Green New Deal

[mspohr]

Thomas Paine’s 1797 call for a Basic Income: a New Paper Tells the Full Story - Resilience

Paine’s proposal to tax land and distribute the proceeds widely rests on a basic insight from the natural law tradition: namely, the insight that there are two kinds of property, things that are created by human effort, and things that are not. Things that are not created by human effort — like land and other natural resources — are a common inheritance, and everyone has an equal right to enjoy them.

When a few monopolize the land, the normal remedy is redistribution. Writing in part for a French audience that had just experienced a bloody revolution, and in part for a English audience that feared revolution, Paine proposed a remedy that was much less disruptive. Let the landowners keep their land, he said. Let them simply pay a tax, and let that money be used to compensate the landless and give them some financial security. Paine proposed that money from the fund be distributed to the elderly and the disabled, plus a disbursement to every young man and woman on turning age 21 to help them start out in life.

 

[navguy12]

btw: note the death rates of countries with health care for all. If health care for all was the answer to a pandemic, why are Great Britain & France and other EU countries much worse than the US?

Coronavirus deaths per million by country 2020 | Statista

...because the US is about 20 days behind GB and France...plus in health care for all countries, people are not compelled to die at home because they cannot fund the cost to go seek medical help.

 

[Big Dog]

...because the US is about 20 days behind GB and France...plus in health care for all countries, people are not compelled to die at home because they cannot fund the cost to go seek medical help.

Fair enough (perhaps). let's check back in a few weeks.

btw: there are few in the US who do not have full COVID coverage. The uninsured are covered 100%. Most major health insurers have offered to cover COVID deductibles and copayments. However, I grant that not all of those with insurance are aware of that fact and might not seek coverage.

 

[mspohr]

Fair enough (perhaps). let's check back in a few weeks.

btw: there are few in the US who do not have full COVID coverage. The uninsured are covered 100%. Most major health insurers have offered to cover COVID deductibles and copayments. However, I grant that not all of those with insurance are aware of that fact and might not seek coverage.

COVID-19 and the Myth of 'Choice' in American Healthcare

The insidious root of the problem is that healthcare as a market commodity simply does not work, and we've known this for decades. Pioneering economist Kenneth Arrow's groundbreaking 1963 article clearly established that medical resources can't be efficiently allocated by the usual free market processes. There is too much uncertainty about disease incidence and treatment efficacy. Further, patients are terrible healthcare "consumers" or shoppers. They lack the knowledge to make such selections.

Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic straining our healthcare system beyond its capacity, this mirage of choice is coming back to bite us. Many Americans with COVID-19 won't get their testing and treatment covered because the plan they chose doesn't fully cover this kind of care.

The empty White House promises of paying for COVID-19 services gloss over the messy and painful reality. While $100 billion designated for doctors and hospitals to provide care for patients with COVID-19 includes treating the uninsured, it is unclear how to disentangle who and what is covered and which conditions can be attributed to the virus. It's crazy: you may get help for medical costs, but only if you can prove that COVID-19 caused your illness. No other wealthy country does this; they have universal standard medical coverage.

 

[navguy12]

Fair enough (perhaps). let's check back in a few weeks.

btw: there are few in the US who do not have full COVID coverage. The uninsured are covered 100%. Most major health insurers have offered to cover COVID deductibles and copayments. However, I grant that not all of those with insurance are aware of that fact and might not seek coverage.

Big Dog: Your position within this thread of defending the current health care delivery system in the United States is a matter of record.

Nothing I say will persuade you to change your mind. Fair enough.

I will assume, with zero supporting data to base my assumption, that you are satisfied with the current system in the US.

You stated "there are few in the US who do not have full COVID coverage".

Even if you have independent third party evidence to support that assertion, what happens to someone who needs care for cancer, or appendicitis, or complications with diabetes?

Why does, per capita, the US system cost twice as much as Canada yet Canada sees a higher life expectancy?

I personally know three people in the US that have lost everything because of medical bankruptcy (for cancer).

In a single payer system country, no one is without full health care coverage, period.

No one lives in fear of bankruptcy while they are laying in bed at home developing COVID symptoms...

Anyhow, the health insurance industry in the US has already warned of premium increases of 40% for next year...

If COVID deaths per million is the metric you are comfortable with in declaring that single payer systems are worse than the US system in dealing with COVID, perhaps tracking that metric based on "days since one case per one million people", plotted on a logarithmic chart, can be useful:

91-DIVOC : Flip the script on COVID-19

Peace.

 

[rays427]

Except that they now need two incomes to get to the $60K average per household, so that's actually $30K per person, rather than one person working 40 hours.

Here is the data: How Much Is the Average Salary for U.S. Workers? What it shows is the median income per person was $48,672 in the fourth quarter of 2019. It included $53,144 for men and $43,836 for women. So with just a male household income, as you think it was in the 50s the median would be $53,144 which is more than the $48,672 (2019 dollars) median income in 1967. In addition at least some of the household income in 1967 was with more than a single wage earner.

 

[David_Cary]

The basic misconception here is that the 90% was only for income above a certain amount, not the entire income.

There is no misconception on my part (or likely anyone else). The fact is that if I get to the highest marginal rate, then my last dollar I made (and perhaps many others) are theoretically taxed at 90%.. I doubt it happened very often.

If that cut off was $400k today, I would have enough deductions to make sure that I was below $400k. If I couldn't, I certainly wouldn't go to work. Whether that meant stopping work in October or working 4 days a week, that is what I would do.

But the reality is I would buy life insurance or some other deductible retirement vehicle. I would spend a lot of useless effort to avoid the high tax rate.

Real life example. I have about 10% of my income from a small business. I could buy a Model X and erase that income. Would be totally worth it if I was taxed anywhere near 90%. So even though I don't need an X, I would buy one. Really stupid. I would also take a heck of a lot of work trips. And it goes on and on.

No modern society truly has a marginal rate anywhere near 90%. Even if one existed, I doubt anyone would actually pay it.

 

[David_Cary]

Everyone in the US who has appendicitis gets care. That was a bad example.

Deaths per million population is a horrible metric for health care spending and efficiency. Just like life expectancy but even worse.

Medical bankruptcy is a big problem.

Stockpiling ventilators would have been a good idea. Really doesn't cost that much. But the reality is, it doesn't change the dynamics of death numbers. By the time you need a ventilator, your mortality is pretty high - 80% roughly. So the death number would likely only be 20% more if we had no ventilators at all. A horrible result but nothing like the difference between the US and South Korea for example.

After SARS and MERS and honestly all the talk, a pandemic of this nature was not a once in a century event. It was completely predictable, so much so that we had a task force on the federal level about it.

And I think we all know, if we make no changes, this will happen again absolutely in our lifetime. Globalization, population growth and urbanization - guarantees it.

 

[navguy12]

Everyone in the US who has appendicitis gets care. That was a bad example.

At NO cost to the patient?

The whole point of me using random examples of non COVID medical conditions is that NONE of them COST the patient ANYTHING.

 

[mspohr]

At NO cost to the patient?

The whole point of me using random examples of non COVID medical conditions is that NONE of them COST the patient ANYTHING.

Most hospitals will take out your appendix without you having to prove insurance. However, it's definitely not free. They will charge you their highest "rack rate" and they will hound you to the poor house for payment.

 

[JRP3]

Paine’s proposal to tax land and distribute the proceeds widely rests on a basic insight from the natural law tradition: namely, the insight that there are two kinds of property, things that are created by human effort, and things that are not. Things that are not created by human effort — like land and other natural resources — are a common inheritance, and everyone has an equal right to enjoy them.

Of course we already have property taxes which supposedly pay for government services for all.

 

[Big Dog]

Big Dog: Your position within this thread of defending the current health care delivery system in the United States is a matter of record.

Nothing I say will persuade you to change your mind. Fair enough.

I will assume, with zero supporting data to base my assumption, that you are satisfied with the current system in the US.

You stated "there are few in the US who do not have full COVID coverage".

Even if you have independent third party evidence to support that assertion, what happens to someone who needs care for cancer, or appendicitis, or complications with diabetes?

Why does, per capita, the US system cost twice as much as Canada yet Canada sees a higher life expectancy?

I personally know three people in the US that have lost everything because of medical bankruptcy (for cancer).

In a single payer system country, no one is without full health care coverage, period.

No one lives in fear of bankruptcy while they are laying in bed at home developing COVID symptoms...

Anyhow, the health insurance industry in the US has already warned of premium increases of 40% for next year...

If COVID deaths per million is the metric you are comfortable with in declaring that single payer systems are worse than the US system in dealing with COVID, perhaps tracking that metric based on "days since one case per one million people", plotted on a logarithmic chart, can be useful:

91-DIVOC : Flip the script on COVID-19

Peace.

And Peace to your brother.

Btw: the US health care system is waaaaay too costly, and I have posted that elsewhere.

What I do object to, and perhaps it does appear as a defense of the current system, is the poor use of statistics to support a policy position. Yeah, I get the politics of it ('never let a crisis go to waste'), but I have seen nothing in the pandemic that says health care for all is the/an answer to the pandemic. I do agree with Bernie that health care is a moral issue for exactly some of the reasons he and you raised (bankruptcy and cancer).

