could cover all Americans and still save money.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 9:27:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 9:03:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


The least efficient health care payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. Their administrative costs range from 20-30%, not including the costs of advertising, marketing, and profits, while administrative costs for Single-Payer HC nations are lower. With Medicare, ad. costs are about 5-6%. With a SP system, we could cover all Americans and still save money.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

1.) Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

other government agencies help administer the Medicare program, including the IRS, the SSA, and the DHHS. Medicare is also tax exempt.

2.) Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

Medicare patients are older, thus are sicker, and require more health expenditures.
If 2 patients cost $30 each to manage, but one requires $100 of health expenditures and the other requires $1,000, because they are sicker; the healthier patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the sicker patient's will have a ratio of only 3%.

3.) Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

In 2005 private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs
In 2005 Medicare spent $509 per beneficiary on administrative costs

4.) That doesn't take into consideration the deadweight costs of tax collection

The administrative cost of private insurance companies includes the cost of collecting the premiums, while Medicare is tax funded, and so the cost of financing Medicare are not taken into consideration when calculating the administrative cost.

http://www.forbes.com...


Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 9:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 9:27:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:03:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


The least efficient health care payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. Their administrative costs range from 20-30%, not including the costs of advertising, marketing, and profits, while administrative costs for Single-Payer HC nations are lower. With Medicare, ad. costs are about 5-6%. With a SP system, we could cover all Americans and still save money.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

1.) Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

other government agencies help administer the Medicare program, including the IRS, the SSA, and the DHHS. Medicare is also tax exempt.

2.) Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

Medicare patients are older, thus are sicker, and require more health expenditures.
If 2 patients cost $30 each to manage, but one requires $100 of health expenditures and the other requires $1,000, because they are sicker; the healthier patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the sicker patient's will have a ratio of only 3%.

3.) Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

In 2005 private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs
In 2005 Medicare spent $509 per beneficiary on administrative costs

4.) That doesn't take into consideration the deadweight costs of tax collection

The administrative cost of private insurance companies includes the cost of collecting the premiums, while Medicare is tax funded, and so the cost of financing Medicare are not taken into consideration when calculating the administrative cost.


http://www.forbes.com...



Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.

Including all this administrative costs are about 6%. This is consistent with all Single-Payer nations. Canada is 6%, Taiwan is 2%, etc.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 9:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 9:29:44 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:27:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:03:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


The least efficient health care payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. Their administrative costs range from 20-30%, not including the costs of advertising, marketing, and profits, while administrative costs for Single-Payer HC nations are lower. With Medicare, ad. costs are about 5-6%. With a SP system, we could cover all Americans and still save money.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

1.) Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

other government agencies help administer the Medicare program, including the IRS, the SSA, and the DHHS. Medicare is also tax exempt.

2.) Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

Medicare patients are older, thus are sicker, and require more health expenditures.
If 2 patients cost $30 each to manage, but one requires $100 of health expenditures and the other requires $1,000, because they are sicker; the healthier patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the sicker patient's will have a ratio of only 3%.

3.) Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

In 2005 private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs
In 2005 Medicare spent $509 per beneficiary on administrative costs

4.) That doesn't take into consideration the deadweight costs of tax collection

The administrative cost of private insurance companies includes the cost of collecting the premiums, while Medicare is tax funded, and so the cost of financing Medicare are not taken into consideration when calculating the administrative cost.


http://www.forbes.com...



Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.

Including all this administrative costs are about 6%. This is consistent with all Single-Payer nations. Canada is 6%, Taiwan is 2%, etc.

Did you read what I just said?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 9:45:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 9:41:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:29:44 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:27:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:03:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


The least efficient health care payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. Their administrative costs range from 20-30%, not including the costs of advertising, marketing, and profits, while administrative costs for Single-Payer HC nations are lower. With Medicare, ad. costs are about 5-6%. With a SP system, we could cover all Americans and still save money.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

1.) Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

other government agencies help administer the Medicare program, including the IRS, the SSA, and the DHHS. Medicare is also tax exempt.

2.) Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

Medicare patients are older, thus are sicker, and require more health expenditures.
If 2 patients cost $30 each to manage, but one requires $100 of health expenditures and the other requires $1,000, because they are sicker; the healthier patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the sicker patient's will have a ratio of only 3%.

