US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3523

...
But it is not a simple money = health equation. Other numbers make that clear. By global standards, the poor of the U.S. are fantastically rich, yet they die sooner than the poor of other lands. Again, look at the poorest part of Baltimore. In 2010 the median household income here was $17,000, whereas the median in India was $5,150 after adjusting for purchasing power. Yet men in this part of Baltimore have a shorter life expectancy—63 years—than the Indian average of just more than 65 years. These Americans have more than triple the median purchasing power of Indians and yet have nearly two years less to live.
The U.S. problem is not limited to the poor. The average 15-year-old American boy has a 13 percent chance of dying before the age of 60. That risk of death—calculated in 2012—is double the probability for such boys in Sweden, about the same as in Turkey and Tunisia, Jordan and the Dominican Republic, and much higher than in Costa Rica, Chile and Cuba. In fact, the U.S. survival figure is lower than that in 51 other countries—although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other land.
To improve health, we have to stop blaming the sufferers and look not only at lack of money but lack of other resources. My research, and that of other scientists, points the finger at social and psychological disempowerment, a personal sense of marginalization in society, as a factor with greater effect than lack of money alone. When people feel deprived relative to those around them, stress rises, and then health suffers. Fortunately, the research also indicates that interventions with parents—improving parenting skills, for example—profoundly empowers their children. This, in turn, appears tied to a lifetime of better health.

...

There is another strategy to decrease the social gradient in child development: use tax-driven income transfer to reduce socioeconomic inequality. Taxes on wealthier people can pay for government benefit programs for poorer families; essentially this moves assets from one group to another. Compare two wealthy countries, the U.S. and Australia. In the years 2007–2009, 25 percent of children in the U.S. were in poverty, defined as households at less than 50 percent of the median national income. In Australia, 28 percent were in poverty. After adding in the effects of taxes and value of benefit programs, in the U.S. poverty levels were reduced just a little, to 23 percent. But in Australia, poverty levels dropped down to 11 percent. Clearly, income transfers can reduce inequality, and the U.S. has chosen not to use this strategy.
So we return to programs, such as parent training, to enhance child development and education. The fact that childhood may affect adult health inequalities has compelling implications. Politically, it means society should shift more resources to early interventions. Morally, it becomes harder to blame the adult poor for their poverty or poor health. Scientifically, we need more research on the long-term negative effects of childhood experiences because some consequences appear to be reversible. New discoveries may suggest more effective approaches. The science already done gives good cause for optimism.

On April 03 2016 00:04 GoTuNk! wrote:


In a really, really, simple way simply because we oppose taxation unless it's really necessary, wether we like it or not. Your points are related but on different realms.

First and foremost people are entlited to their money and property, so we oppose a).

I actually believe in b) and dislike that people get rich without "earning it", but I understand the property right is more important than my feelings. I am WAY WAY more disgusted with people getting rich trough the government than inheritance, which is a natural consequence of big governments (Clinton Family?)

c) Is just an economic explanation. The same way tobbaco taxes reduce smoking, the income tax reduces willingness to work (people on the left, somehow, are unable to make that connection).

On the same token, I'm a great fan of charity. I'm also a great enemy of involuntary forced wealth distribution.

On April 03 2016 01:21 Sbrubbles wrote:


Implying that non-conservatives support unnecessary taxation is awfully silly. I'm 100% sure all those here arguing in favor for inheritance taxes either consider the government spending being paid for by these taxes as necessary or at least a net gain for society. If you want to claim otherwise, no problem, but such a claim has no place in a discussion of which taxation scheme is optimal and fair.

On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too.

On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal?

On April 03 2016 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Opposing taxes means that you don't create programs just because its a good idea, that you let people and grassroots communities manage things on their own accord and you don't let big brother dictate how you live your life.

What counts as necessary and needed is different from person to person. But the fact that you want to phrase things as net benefits to society vs how much governmental control should be placed in citizens shows just how much gray area is in this topic.

On April 03 2016 02:10 Sbrubbles wrote:


All I'm saying is that there are two different issues here:

1) How large should government be
2) How should the government fund itself

There are common points to these questions, sure, but it helps to separate them. I can, for example, ask you a question: imagine that the government is exactly the size you want it to be. It still needs to be paid for, so which do you think is better to tax: labor or inheritance?

On April 03 2016 02:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Short Answer is Labor
Medium Answer requires a broader definition of labor
Long Answer requires a broader definition of governmental income sources

On April 03 2016 02:53 RvB wrote:
Does an inheritance tax actually reduce inequality at the top level though? I don't think so. Heineken is still a family company and so is Samsung and there are plenty of other examples. Like a lot of taxes that are supposed to equalize wealth and income they only do so for everyone except the top.

edit: Estate planning is pretty huge in private banking. There are ways to reduce or avoid the taxes you have to pay significantly.

On April 03 2016 02:53 RvB wrote:
Does an inheritance tax actually reduce inequality at the top level though? I don't think so. Heineken is still a family company and so is Samsung and there are plenty of other examples. Like a lot of taxes that are supposed to equalize wealth and income they only do so for everyone except the top.

edit: Estate planning is pretty huge in private banking. There are ways to reduce or avoid the taxes you have to pay significantly.

On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:


For Debates:
Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond
Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks.

TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means.

For the Oil Deal:
Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies.

TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry.

On April 03 2016 02:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I don't like how there's a million different places you're taxed. Property tax, income tax, EI and retirement (essentially), expenditures, inheritance, etc.

The tax code needs to be more simple, the goal shouldn't be to extract maximum money without annoying people too much. Anything where all the costs to society aren't realized should be taxed (i.e. Carbon tax).

The only taxes that people should pay (for Healthcare, infrastructure, education, military, social security, etc) should all be on income, in some progressive fashion, depending on how large we think the government should be.

All business should pay a relatively small corporate tax as a percentage of revenue, not profit.


All capital gains should be taxed at the full tax rate (minus primary residence under say 1-2mil dollars).

All exports taxed, imports only taxed if from some country where tax rates are lower than here, and we can't compete.

Scrap all inheritance and expenditure taxes. Government services should be covered 80-90%, rest covered by consumer to prevent moral hazard.

Bam, perfect tax law, yet so simple to apply as long as revenues and expenditures are being well reported by people and companies.

Potential Wisconsin primary voters favor presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton over their respective challengers, according to Loras College Poll data released this morning.

Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, was backed by 38 percent of the likely Republican primary voters surveyed, while businessman Donald Trump garnered 31 percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich collected 18 percent. About 13 percent of 416 likely Republican voters surveyed remain undecided ahead of Tuesday's primary.

Meanwhile, Clinton garnered support from 47 percent of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed, compared to 41 percent for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont. About 11 percent of the 416 likely Democratic primary voters still are undecided just days before the primary.
source

On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:


Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question.

Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I havn't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for hillary and just act rationally please.

On the Republican side, Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll.