"""
Mr. Sanders has proposed a headline top tax rate of 52 percent, applying only to incomes over $10 million
...
“We do not assume taxpayers change their behavior,” said Warren Gunnels, the policy director for the senator’s campaign.
"""
... why?
The top marginal rate before Reagan was ~50%, and was lowered to 28%. Given this logic, you would expect that the US net tax revenue would have declined significantly in this period, which it did not. Basically, money just shifted from capital gains and corporate taxes to individual returns. If we increase the marginal rate again, it will likely just shift back without changing anything.
(A) The real issue is not setting tax rates after some national soul searching, compromise and a moral-philosophical discussion about greed, wealth, liberty and so forth. It's not about economic theories. It's about practicalities. It is increasingly hard to tax the wealthy and large corporations. This is for reasons that are not easy to remedy, and may not be remediable. The reality in all developed countries is that (1) total budget/gdp is %35 - %45 and (2) the middle class pay disproportionately high taxes. This is effectively what you are working with as a leader in a 2016 developed country.
If you think you can get significantly more (ie percentage points of GPD) out of the wealthy... well... that's the significant part. Tell us about that. Lets debate that. Personally, I doubt it.
I think we need to acknowledge that these are the parameters of our nameless, global political-economic system. It carries some parts of the capitalism, welfare state theories, labour unionism theories, but it's pretty far from those on paper.
(B) There are examples in the US and elsewhere of high marginal taxes. This is not a venture into some unknown.
I'm not American, so no real dog in this race. That said, when I here someone talk in this way, as if from a sketchbook of political ideas, I kind of think it's naive.
Can the law not be modified to collect from corporations and trusts?
That's my concern with this line of reasoning: Money, which is just a transfer mechanism of wealth, is a human creation, just as the rules around its taxation are. People seem to think that "If you change the rules, people will just find other ways!". Well, the rules can change at any time.
> This is not a route to saner tax policy
A saner tax policy taxes the wealthy at a higher rate than the middle and lower classes. Trickle down has proven not to work.
> Can the law not be modified to collect from corporations and trusts?
I would hope so too, but functionally the only way to do this efficiently would be to tax them all at the same rate (meaning no marginal brackets). Any time you introduce different brackets, you leave yourself open to gaming the system. People will gravitate towards solutions that maximize their wealth.
Flat rate tax systems are not politically popular, since everyone paying the same rate has been portrayed as regressive (and arguably so, given the reduced marginal value of more money), so I find it unlikely for a political solution to be tenable.
> Well, the rules can change at any time.
Yes, well, starting a business in such a climate is sketchy. Just look at countries like Venezuela. You don't want things to change, you want certainty and stability for long term economic growth.
> Trickle down has proven not to work.
Really? Are the middle class living in poorer conditions than they were 100 years ago?
Wealth inequality is obviously destabilizing over a long period, and I agree that it would be better to live in a system that is inherently more stable and equal. However, if you look at inflation adjusted income or purchasing power, it's been getting better and better for the middle class for most of our country's history (flat the last 5 years, though).
> I would hope so too, but functionally the only way to do this efficiently would be to tax them all at the same rate (meaning no marginal brackets).
I've always thought that ideally corporate tax rates should be flat, and should be at the maximum marginal rate for personal income tax, but that all corporations (not just those which currently do this) should be able to take advantage of the lower personal marginal tax rates of their shareholders, essentially having the option to be taxed at a rate as if its taxable income were additional income to its shareholders, distributed in proportion to the ownership share, except for the income share of shareholders that aren't individual taxpayers (e.g., nonresident foreigners.)
However, I don't think that we're at the point where this would be administratively feasible. OTOH, given that there are options for corporations to distribute tax liability to shareholders, they just take special up-front decisions and impose some limits, I'd be happy to settle with corporate income tax fixed at the top marginal personal rate.
Capital is just more mobile than labour income. To take a big example, someone can just pick up and move somewhere for 180 days of the year. For more realistic examples, they just put their assets in a foreign corporation. The loopholes are sometimes intentional. But more often, they are just there because money is global and tax law is local.
US tax system is based around tax events, i.e. triggers, which require a transaction to take place. Unlike other economic systems, money sitting quietly will not be taxed until it kicks off a dividend, pays interest or changes hands thereby triggering capital gains.
Outside of municipal property taxes there's currently no framework for taxing wealth. An extreme theoretical case would be a billionaire with nothing but a savings account earning 0%. Under current system, he could while away indefinitely, making small withdrawals here and there to cover the lifestyle, while generating 0% tax burden.
Which is why discussing income taxes is a red herring - at this point people generating eight-digit incomes choose to work, and have a rather nice and comfortable way out if/when they decide to "spend more time with the family".
Wealth tax is a third-rail for either party, as majority of donors on both side are wealthy, but not necessarily high-income individuals.
I'm not american, so I may be missing the point. But isn't
ck2's point that this a President doesn't have the authority for this? Are't these supposed to be congressional authorities? IE, to get these policies people should elect legislators with these views.
> But isn't ck2's point that this a President doesn't have the authority for this? Are't these supposed to be congressional authorities?
Because the US doesn't have a parliamentary system where parties have clear parliamentary leaders (there are leadership in each party in each house, but there role is not the same as party leaders in a parliamentary system), and because the President has substantial powers not found in separately-elected heads of state in parliamentary systems, and because Congressional elections are separate by-seat elections and the Presidential election is (kind-of, the electoral college makes this not really true -- but closer than any other election) Presidential campaigns are single, national elections, the Presidential elections are a major nexus for national policy ideas that take legislative action to support (and Presidential primaries, particularly, set the ground for national party platforms in presidential election years.)
Technically? Sort of. Practically? Also sort of, but a little less so.
Technically speaking these bills originate in Congress. For financial matters, specifically the House. But the President does have veto power, so has a voice in the process.
Practically speaking, the President does a lot to set the tone. It's the only nationally elected position (even if elected a little weirdly). See "bully pulpit".
It's not an either-or thing -- you need to elect both local representatives AND a president who is interested in change.
A president cannot single handedly pass these changes, but he or she DOES exercise considerable influence on the kinds of things congress passes via the ability to refuse to sign things that congress does pass, so a president interested in change is a vital part of the process.
Consider that Barrack Obama campaigned on health care reform, and a health care reform package was passed during his first term. It's not a coincidence that that happened, even though the package had to be introduced by congress -- the electoral mandate handed to a president necessarily informs the legislative pressures congressional members feel, be it to support such a mandate, or to obstruct it, depending on the political inclinations of their base.
Health insurance had been attempted by the democrats a few times so there was definitely existing support. Also passed for children, also exists as medicare, medicaid. So it had examples for things being better, just needed a huge push.
Now the health insurance we ended up with is a horrible compromise (this is personal for me, I still cannot get health insurance).
And that's with so many congress people throwing themselves into the fire and literally ending their careers by voting for that horrible compromised bill.
How in the heck do you think the radical ideas Bernie is proposing is going to get 51% of the house and 51% of the Senate?
Everyone needs healthcare, so they can relate somehow.
Now compare that to the radical reshuffle that would be needed for "free" education (which to be clear I think is a good idea).
No way senate and house throw themselves into the fire for most of what Bernie is proposing, no way.
It's a non-issue anyway, there is no way in hell America is going to elect a 78 year old Jewish man who constantly waves his arms around when he talks.
He's a great guy and a great senator and he should be proud but this country is not going to make him president, hell the democrats won't even let him win the primary, no way.
ps. he also ran 4.5 minute miles in high school which is amazing
Election process is fairly similar to startup process, where you come up with a bunch of ideas, see what polls well with demographics and then compile the points that have the most rapport into your "platform".
We're being tested on attitude towards the top rates, just as we were tested on free college tuition paid for by financial transaction tax, radical rise in minimum wages, gun control and a few other things. Some of those you don't hear about anymore as campaign data scientists deemed it irrelevant.
Be sure to watch the protests and demonstrations at the taxpayer funded DNC and RNC every four years. Watch how that goes. You know where both parties fund the police to seize people without just cause or paint them in pepper spray.
Just like how protests prevented and ended the Iraq war. Oh wait, they didn't. You think more people will show up to protest for Bernie's ideas?
> How would he seek to do that without having a majority in Congress?
Why would he be the first Presidential candidate in history to not seek to have a Congressional majority supporting his policy objectives elected alongside himself?
(Sure, he probably won't get that, and he'll probably have to compromise with the Congress he actually has. But that shouldn't stop him from trying to build as much support as possible for his actual policy goals.)
Again, I think there's a real disconnect from reality and who actually votes in Congressional races. While he personally can try to build as much support as he wants for his policies, there is no indication that given the current Congressional battle lines will give way for someone even more far left than Obama.
Because while Reagan lowered the top tax rates, he also eliminated many loopholes that were allowing top earners to effectively pay very little in taxes.
At the end of the day, pre-Reagan, a 1 percenter might have had a stated tax rate of 70-80%, but due to the massive amount of loopholes and write-offs, were only paying 25-35% in practice. Reagan's reforms allowed for less loopholes and write-offs, which curbed the effort many were willing to go to for tax avoidance, while also meaning that people were paying about the same as before, but paying closer to their actually stated tax rates.
Major loopholes (when sorted by revenue lost) in current tax code are standard deduction and home mortgage interest deduction. Touch either one of those and you'll quickly find out how many voters go from loophole-closing to "damn bureucrats from Washington reaching into our pockets again".
This sort of "static tax analysis" makes tax increases look like they'll generate more revenue than they would really do. This, in turn, makes the policies sound more affordable since the tax revenues are exaggerated.
High income tax rates do not "discourage greed", they merely cause it to manifest in different ways. Compensation structures in high tax jurisdictions like Europe reflect this, with myriad forms of lavish compensation for corporate executives that are technically not income, much more so than in locales where the taxes encourage people to simply write a check. An argument could be made that direct cash compensation in tax jurisdictions where that makes sense has the benefit of being a much more transparent kind of compensation.
Tax rates don't change human nature, they merely change incentives.
Even the 73% optimal tax rate proposed by Saez and Diamond is based on bogus analysis. The point of taxation is not to maximize government revenue -- if the government wants to maximize revenue it could just print dollar bills. The point is to maximize purchasing power. Thus the downside of high taxes is not manifested in lower government revenue in dollar terms. It is manifested in fewer startups and fewer risky investments, and thus fewer new technologies and new products. Overly high taxes change the equation for risk taking -- why try to start a business when if you succeed, you won't keep that much of the winnings? If fewer people start businesses, the economy becomes more sclerotic as big corporations no longer have to face competition from upstarts.
The problem is that it is fundamentally impossible to quantitatively measure the impact of taxes on startups and economic dynamism. We know that if we taxed at 100%, we would likely have very few startups. But we do not know how much any given incremental change will hurt the economy. But as rough estimate, if the current tax rate is ~33%, and a tax rate of 100% would kill all startups, then a tax of 73% (the max rate proposed by Saez) would kill about half of startups (or rather, mean that they never exist. Immigrant founders would choose to start companies elsewhere, other founders would sell out early to a big company, and the big company would then just ruin the product like they normally do, etc.) Very roughly, such a tax rate might raise around an additional $100 billion. Would increasing total government revenue by 2% be worth killing half of all startups? That doesn't sound like a good trade to me. (Of course I am personally biased on this issue).
> why try to start a business when if you succeed, you won't keep that much of the winnings?
I'd call $9.9 million or less a year pretty big "winnings" without hitting these tax thresholds. Plus the way tax brackets work mean you get a pretty big payday on the money below the top most threshold.
It is completely unrealistic to claim that people won't start businesses because any personal profits they make over $10mil/year will be taxed too highly. It is completely out of touch with the financial position that most normal people are in.
It is completely unrealistic to claim that people won't start businesses because any personal profits they make over $10mil/year will be taxed too highly. It is completely out of touch with the financial position that most normal people are in.
If the high tax rates only apply above $10 million, then the big impact would be on:
1. The most skilled global talent, who might choose to start their business elsewhere, where there would be the prospect of becoming super rich.
2. Angel investors and second-time founders. A major reason these founders would want to take risks, reinvest, and double down is to hit the home run, and have change-the-world amounts of money.
3. First-time founders who sell-out early to a big company, rather than try to go big. This could really do great damage to the pipeline of new and great products, since big companies are often where innovation goes to die.
I do agree that a high percent tax rate on income over $10 million would not do much to discourage run-of-the-mill new businesses, such as restaurants and landscaping companies. But I think it could majorly discourage the types of startups which drive the continued advancement of technology.
Whenever we're discussing startups or entrepreneurs, we're already out of touch with most normal people. That alone isn't a reason to ignore the sector.
Ok... I might be completely off base here, but why can't we increase taxes on mega-earnings, AND refactor tax laws such that startups are incentivized? Eg, you spend 4 years bootstrapping a business while taking a bare minimum salary and then, through whatever mechanism, are ready to 'cash out'. Why can't we look favorably upon people doing this and apply some kind of retroactive benefit to their earnings, taking those 4 years into account?
I don't understand why tax laws are applied evenly (in theory...) across industries. If you make a product that effectively poisons the masses (tobacco, prescribed opiates, watered sugar), resulting in huge negative health outcomes, why aren't those profits taxed unevenly? Do we not need to fix those problems then in the health sector? Humans are irrational, ads are made to take advantage of the bugs in our decision-making code, but it's all on the victims to take care of themselves? Something they've already demonstrated to be incapable of doing.
I'm sure there are intractable problems with this approach that I'm simply unaware of... but it seems better than what's on the table. We need taxation with an ethical component. Make unethical behavior un-profitable.
You could try to design the tax code to try to distinguish people who were getting rich from zero-sum games, versus those who were getting rich from taking risks and creating wealth. In practice, there is a lot of subjectivity in doing so, and it would make taxes more complicated and unpredictable. In general, the more subjective and complicated government policy is, the more room there is for powerful and unscrupulous entities to manipulate the system to their own benefit. Complexity almost always favors the parasites.
How is that different from a hedge fund manager not earning much for a few years, but then hitting a big liquidity event?
I think the assumption here is that a lot of people with eight-digit incomes choose to continue participating in the workforce, but I don't know if there's data to support that.
"Why try to start a business when if you succeed, you won't keep that much of the winnings?"
Some people start businesses to solve legitimate problems. I suspect that higher corporate tax rates would encourage the average Silicon Valley startup founder to seek more fruitful income streams, but people who are passionate about solving real-world problems would still attempt to do so. Furthermore there are people like me who don't work well outside of a startup environment who will pursue startups regardless of the tax rate. I doubt small businesses will be taxed at such a high rate anyway, given that they are the lifeblood of the American middle class. I'd rather have a thousand medium-sized businesses that suppress their growth to avoid higher taxes than ten massive businesses with low tax rates.
Few businesses would suppress growth to lower the tax base. One way to avoid profit (and punitive taxes associated with it) is to expand the business or seek new markets. Amazon, Alphabet and Warren Buffett are fans of this approach.
I am a Sander's supporter so I say this more theoretically than as a criticism of his plan:
It scares me that in our political structure that we feel like we need to experiment with the whole country. I understand that if we don't the super high income earners, in this case, would flee to cheaper areas but I sure prefer the idea of trying out large shifts in policy in more gradually widening areas than completely wholesale as we've been doing.
On a related note, what are the good software platforms for running economic simulations? Are any of them decent?
Every tax plan is an experiment. ("Trickle-down effects?") Every law is an experiment. ("Three-strikes?")
Remember, this NYT article was written by a conservative, who previously was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think-tank with the goal to "develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility". Before that he was a "commercial real estate banker at Wells Fargo".
There's no need to believe that any of his statements are false, but I can't help wonder why there's a focus why "Bernie Sanders’s Tax Plan Would Test an Economic Hypothesis" when every one of the candidates has an economic hypothesis to test. Even if it's the most extreme (and I think continued tax cuts for the rich and funding multiple overseas wars are also rather extreme), I can't help wonder if there is a bias towards which sources to draw from when writing this article.
This is exactly the point of having states. They're not called laboratories of democracy just because we like flowery language.
Obviously you can't experiment on a statewide basis with federal taxes, but you can look at the economies of various states compared to their tax rates. Do states with low or no state income tax fare better than states with high state income tax? Do states with an additional capital gains tax have less investment or stock market participation per capita than states without an additional CG tax?
Robert Axtell has done a lot of interesting work on agent-based modeling of economic systems [1]. He has a new book coming out this year about simulating national firm growth patterns based on his recent research [2], which could provide an ideological platform for experimenting with policy decisions. Agent-based modeling is relatively new and untrusted among economic policy makers, but if the success of these models is any indication we will see a shift toward a complex systems approach over the next few decades.
> It scares me that in our political structure that we feel like we need to experiment with the whole country
How else do you expect to improve anything? You have to try something, and many, many other countries have tax structures close to this, so you know it's not going to fail.
I would imagine a simulation to be extremely complicated and fairly unreliable given that the Economy is and can be more volatile than weather (and of course is a chaotic system as well).
That being said I bet a simulation would probably be better than many educated guesses.
This depends what you mean by economic simulations -- if you are looking for general equilibrium models, Dynare is pretty popular, although many people would just code from scratch, and there are various codes here and there.
Someone else mentioned agent-based models; these are interesting, but there is a reason why there has been some (now decreasing, as models develop) skepticism towards them -- for example, quite often we see rather dumb simulated agents, who do not react to environment and do not learn from their repeated mistakes (for example, by not adjusting their behavior to tax rates...)
It's an experimental return to the tax rates we used to have back in the 40s and 50s, before the massive tax cuts that started being implemented a couple of decades later.
What about comparing to other countries and their tries? I am sure there are some slight variation and cultural differences, but it's a good start. On the same note, I am amazed how many mistakes Europe is doing when the answer sheet is just look at what LKY did.
Successful entrepreneurs often make huge lump sums when their company is acquired, usually after many years of hard work and low pay.
Sanders' plan to make taxes on capital gains equal to those on ordinary income and to increase the marginal tax rate to effectively > 80% (once state taxes are included if you live in CA or NY) is effectively a wealth transfer from the most productive part of the economy (new enterprise creation) to the least productive part (government).
Its a shame that we have a presidential candidate with this level of economic illiteracy that is still taken seriously by a large part of the country.
Government does not hold the money, though, it redistributes it again through contracts, credits, and payments.
All taxes are redistributive. If they weren't, they wouldn't need to exist--i.e. if private income is already paying for everything the country needs, there is no need to use taxes to move it around. But of course, private income is not already paying for everything the country needs.
Consider a basic function of a national government: self defense. Protecting the nation benefits all citizens. But not all citizens have the same amount of wealth and income. So any taxes that pay for national defense, even if applied with one flat rate to every person, will redistribute wealth. It will confer the benefits of national defense equally on a person who paid $1 in taxes and a person who paid $1,000 in taxes. Security is a form of wealth; the $1 payer got a better deal than the $1,000 payer.
So, the concept that taxes are bad if they redistribute wealth is flawed, because redistribution is the entire point of taxes. Instead, to critique tax policies, we need to be specific about the taxes and payments and outcomes.
I am a Bernie supporter, but I have 2 issues: 1) I'm having a hard time understanding how such a policy shift could happen purely from the POTUS 2) Even if it did happen and we got single payer, I have a feeling it'd just turn in to another benefit for the employer. When employers no longer provide health insurance they'll just keep the money for themselves and the employees won't see the actual benefit, just the higher taxes. If my employer is currently paying 13k/yr for family coverage and all of a sudden doesn't have to, I doubt they'll be adding that, or even some percentage, to my salary.
I don't think your employer would either, no matter who they are. They will take advantage of the system like everyone else. We all benefit from roads, power, water, etc. Bernie is trying to reduce the cost of health care by taking profits out by controlling the costs. If you have an organization that is paying for 300+ million people's insurance, that organization has tremendous leverage. I understand that this is a very complex subject, but that's his position and I support it too. In other words, Bernie sees health care as an investment, in the infrastructure of the well-being of the American people. (I think this last sentence is poorly worded but I gave it my best effort)
(added, post edit) Also, the masses will benefit tremendously from it. He estimates about a $4,000 yr savings for middle class. You might not get any benefits from your employer but you're not voting for your employer, you're voting for your rights (Bernie says health care is a right).
As for this:
> 'such a policy shift could happen purely from the POTUS'
That's never been Bernie's rally cry. He's calling for a political revolution. Essentially, for young voters and progressives to actively engage in the political system and to vote for progressives (and to encourage others to do so as well).
A policy shift through POTUS is intended to happen with the President acting as a leader of people as opposed to a POTUS that does the standard job of President.
This hasn't happened in my lifetime, and was said was going to happen when Obama was initially elected, and never occurred.
It's an unknown property. To have a POTUS that actually regularly talks to the population directly and asks for their support and effort to force politicians to change. I think a similar example in concept, but not in policy is Hugo Chavez when he had a weekly program to the people.
It's difficult to say what effect this would have, I have absolutely no idea for or against. I think anyone who thinks they do is speaking more from their personal opinions and less about what will actually happen.
--Edit - I said "It's just never been tried in a country like the US", and then I remembered FDR's fireside chats, which are perhaps a better direct correlation than Hugo Chavez.
I'm also curious about #2 here: Some would certainly be offset by the new employer paid taxes... but my employer currently pays significantly more than the proposed tax in premiums now (of which I directly pay almost nothing). When I plug my numbers into http://berniecare.org for example, it says I'll pay $800 more. I know this is a very simplistic calculator, but it definitely seems like this plan would give some employers an opportunity to effectively cut salaries by a sizable chunk. Does anyone know if it has been studied or a transition like this has been observed before?
Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does.
We've already seen this with Obama. It's not hard to see them doing more of the same.
It's worth noting that any tax increase has to start as a bill in congress, so it wouldn't so much be Republicans stopping the action of a D-President as just not doing what he/she wants them to do.
Which...sounds like how the system is supposed to work? Checks & balances and all...
The POTUS is the head of the executive branch. And as far as I understand it, can order anyone of that branch to do stuff. That's also how "executive orders" work: because the POTUS is their boss.
It's also what Obama's doing to break the gridlock: make rules that you have to go to SCOTUS to solve, or pass bills that supersede them.
So, make "Fees" that are means-tested (charge exorbitant those whom are rich). They aren't considered taxes. They're 'something else' (bullshit, but that's what the courts say).
No, they aren't. (Except to the extent that fees have been authorized by statute and the authority to adjust them given the executive in the statute, but that clearly isn't what you are referring to, since you are talking about arbitrarily introducing new fees.)
The executive has very little independent (that is, not dependent on Congressional action) domestic policy authority.
Bernie may be a democratic socialist, but he has decades of experience bringing together both sides of the aisle to pass legislation. His opponents may not agree with him, but they respect him.
In contrast, Hillary is pretty much universally hated among Republicans. In my opinion she has a much lower chance of getting anything done if elected.
What evidence do you have to support Bernie could bridge the gap better than Hillary?
When they were both in the Senate they voted 93% similarly. In addition, Bernie is liberal/progressive (far left) and Hillary is more moderate/liberal. On the spectrum, Hillary's politics are closer to Repubs than Bernie is. And Hillary is essentially a Bill Clinton in ideology, which is someone who enact legislation that's a hybrid of dem/reb lib/consv ideologies.
> Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does.
Which is a good reason for people voting for a candidate for President not to ignore the other races on the ballot, and a good reason for people who care about the policies embraced by their favorite Presidential candidate to not only advocate for that candidate, but advocate for down-ballot races as well. (And this applies just as much to any other candidate, of either party, as it does to Sanders.)
Indeed, unless enough people get annoyed at the situation and vote for different Congresspeople over the next couple of elections. Might require fixing gerrymandering first though
"Congresspeople" has got to be the most ridiculous, awkward word in use today. Member of Congress is must better and is still 100% gender neutral if that's what your aim is. Both members of the House and Senate can be referred to as your representative (small 'r') in Congress.
People are so quick to point this out, but the reality is that so many hospitals in the US lack basic standards of cleanliness & care. The CDC recorded 722,000 Hospital-acquired infections (often staph or UTI's) in 2011, one of the highest such rates in the modern world. This is simply unacceptable for a country of our resources.
The WHO's assessment on overall access & quality of care doesn't even put the US in the top 25 in the world while our per capita expenditures remain some of the highest worldwide. We may have a handful of exemplary medical institutions to brag about, but so much of our system is in terrible shape.
I don't know about most of the hospitals for sure, but I would assume they are similar. MD Anderson which is the top ranked cancer center in the world according to patient outcomes, doesn't turn anyone away based on their ability to pay. They either work it out or do the work as charity.
Well, participation in single-payer health care will either hurt the top hospitals or it won't. If it doesn't, who cares? If it does, what's stopping them from remaining private and only accepting those who can afford it? Surely the market for the best available care wouldn't evaporate.
> 1. Assessment of higher education (processes, and outputs) in the Web.
> Hospital activity is multi-dimensional and this is reflected in its web presence. So the best way to build the ranking is combining a group of indicators that measures these different aspects. Almind & Ingwersen proposed the first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking but adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database. As it has been already commented, the four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:
Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value. Then for each domain, maximum and minimum results are excluded and every institution is assigned a rank according to the combined sum.
Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value and then combined to generate the rank.
Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Excel (.xls), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google and merging the results for each filetype after log-normalising in the same way as described before.
Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.
Yes. And, the tax code was filled with so-called loopholes. Anybody with a brain and a competent accountant were able to cleverly avoid a lot. Many of these were eliminated in the Reagan-era "tax reform" (and more since).
This would be devastating to athletes. Take the NFL as an example. A player's earning window is very short. Once their career is over, they often suffer from health problems and lack of training to do anything else. I don't like the idea of taxing these guys at 70%+ when they're giving up their bodies for money to last them a lifetime.
I know many athletes continue to get endorsements, speaking fees, and other income after their playing days are over. But that is only really significant money for the stars, and continues to decline as they age.
Obviously pro athletes are a very small percentage of the population, but it's still interesting to consider how this impacts different professions.
> they often suffer from health problems and lack of training to do anything else
So do millions of Americans who did not have the chance to make millions playing sports in their twenties. A new tax plan would have the intention of making lives easier for folks struggling with low wages, ex-footballers included.
It's not just pro-athletes who have short windows of high earnings. A lot of the so called 1% are only in that group for a small number of years. It might not be as extreme as NFL athletes but think about, say, a startup founder who takes a very low salary for 5-10 years but then has 1 great year when he cashes out.
Won't this push a lot of highly payed professionals into early retirement? Doctors, lawyers, and managers, at the point in their careers where they are the most experienced and capable, will likely decide in meaningful numbers it is no longer worth putting in the hours if they only get to keep 27% of what they earned.
> Doctors, lawyers, and managers, at the point in their careers where they are the most experienced and capable, will likely decide in meaningful numbers it is no longer worth putting in the hours if they only get to keep 27% of what they earned.
Only 27% of what they earned above $10 million. They keep considerably more of the first $10 million they earn.
Did the entire nation sleep through the day they explained how marginal tax rates work, or something?
> Won't this push a lot of highly payed professionals into early retirement?
Probably not.
> Doctors, lawyers, and managers, at the point in their careers where they are the most experienced and capable, will likely decide in meaningful numbers it is no longer worth putting in the hours if they only get to keep 27% of what they earned.
This rate cuts in for income over $10 million/year. That's on the order of 5 times the cutoff for the top 0.1%, and the top 0.1% is on the order of 150k tax payers in a nation of 300+ million people. Even if the whole group decided to stop doing work that would subject them to the new rate (which is different than "early retirement" -- more on that next), we aren't talking about giant numbers.
And the way marginal taxes work, if they are okay with putting in effort as long as they are getting as good as they do under the current tax system but unwilling to do so at the new rate that would kick in at $10 million, then they wouldn't stop working entirely, they'd just stop doing the extra work to go over $10 million a year.
Which probably isn't that much of the work they are already doing in many cases, and, in any case, so what? It opens up more opportunities -- even if you assume no one is willing to do work that would only return what income over the new top marginal rate would return -- for people who are currently making less than the point at which that new top rate kicks in. So, the main effect would be the super rich having somewhat more leisure time (or making decisions less weighted by maximizing financial returns and more based on other factors, which may not always mean less total working time, but better working conditions or more enjoyable work) and everyone else having more income-earning opportunities available.
Only 27%. ONLY! Did you know the UK has a 40% income tax over £42,385? And plenty of doctors, solicitors (lawyers), and managers continue to work for income.
Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, people should feel free to not work any additional time if that additional income that intrudes into that highest marginal tax rate doesn't provide enough incentive for them after tax.
Taxes are too low in the US, the lowest they've been in ~100 years. They must go up, and if people in the highest income brackets make less, so be it. You're still making 7-8 figures/year. At some point, enough is enough. Who is to say what enough is? Society, the system in place enabling you to earn that money in the first place.
At least for doctors, I would think that the average annual income is somewhere around $300,000-400,000 (and that may be too high). This group would, all-in, be taxed somewhere between 50-60% including medicare, Social Security, etc., no where near the 73% imposed on any dollar made past $10,000,000. There may be a handful of doctors in the world pushing the $10,000,000 barrier. I assume that the landscape is similar for lawyers and managers, and that people tend to focus on those making huge money to generalize the whole field.
If so, that might improve the job prospects of many up and comers in those fields. I think your point is clear that there's potential for loss because of the retiring talent, but that can incentivize investing in talent down the pipeline.
They get to keep a larger fraction of the first $10 million of income.
I wonder how many people earning more than ~$1 million per year really care about the exact level compensation they get (there are an awful lot of people that reduce their working time well before that level of income).
People don't always work solely for the money. Also, that top tax rate is only in income above $10 million. The money below that threshold is taxed at lower rates. So, they would be keeping more than 27% of their total income
Why would the next generation want to take up that room? Would you take up a career where despite long & expensive education, long hours, hard work, and lives-in-your-hands responsibility, you kept just 27% of your income? would you put in a million dollars of effort to net a quarter of that in return?
That's not how tax brackets work. You would "only" keep 27% of your income over $10MM, but you would keep a much higher percentage of that first $10MM.
> would you put in a million dollars of effort to net a quarter of that in return?
Even if I was paying 27% on the first $10MM, putting in $1MM worth of effort would get me a return of 170% per year.
> Why would the next generation want to take up that room?
Because they want the things money can buy.
> Would you take up a career where despite long & expensive education, long hours, hard work, and lives-in-your-hands responsibility, you kept just 27% of your income?
Maybe, maybe not, but, anyway, that's not how marginal rates in a progressive tax system work. Even if the marginal rate that kicks in at $10 million is 73%, that means you only keep 27% of the amount after $10 million, and some greater amount of the part below $10 million. Obviously, an increase in the top marginal tax rate decreases the incentive to work to increase income once you've reached the annual income level at which the higher tax rate applies, but doesn't it really hurt anyone that people already making at least $10 million/year prioritize making additional income less over other priorities?
Ronald Regan, as a movie star, regularly didn't make movies precisely because the progressive tax system would head into confiscatory levels making the effort worthless to him. Such rates denied both the public at large from products they wanted, and the government tax revenue. I don't want my world to actively discourage the talented from producing.
I want to encourage people to make insane amounts of money, because that is largely the result of far-and-above productivity which everyone else benefits from. Jobs are created, desirable products/services are generated at affordable costs, money is invested (even banked "cash" gets loaned, and extravagant luxuries create markets), and the general standard of living is raised.
The cost of discouraging effort is never included in these "soak the rich, redistribute the wealth" equations.
> Ronald Regan, as a movie star, regularly didn't make movies precisely because the progressive tax system would head into confiscatory levels making the effort worthless to him.
Really, if the greatest cost to society you can point to of increasing the top marginal income tax rates is "fewer Ronald Reagan movies", I don't think you are making a very strong case.
> Such rates denied both the public at large from products they wanted, and the government tax revenue.
The case that it denied government net tax revenue requires more than Reagan not making movies, it requires a whole-economy comparison of what activity occurred instead and the actual taxes applied against that activity.
> I want to encourage people to make insane amounts of money, because that is largely the result of far-and-above productivity which everyone else benefits from.
This "trickle down" concept is a widely held article of faith in some parts of the population, but not a position well supported by evidence.
> The cost of discouraging effort is never included in these "soak the rich, redistribute the wealth" equations.
The "cost of discouraging effort" is very hard to empirically establish without ambiguity, and there are sharply different opinions on what it actually is. What proponents think that cost is usually accounted for in where the various parameters are set; people who have different views of what the cost is, obviously, disagree that these settings are correct.
Pardon me for using a simple high-profile example to make the point. Detailing the failings of socialism in a mathematically provable form would take far more text than you are willing to read. As you note, it is very hard to empirically establish without ambiguity the economic realities of taking from those who earn and giving it to those who don't. Perhaps, given the understandable disagreements, we should adhere to the notion of individual freedoms which the Founding Fathers enacted for the USA and let those who wish to pool their wealth do so, and those who would rather decide for themselves do so; alas, we face the votes of those seeking to force, thru threat of government-sanctioned violence, others to adhere to economic principles they deeply disagree with.
> Why would the next generation want to take up that room?
Are you seriously asking why anyone would consider a career in which they are "only" able to keep 27% of any money above $10 million they make in a single year?
You're incredibly out of touch if you don't think most people would kill for that opportunity.
> Would you take up a career where despite long & expensive education, long hours, hard work, and lives-in-your-hands responsibility, you kept just 27% of your income?
Yes I would absolutely do that for the privilege of keeping only 27% of anything more than $10 million a year I make. This is an incredibly good problem to have.
> would you put in a million dollars of effort to net a quarter of that in return?
This is not how marginal tax rates work. Consider putting down Atlas Shrugged and consulting a remedial math textbook.
Would you put in $100M effort & risk where you'd need a 4x return on investment just to break even?
As I work to make my owns end meet, I'm quite aware of the consequences of having a ~50% tax rate, putting out $X00,000 effort just to net half that.
And yes, I'm quite aware of the technical errors in my presented math. This is a casual forum, not a peer-reviewed paper. What baffles me is how others here won't do the remedial math showing that a 100% tax rate on everything over $1M wouldn't come close to paying for what Bernie et al promise and those here expect as obvious (never mind the always-neglected effect high taxes have on high productivity).
If the high tax rate only applies to ordinary income, won't this just shift compensation away from ordinary income and towards stock-based or alternative compensation?
Yes. In fact anyone earning that much has already shifted away from ordinary income. Famously, this is what Warren Buffet does to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. The solution is taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income.
The next level beyond that is to shift earnings into personal corporations which are taxed at a corporate tax rate and enjoy other protections. This is like what Zuckerburg recently did.
The final dodge is to move earnings overseas much like most corporations do today.
With enough money there are always loop holes to exploit. I'm in favor of closing as many as possible. If there's someone out there rich enough to found their own sovereign nation in the Pacific, there's not much we can do about that.
The Company will begin to provide these extra perks to high income earners, solely in order to advance the Company's efficiency. Perks may include: private jet, a house near the office (or far away), fully paid for meals, etc.
"Mr. Sanders...proposed a...top tax rate of 52 percent...When you combine it with other taxes that apply to income...it would add up to a combined tax rate of over 73 percent"
I'm trying to imagine the scenario under which this would get through Congress unscathed.
The scenario is this "the idea is aggressively sold during the campaign, and is a key issue in not only the Presidential election but a substantial number of Congressional elections".
Of course, even if Sanders is elected, its likely that there won't be sufficient support to.adopt his programs unmodified in Congress, and some alternative or compromise will be necessary. The same is true, for that matter, of any Presidential candidate.
Part of why you campaign on plans is to shift the public dialogue and set the groupies ds for the eventual compromises that are necessary as part of governing when you aren't a dictator. Holding back preemptively doesn't help that, it just cedes ground to the other side before the work of compromise starts.
The key question is "will their be in 2017"; there is an election for 100% of the House and 1/3 of the Senate at the same time as the Presidential election, and the policy proposals of the Presidential nominees of the various parties are likely to be salient issues in each of those elections.
Personally, I can't afford a house in the valley, and the new brackets would cost me an additional $10-15k/yr, putting home ownership out of reach for a long time. In fact, the additional $10-15k/yr would put me close to not being able to afford my rent.
That's even before looking at the change to capital gains, which would tax them at the marginal rate.
It seems a lot of people are misinformed in this thread about Bernie's plan. Here is a quick video explaining Berine's plan to change Washington (by Robert Reich): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfIhonVoFSg
tldr; Bernie wants a political revolution of voting progressives which will put new Senators/Congressmen(women) in DC, which will allow for new FDR like changes to occur.
I love his spirit but absolutely nothing Bernie is selling can pass Congress which means absolutely nothing will change if he is elected.
You really think he could survive running for re-election at 80 years old?
Anyone old enough to remember Reagan will know what happens to people that old in the white house.
Not crazy about Hillary but I could live with her.
If Trump is elected, I'm somehow moving to Canada, not because of him, because of the 51% of people who elected him and having to live with them after surviving Bush.
Being halfway thru reading "Atlas Shrugged", I find it bewildering that on a site devoted to promoting the best of capitalistic productivity, so many posters adhere to compulsory redistribution of wealth confiscated from the productive.
Rand is overly simplistic and draws false dichotomies abound. It has never been the case that the "productive" have been opposed to wealth redistribution or other state proclivities, since they do in fact benefit greatly from favors such as limited liability laws, barriers to trade, subsidization, land laws, police power, government contract procurement and other initiatives. Hell, the NRA part of the New Deal originated from a plan drafted by the then-president of General Electric, Gerard Swope.
Thus they are not so productive as they are symbiotic with the state. Tax laws are a complete red herring, serving mostly as a public show to incite people about whether or not someone is paying their "fair share," even though nominal balances are generally frictionless in absence of velocity of spending. Poor people have lower wealth elasticities of demand and will always bear the most burden from taxation.
It's a branch of Y-Combinator, funding startups with the expectations of high rewards for high risk & effort without strangers confiscating some 75% of profits. It's the discussion forum for real-world objectivism in action.
Holy crap! I only wrote that half-jokingly, not expecting that you were took objectivism seriously, but you do!
I don't take Rand's philosophy seriously for much the same reason I don't take postmodernism as a whole seriously: the Continental approach (which she employed) lacks any real rigour[1]. Great for fiction, but not so good for being useful. As well as that, we objectively (see what I did there!) know that some of her important points (such as on causation, determinism, and free-will) are bunk, and it's not as if she was even particularly consistent on them anyway.
The best I can say to you is to go read Hume and come back to me: he was a much better philosopher than Rand, and had much more interesting and useful things to say about the world. Alternatively, maybe try to broaden your horizons with the Rationally Speaking Podcast (http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/). But if you don't want to, that's fine: you do you.
[1] Even with the continental school philosophers I do take at least a little more seriously, such as Nietzsche and Camus, it's more on the level of 'oh, that's an interesting idea', 'hmm... that's an interesting line of though', and 'oh, that's an interesting story' rather than anything seriously useful. And Rand doesn't even get to that level. I'm totally OK with her loathing Kant[2] and thinking Marxism sucks, but she doesn't offer much else of any depth, which, I guess, at least nothing that's been published.
[2] My personal opinion of Kant is that he was a stick-in-the-mud prude, and that deontological arguments, such as those Kant made, fall down when exposed to the real world, even though deontology itself can be a useful tool.
Rand makes for a convenient & well-known reference when making a brief point on a casual discussion board.
I have a similar reaction to many of the "soak the rich" types posting on this thread: I don't expect they take Bernie & Bolshevism seriously but...they do!
If Rand is the best reference, then I'm not sure those boards are all that well worth taking part in.
Sanders isn't a Maxist/Marxian by a long shot. He might describe himself as a democratic socialist, but he's really a social democrat with much more in common with the aims of the Fabian Society than anything else: his ideas are pretty much those of any European social democratic party (such as the British Labour party, Dutch PvdA and GroenLinks, German SPD, French Parti socialiste), and whatever you might somehow think, none of those parties are hives of Bolshevism.
Also, whatever about the 'soak the rich' thing (which I haven't seen much evidence for), only one commenter seems to take Marxian though seriously here, and even they said that he's doing himself a disservice by using the label 'democratic socialist'[1].
High risk in the sense that companies founded by Y-Combinator are focused on raising a lot of capital to feed extremely fast growth. This is not slow healthy growth. From Y-combinator's perspective they are fine since a.) initial investment is low and b.) extreme diversification. But the companies themselves can be very volatile and risky.
However, although their are obviously exceptions, YCombinator typically invests in founders who don’t have a ton of financial skin in the game.
Which founders have kids that won’t eat if the company fails? If you aren’t looking at being thrown out of the family home, you aren’t really taking on a huge amount of risk. The typical thing at stake for most founders is opportunity cost:
“With my grades and experience, I could have been making $200,000 - $300,000 consulting or at BigCo, but I chose to found a startup instead."
If he gets elected and can actually deliver on that promise, hopefully he can manage to siphoned off enough tax base from wall street alone to fund some of his other ideas.
As most middling earners, I'd support taxing people at extraordinary incomes, but at the same time, I don't think it's prudent to shock the economy with such a thing. Gradual does it, also work with other OECDs so that you have framework whereby you don't have people becoming Russian residents for the purposes of evading extraordinary taxes, thus defeating the whole purpose of the hikes.
The U.S. taxes citizens on worldwide income, so becoming a Russian resident is not likely to help. There is also a significant expatriation tax for those wishing to renounce their citizenship. I suppose you could move to Puerto Rico or expatriate well in advance of any expected earnings.
However you're absolutely correct that there are unfathomable unseen costs and effects.
I would like to see Mr Sanders proposed rates for the middle class and what range of income he deems to be middle class. Middle class in SF or NYC is much different than say Detroit, MI.
Housing costs, cost of living, and local taxes are not really factored into the current federal tax rates, and higher rates on the middle class could hurt a lot of people.
Of course, this assumes Sanders even makes it to the general election. Despite his polling, the skeptic in me thinks that the Clinton campaign will be the Democratic candidate on the ticket in November....public support be damned, she's the candidate that the establishment wants.
I think Sanders has radical ideas that will not work in America... I also support him for this reason.
We do not need to be the next Norway, but we should have much better healthcare, education and intolerance of greed. I think that his fresh ideas will really bring this to fruition.
Greed isn't going away. In purely socialist countries we just see the greed moved to the government where it is subject to far less checks and balances than in capitalism. For instance, see Cuba where there are a couple of really nice hospitals for the powerful in government, then some dirty hovels for everyone else. This is easily the biggest reason capitalistic countries are so much richer and better off than purely socialist ones.
> We should have much better healthcare, education and intolerance of greed
And, isn't that what our current "Hope and Change" was supposed to bring? Just what we need... another 4/8 years of ineffectual leadership that changes nothing because this will cause nothing but gridlock.
He is running a propagandistic campaign that seems to be more about 'bending the stick' of public perception of what is mainstream political/economic thinking in North America.
And I think that is good and I wish him well.
But for myself, as someone who would call himself a kind of Marxian socialist, I wish he'd stop calling himself a socialist. He is doing both himself (at best a Euro-style social democrat) and socialism a disservice.
It bothers me that our politicians always talk about taxing labor income but never talk about taxing land values and/or capital. We need more economists coming up with tax plans rather than politicians.
(I say this as someone who will vote for Bernie Sanders)
That's a real problem. Wealth and income are radically different numbers for people at the top end. High income taxes end up punishing the upper middle class instead of the truly wealthy who own assets.
The tax rates during "trickle down" were hardly much different than they've been for the last 40 years. For instance the top capital gains tax rate was set to 20%. Exactly what it is today.
A tax on consumption? Why that would encourage people to save for the future. Blasphemy in modern economics where negative interest rates are being contemplated to further discourage savings.
Let's say you make $1000 taxed at 20%, so you have $800 take-home. You spend $400 of that on health insurance. Now you have $400 left, or 40% of the initial amount with a 60% effective "tax" rate.
If your taxes increase to say 40% but health insurance is included your taxes have nominally gone up 20%, but down 20% if you consider non-tax costs that were folded into your taxes.
As anyone who's moved between countries can tell you, it doesn't make any sense to just consider what the tax rate is, instead you have to think about fixed costs (health care, housing, food, transportation, ...), deduct that from your pre-tax pay, and you're left with your effective taxation as it were.
Administrative changes in the government can increase your taxes but have the effect of increasing your take-home pay, that's effectively what Sanders is proposing.
There's no flaw in this reasoning, on the contrary you seem to have the fundamental flaw in your reasoning of assuming that the only way for the government to save you money is to reduce your tax rate.
There's a very simple answer: the middle class pays very low income taxes in America. Nearly all of the income tax burden is on the top 25%. If you want to shuttle over half the population into a new single payer health insurance system, they're almost all going to be a (big) net drain. It's an inherent consequence of a highly progressive tax system.
Your typical middle class single person is now spending $300 to $400 per month on health insurance (employer sponsored is closer to $100 per month, but that's merely subsidization), and you want to shift them into single payer, then you have to recover that $300 to $400 via taxation.
The median in the US has an effective income tax of about 3% to 5%. Put another way, putting all of that toward their new single payer insurance, wouldn't come close to covering how much they'll cost you (and that's before getting into family cost structures).
> the middle class pays very low income taxes in America
Citation needed.
There's "fees", "taxes" and all sorts of hidden ways that eat into the middle class. Not only that, but how much "Fees" were in the eggs you bought? None, right? Not really: they're just bundled in and hidden.
Ever get a speeding ticket? That's a fucking tax. Property tax, car "license plates" - tax. Gas has taxes, and a lot of them. As does alcohol. And then there's sales tax- just because you sold something. Hell, there's taxes for dying.
But myopically, it looks small. I'd wager that these 'little bits' here and there by far exceeds the percent paid in taxes than the top 1%.. and we know it hurts the middle class far worse.
Your taxes may go up, but the claim is that the amount your taxes go up will cost less than the healthcare premiums/out-of-pockets/copays/prescriptions/etc. you have to pay, thus the average individual's net cost for healthcare is lower.
People who are paying insurance premiums and taxes currently put money in two areas we'll call 'insurance' and 'tax' for convenience sake (and because it accurately reflects reality). The money in the 'insurance' area goes toward paying private medical costs. If those private medical costs disappear and are shifted to public costs under a single payer plan, they don't go away, merely move under that other column. From then on, no money need be put into the 'insurance' area. Yay! But now, the 'tax' area has to pay out more since it took on those costs so much of the money that would have been put in the 'insurance' area must be put over in the 'tax' area to cover the medical costs that have not disappeared but been recatagorized in terms of what pool it is paid out of. Even if those private medical costs are halved somehow, saving the payee money in the process, the 'tax' area would still need to be bolstered to handle the additional burden. Thus, higher taxes even though overall money is saved.
I read somewhere that insurance company profits are the things you save in a single payer system. insurance "expenses" would be shifted to government expenses.
There are all kinds of savings in a single payer system.
You eliminate the overhead of dealing with disparate billing systems. You can more easily find waste and fraud since all data is flowing into one place in a single comparable format. And, most importantly, you have the power of being the only buyer in a market which can pretty much dictate what price they will pay as long as it doesn't drive the providers directly out of business.
But it is disingenuous for OP to suggest that because taxes go up it is an overall worse situation for those paying those taxes, implying there is no way they would save money.
That's what the current "Obamacare" plan was supposed to solve. After thrusting much of the health system firmly under government control, raising costs substantially, and literally fining people for being unable to afford more expensive plans, we're left with ... the same number of un- & under-insured people.
> we're left with ... the same number of un- & under-insured people.
No, we're not.
"Gallup reported in July 2014 that the uninsured rate among adults 18 and over fell from 18.0% in Q3 2013 to 13.4% by Q2 2014."
More Americans are insured today than ever before, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population. This doesn't mean that the ACA is responsible, but saying that we have the same number of under/uninsured people is simply false.
> That's what the current "Obamacare" plan was supposed to solve.
And it reduce the problem considerably (though less than it would have without the bizarre Supreme Court decision that Congress can't actually set the terms on which states get federal Medicaid funds, and particularly change the rules on Medicaid to require states accepting federal money to expand coverage -- which resulted in a number of states opting out of the expansion in Medicaid coverage that was intended to cover the lowest-income portion of the uninsured population not already covered by Medicaid -- the higher-income segment was addressed by the exchange-and-subsidy system.)
> After thrusting much of the health system firmly under government control, raising costs substantially, and literally fining people for being unable to afford more expensive plans, we're left with ... the same number of un- & under-insured people.
Actually, a much smaller number, but still more than many people would like.
> After thrusting much of the health system firmly under government control,
Everyone outside of Medicare is in private insurance, which is regulated but not "firmly under government control".
> raising costs substantially,
While there is debate about whether the ACA has slowed the rate of healthcare inflation in its short life, there is no evidence that it has "raised costs substantially" across the system.
> literally fining people for being unable to afford more expensive plans
Fining people for choosing not to pay for health care if they are able. Everyone needs health care, most everyone gets (possibly lacking) healthcare when they need it, and it costs money.
The previous solution, brought to you by Ronald Reagan, was the mandate that hospital emergency rooms couldn't turn people away who needed help. A humane concept, but poor social or economic policy for addressing the healthcare system in the large.
In a single payer system the govt is the only one who pays for healthcare. That means even if healthcare spending is the same or less, the portion of healthcare paid for by the govt increases greatly, requiring higher taxes.
Medicaid & Medicare are practically "single payer" government-monopoly health insurance plans. They're notorious for severely under-paying doctors et al, to the point that many refuse to take such patients at all.
... why?
The top marginal rate before Reagan was ~50%, and was lowered to 28%. Given this logic, you would expect that the US net tax revenue would have declined significantly in this period, which it did not. Basically, money just shifted from capital gains and corporate taxes to individual returns. If we increase the marginal rate again, it will likely just shift back without changing anything.