Wealth taxes?

[aja8888]

Seen the medical prices lately?

When we get our Medicare statements, we see two prices. One is the price that the provider puts down (which is without specificity) and the one Medicare pays them, which is a lot lower.

So, what medical prices are you referring to?

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

What I'm referring to is the simple fact (I think we can all agree on this) that medical costs overall have risen faster than inflation.

 

[bUU]

College textbooks also have been increasing in price faster than inflation. What meaning should we to ascribe to that?

The rate of inflation is, of course, an averaging of costs. Not everything that exists increases in price precisely in synch with every other thing: Some things will increase in price faster than inflation and some things will increase in price slower than inflation. That's always going to be the case.

Regarding healthcare: I don't know of another product or service which enjoys such strong demand, with such stringently applied barriers to entry to the marketplace, and suffers from such substantial lawsuit liability, that hasn't also experienced a uptick in prices. It's Economics 101: Supply and demand.

(Unremarkably, those parameters outline the solutions: Decrease demand substantially reducing the population - i.e., not practicable - allow anyone to offer medical services, create pharmaceuticals, etc., - i.e., not even remotely responsible - indemnify medical product and service providers - i.e., open the space up to negligence - etc.)

 

[aja8888]

Every product sold on the free market has its own rate of inflation (unless there are imposed price controls).

If I had the only car manufacturing plant in the U.S., and you had to buy from me, you would not get the deal you get at your local Honda dealer, for sure.

 

[Midpack]

You used a lot of "ifs". I would hope that you are aware that few corporations actually pay those high tax rates. Or perhaps that doesn't suit your fancy?

What's your fancy? It appears you'd like to see corporations pay more. Of course that just means you'll pay more for the products and services those corporations provide, which they will I turn pay in federal taxes. There are some exceptions/imbalances - that can probably only be addressed with simplification, but and large you/we pay all taxes directly or indirectly.

 

[MichaelB]

What's your fancy? It appears you'd like to see corporations pay more. Of course that just means you'll pay more for the products and services those corporations provide, which they will I turn pay in federal taxes. There are some exceptions/imbalances - that can probably only be addressed with simplification, but and large you/we pay all taxes directly or indirectly.

Not sure I agree with that, but no sense rehashing old arguments

Corporate taxes as a % of total GDP really hasn't changed all that much over the past 30 years. Here is an excel graph using data from the St Loius Fed.
.
.
.

 

[anethum]

What's your fancy? It appears you'd like to see corporations pay more. Of course that just means you'll pay more for the products and services those corporations provide, which they will I turn pay in federal taxes. There are some exceptions/imbalances - that can probably only be addressed with simplification, but and large you/we pay all taxes directly or indirectly.

If you don't want to comment about the articles and the data in the links I provided, that's fine. However, I would appreciate it if you don't presume to tell me what you think I'd like to see, followed by telling me about the ramifications of your misconceptions about me.

There are some issues concerning the US corporate tax code that I haven't formed conclusions about. I have read enough, however, to have concluded that it's a mess at the present time with wide disparities in how different industries as well as individual corporations fare under the current tangle of tax code. Many people have called for an overhaul.

 

[M Paquette]

If all my wealth is in kittens, will they take the purr as payment?


View attachment 16804

 

[pb4uski]

......I have read enough, however, to have concluded that it's a mess at the present time with wide disparities in how different industries as well as individual corporations fare under the current tangle of tax code. Many people have called for an overhaul.

Ah, ha! Something we can finally agree on!

 

[ItDontMeanAThing]

I don't think saying it is necessary is going to make the difference. I think those arguments have all been played out, and what we have now is going to be the way things are going to be going forward, until something different is introduced into the discussion.

I fear that the something different will be the slow motion train wreck of several states reneging on their debts. Washington does not come to the rescue. A state can't be declared bankrupt so while this plays out in the courts and in Washington enough state residents head for greener pastures across the state lines that it becomes the major force on many state's economic healths.

Some see a monumental crisis, others an opportunity. Some states break with the past and become individual economic experiments. There's a possibility the losers in this scenario would learn from the winners.

 

[jayc]

A fourth option is to start vigorously negotiating with those who provide what the government pays for, either directly or indirectly, forcing prices down wherever there are significant profits being earned at the public expense, as Medicare already does.

Well I tried that recently when cutting my expenses. So far lowes, krogers, and Costco are being very stubborn about helping me. Maybe they will bend a little in order to support a nanny state government.

 

[bUU]

How about calling it what it is, a responsible government that places the basic needs of its citizens over the comfort and luxury of those self-focused, as a matter of human decency.

 

[Gatordoc50]

Many on this board have found that if they don't consume what they don't need and invest the savings, they can retire comfortably and early. If they can legislate the costs down of the things they do need or get subsidized for the things they do need, even better.

 

[bUU]

Many on this board have found that if they don't consume what they don't need and invest the savings, they can retire comfortably and early.

Indeed there are some folks who are so lucky, and many other who despite hard work and savings are effectively structurally precluded from doing so.

If they can legislate the costs down of the things they do need or get subsidized for the things they do need, even better.

Yes, very true, that would be good for those who would enjoy the lower costs, to of course we also need to consider the impact of that on those who would necessarily receive less revenue as a result. Such measures need to make sure that the effect carries through the entire supply chain, achieving the lower costs not by ignoring people's access to satisfaction of their basic needs, whether we're talking about providers or consumers, but rather by capitalizing on opportunities to reduce cost where the cost is nor relied on for satisfaction of basic needs.

 

[Fermion]

We could just quit beating around the bush and implement "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability".

 

[bUU]

Or just as easily implement "me my mine - let everyone else just die in the streets."

However, I think most folks would support a hybrid approach, i.e., different criteria applied to basic needs versus comfort and luxury.

 

[Theduckguru]

Right now, you couldn't get congress to agree to elliminate carried interest let alone pass a wealth tax.