I'm a fan of critical thinking, and challenging political sound bites of both parties. There are plenty of ways to lower the total health care cost to expand coverage. (All of which require political will.)

If COVID deaths per million is the metric you are comfortable with in declaring that single payer systems are worse than the US system

Nope, never made any such 'declaration'. Just asking if single payer systems are better in a pandemic (as Bernie appears to claim), why are the death rates in the Euro countries so much higher? Perhaps you are correct that it's all timing. If so, we'll see in a few weeks.

Thanks for engaging in a civil manner.

edited to add: I've posted on tmc that I'm a fan of the Canadian system.

 

[mspohr]

A Wealth Tax Is the Logical Way to Support Coronavirus Relief Opinion | A Wealth Tax Is the Logical Way to Support Coronavirus Relief

The wealthiest 5 percent of American families now hold $57 trillion, or two-thirds of all household wealth in the country (up from about half in 1960). An exemption for the first $2.5 million of household wealth would exclude the bottom 95 percent from paying any tax at all and leave the top 5 percent with total taxable wealth of roughly $40 trillion. A 5 percent tax on the richest 5 percent of households could thus raise up to $2 trillion.

 

[eevee-fan]

A Wealth Tax Is the Logical Way to Support Coronavirus Relief Opinion | A Wealth Tax Is the Logical Way to Support Coronavirus Relief

The wealthiest 5 percent of American families now hold $57 trillion, or two-thirds of all household wealth in the country (up from about half in 1960). An exemption for the first $2.5 million of household wealth would exclude the bottom 95 percent from paying any tax at all and leave the top 5 percent with total taxable wealth of roughly $40 trillion. A 5 percent tax on the richest 5 percent of households could thus raise up to $2 trillion.

Bill Gates should be exempt as he is pledging $250M to WHO already.

 

[Big Dog]

Bill Gates should be exempt as he is pledging $250M to WHO already.

Bill has announced that he is giving away all of his $90b. Warren Buffett among others have also pledged to give away the all/bulk of their wealth.

The 13 tech billionaires who donate the biggest percentage of their wealth to charity

 

[mspohr]

A Stanford economist says we're headed for a crisis worse than the Great Depression. Here's his plan for getting people back to work and spending on businesses.

Instead, the US needs a "New New Deal," or a set of expansive government programs and reforms to help cash-strapped, jobless Americans and struggling businesses, Matthew Jackson, Stanford economics professor and author of "The Human Network," told Business Insider.

We'll have to figure out how to first provide a safety net for people so that they get to a place where they can return to work and spend money," he said.

Last week, House Democrats introduced the Emergency Money for the People Act, which would give $2,000 a month to Americans over the age of 16 who make less than $130,000 a year.

 

[mspohr]

Bill has announced that he is giving away all of his $90b. Warren Buffett among others have also pledged to give away the all/bulk of their wealth.

The 13 tech billionaires who donate the biggest percentage of their wealth to charity

It's nice that a few billionaires have a social conscience. However, it's a pittance compared to the hoarding by the rest. A wealth tax and higher income taxes could do some real good.

 

[mspohr]

Top economist: US coronavirus response is like third world country

Top economist: US coronavirus response is like third world country

“We have a safety net that is inadequate. The inequality in the US is so large. This disease has targeted those with the poorest health. In the advanced world, the US is one of the countries with the poorest health overall and the greatest health inequality.”

He added that the complexity of modern production methods meant autarky was not feasible but added: “Fighting global pandemics and climate change require global cooperation. It’s just that the president of the United States doesn’t understand that.

“I hope we emerge from this with the perspective that multilateralism is even more important than we thought. It can’t just be a corporate-driven globalisation. We have to make it more resilient.’

 

[David_Cary]

$2.5 million of household wealth exempted.
So if I save for retirement and live in an area where my 1,500 sqft ranch that I bought for $200k is now $1.2M, I have to pay a wealth tax. With my social security?
$2.5M at the end of a decent working career with an eye to savings is not what most would consider wealthy.

And that isn't even counting the family farm argument.

If $2.5M is your plan, I need to start parking retirement funds off shore and plan on retiring in another country. Seems like a great idea for retirement planners everywhere.

Nearly anyone who drives a Tesla should either have $2.5M or plan on having that at retirement - in total wealth including RE and retirement funds.

 

[JRP3]

Nearly anyone who drives a Tesla should either have $2.5M or plan on having that at retirement - in total wealth including RE and retirement funds.

That logic would severely limit Tesla's market. I'd bet most Model 3 buyers won't meet those qualifications.