3.) Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

In 2005 private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs
In 2005 Medicare spent $509 per beneficiary on administrative costs

4.) That doesn't take into consideration the deadweight costs of tax collection

The administrative cost of private insurance companies includes the cost of collecting the premiums, while Medicare is tax funded, and so the cost of financing Medicare are not taken into consideration when calculating the administrative cost.


http://www.forbes.com...



Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.

Including all this administrative costs are about 6%. This is consistent with all Single-Payer nations. Canada is 6%, Taiwan is 2%, etc.

Did you read what I just said?

Yes I did, but administrative costs are still lower with gov't health insurance programs.

http://content.healthaffairs.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Inflation in HC is higher in the private insurance area than in Medicare.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 10:00:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 9:45:59 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:41:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:29:44 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:27:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 9:03:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:42:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:40:43 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:31:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:28:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:10:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:08:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2012 8:04:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If you proposed eliminating the payroll taxes, what would you do about Medicare and Social Security?

If you ask me they should be localized to the state level, and the states could either keep them, reform them, or ditch them.

I still don't see your motive on ditching Medicare.

A personal savings plan would be better, in my opinion. Possibly one done through a bank, or even a private non-profit company. With the bank it could acquire interest. If it was set up like a money market fund the interest rate would be higher. If it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, it would become much more efficient.
That is if it was a non-profit trust with a money market fund, that could not be accessed until the age 65, and run as a non-profit arm of a bank, it would become much more efficient.

It would seem so right? However, this is not the case in health care. Government health care is more efficient.

That's a personal opinion, unsupported by fact.


The least efficient health care payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. Their administrative costs range from 20-30%, not including the costs of advertising, marketing, and profits, while administrative costs for Single-Payer HC nations are lower. With Medicare, ad. costs are about 5-6%. With a SP system, we could cover all Americans and still save money.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

1.) Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

other government agencies help administer the Medicare program, including the IRS, the SSA, and the DHHS. Medicare is also tax exempt.

2.) Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

Medicare patients are older, thus are sicker, and require more health expenditures.
If 2 patients cost $30 each to manage, but one requires $100 of health expenditures and the other requires $1,000, because they are sicker; the healthier patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the sicker patient's will have a ratio of only 3%.

3.) Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

In 2005 private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs
In 2005 Medicare spent $509 per beneficiary on administrative costs

4.) That doesn't take into consideration the deadweight costs of tax collection

The administrative cost of private insurance companies includes the cost of collecting the premiums, while Medicare is tax funded, and so the cost of financing Medicare are not taken into consideration when calculating the administrative cost.


http://www.forbes.com...



Of course this would be up to the state, and the state could issue incentives such as tax break on property tax or state income tax.

Including all this administrative costs are about 6%. This is consistent with all Single-Payer nations. Canada is 6%, Taiwan is 2%, etc.

Did you read what I just said?

Yes I did, but administrative costs are still lower with gov't health insurance programs.

http://content.healthaffairs.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Inflation in HC is higher in the private insurance area than in Medicare.

You can't look at it with a %, you have to use per beneficiary
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 10:10:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 8:00:15 PM, DanT wrote:
This is essentially a summary of a term paper I got a 100% on.


1.) Reduce Minimum Wage

Minimum wage causes a sticky real wage for lower incomes. Sticky wages create a gap between labor supply and labor demand. When minimum wages increase, the higher wages also go increase in order to appease higher salary employees.

If the higher wages didn't increase along with minimum wage fast food employees would be making an average wage, instead of minimum wage. People often judge their success by measuring it against others' success. This is why the US poverty line is drawn at $10.75 an hour, but the international poverty line is drawn at $2 an hour. We are measuring our wealth, against our own countrymen, rather than against those in other countries.

Since businesses compete for labor, and the best quality of workers, it would be best if we did not pay the more valuable labor, the same wages as the less valuable labor; if one's value of labor increases so would their raise, as businesses compete for labor, as well as customers.

By lowering the minimum wage to $5.15, we allow for a better adjustment of wages to the value of labor, and in turn increase employment. $5.15 an hour is better than unemployment. The last time minimum wage was $5.15 per was in 2006. Minimum wage has been gradually increasing since. The $5.15 minimum wage started in 2002.

2.) Abolish Payroll taxes

Payroll taxes increase the cost of hiring employees. The more employees and employer has, the more taxes he must pay. An example of this would be the FICA tax. With the FICA tax an employer must match the tax an employee pays. The FICA tax rate is 6.2% of the employee's income. So if an employer has 100 employers with a $30k salary, than he must pay $186,000 in taxes ($1,860 per employee) Instead of paying $186,000 in taxes, the employer could have hired 6 (6.2) more employees. We lose approximately 8,805,054 jobs in the US due to the FICA tax, because we lose 62 employees for every 1,000 hired, and there are 142,017,000 people employed in the US.
On top of this, payroll taxes add to the work of the employers, wasting more time, for each employee hired. Since time is money, they are wasting money by putting man hours into calculating, and filing payroll taxes.

3.) Abolish the capital gains tax

Capital gains are when you sell an asset or a share for more money than your purchased it for. Capital gains can be anything from your home and car to stock in the stock market. It includes factory equipment, office buildings, and more. A capital gains tax deters investments, as well as the selling of investments. It also increases the risk of investment, such as if one is forced to liquidate their assets to recovery money lost from the original investment. Higher risk means less investments, which means less job growth.

4.) Replace the income tax with a flat sales tax

The income tax, both corporate, and private hurts job growth. I have already mention how hurting the profits of a company hurts the ability to hire, but taxing personal income also hurts job growth. Since income taxes are a direct tax, rather than a indirect tax (like sales taxes), consumers cannot effectively manage their money. When consumers pay a certain amount in taxes they have less to spend on other things. Besides taxes consumers also have to worry about bills, and purchasing the essentials. With a indirect tax one can better manage their money, and with a sales tax the tax is added to the price of what the consumer is consuming. A flat sales tax would apply to local goods, as well as imported goods, giving no preference to one or the other.
With a direct tax people are more likely to save their money, the more they are taxed. With a indirect tax on consumption, one has better management of their money thus are more likely to consumer and are taxed as they consume.

5.) Right to work laws

Right to Work protects the worker's right to be hired, as well as protects the economy from industrial shut downs. In non-right to work states, if a industry goes on strike, replacements may not be hired. Further more a well qualified worker who has not joined a union, or paid union dues would be denied employment.
Not we see the drawbacks from this with the writer strikes between 2007 and 2008. When the writer strike ended it cost the Los Angeles economy $380 million. The writers voted to end the strike before it cost Los Angeles even more money; if it continued it would have cost their economy $2.5 billion.

Union strikes hurt the economy, and hurt the industry's ability to grow. A good remedy for this would be to allow a right for non-union members to work while the unions are on strike. This would dampen the economic blow, and allow for job growth. The main reason unions go on strike, is because they are pushing for more benefits, or higher pay. The writer's strike for example was pushing for more pay, as they were comparing their salaries to that of the actors. These financially motivated strikes also deter investments in hiring more workers, so that existing workers may be paid more. Unions thus inflate the value of labor. Allowing the right to work, would protect the job market against the inflation of the value of labor, because non-union workers may judge the wages' reasonability.

Back on topic
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 10:17:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You do realize that all 5 of your points means you hate every man woman and child on earth don't you. Except of course the ones that are rich.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 10:29:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe a good plan to hurt the middle class, but otherwise, no. The last decade we had the lowest taxes in at least 60 years, but did the "job creators" spread their wealth voluntarily to improve our lives compared to the Clinton years with higher taxes? No.

A well written topic though.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2012 7:49:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 10:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
You do realize that all 5 of your points means you hate every man woman and child on earth don't you. Except of course the ones that are rich.

Not true. Stop trolling.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2012 8:51:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 10:29:57 PM, Contra wrote:
Maybe a good plan to hurt the middle class, but otherwise, no. The last decade we had the lowest taxes in at least 60 years, but did the "job creators" spread their wealth voluntarily to improve our lives compared to the Clinton years with higher taxes? No.

A well written topic though.

so increasing employment is bad?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2012 9:54:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/31/2012 8:51:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/30/2012 10:29:57 PM, Contra wrote:
Maybe a good plan to hurt the middle class, but otherwise, no. The last decade we had the lowest taxes in at least 60 years, but did the "job creators" spread their wealth voluntarily to improve our lives compared to the Clinton years with higher taxes? No.

A well written topic though.

so increasing employment is bad?

No, but a more Center-Left progressive plan would be the best way to helping the country. Getting rid of unions, removing Social Security and Medicare (instead of meaningful reform), and putting a national sales tax on goods is not a way for progress, it would destroy the middle and lower classes.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan