Topic: Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that - page 2. (Read 519 times)

Yeah, why would taking more than half of what some one earns working way harder than everyone else make people want to work less right? What kind of weirdo doesn't want the fruits of his labor taken at gunpoint while he grinds himself into the dirt? Also this has been studied. You are wrong.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

BTW, as usual, you use deceptive charts. Notice how your cute little animation cuts off at $200k? That means anyone earning more than 200k is going to be included in that last bar, giving it a manipulatively larger visual impact than if you were to expand it out like the rest of the bar graph. Just because most people earn very little doesn't make these people power brokers for earning more.

You started off claiming that the 300,000$ person could buy a home in the most expensive districts.

Then you backed off that claim, and talked about how he could buy the AVERAGE home at 1.7M.

Now you've found some junker likely next to the neighborhood crackhouse, for 1M. Plus you are now claiming "not every super wealthy person can buy a house."

Purchase price = 1.7M... 1.7M * 90% = 1.53M .... Assumes the person can pay 170,000 down. Few people can do that.

 4.25% /12 ... Interest per month, taking midpoint of recent rates

(taxes, insurance, HOA fees) = 0.012% of purchase price per month

Payment for the average SF house of 1.7M would be = Interest (5757) + taxes, insurance, HOA (1700) = 7457

This poor "SUPER WEALTHY" guy's available income for all expenses after his house payment would be ...

11250 - 7457 = 3793

But it's the nature of communism to go after and persecute the small businessmen, and take what they earned. One way to start would be to call them the SUPER WEALTHY. I think you've defined SUPER WEALTHY as someone you'd simply like to gorge and take their money away.

They are, and you are correct.

Coinsforcommies, in his own mind and nobody else, they are Super Wealthy.

Not only that, but all those type of statistics look at family income, and the typical family earning over 300,000 have slightly more that two wage earners.

You guys have a weird way of defining "middle".  No one looks at a distribution curve and calls the extreme tip of it the "middle"



Median salary for doctors is 208.  Lawyers are at 119.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/best-paying-jobs

A salary job that pays over 300k is extremely rare.  Most of the people with that much income are earning it through means other than labor.  Some people try to ignore statistics and laser focus on a few extreme examples though.  The

The cherrypicked is claim is still weak on its own.  You're laser focused in on the hypothetical "middle class" anestesiologist who lives in san francisco making 450k who now has to pay 18,000in healthcare taxes ( 4% payroll tax in "sanders plan as opposed to the 10,000 they were paying for private insurance).  Somehow you're convinced that the extra 8,000 in taxes to help cover the entire population is too much because this person is already limited to only being able to easily afford to buy homes under 2 million dollars. 

You can quote what people pay now here
https://www.coveredca.com/

Keep in mind the "middle income" folks would only be paying 2400.  The overwhelming majority of people would be saving massive amounts of money at the expense of ultra high earners and, of course, the private insurance company profits. 

    I am really confused why someone would consider an income of $300,000 per year would be considered part of the "wealthy" class. I would think that would be the expected income of a successful doctor, lawyer or small business owner. I always thought people in these professions were considered Upper Middle class, not Lower Upper or Upper Upper class. I also thought these progressives were going to go after the upper classes with their taxes, not the middle classes. It appears that once again, the middle class are going to be the ones who truly shoulder the burden to assist the working and lower classes, while the people in the upper classes will find all kinds of loopholes to pay as little tax as possible.
  To get back on topic, if some form of "Medicare for all" ever gets implemented, I certainly hope it works out better for me than the current system. People on Medicaid have better coverage than I do. 

Well those people have income that is in the 95 percentile so statistically I don't really have to prove anything.  We're talking about incomes that are more than 5 times the national median and in the top 5%.  There is no way of talking your way out of those facts.  300,000 is super wealthy relative to the median income of 60,000.  

My prior claim still stands and was supported by all of those zillow links.  Those aren't maybes.  Those are properties on the market that could be bought right now at less than 28% of gross monthly income.  Its not my fault that you confused yourself by using income after taxes instead of gross income to make the rich seem poor.  
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/89237732_zpid/2-_beds/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/2_p/0_mmm/
Its a million dollar home at a cost of 5400

That is 22% of the gross monthly income of someone with an annual income of 300,000

and of course the expectation is not that any wealthy person can buy any house.  There are obviously multiple levels of being wealthy.  Theres a 1% that these people can't touch and a .1% that they can't even touch.  San Francisco is full of 20+ million dollar homes but just because someone making 300,000 can only afford a 1 million dollar home doesn't mean they aren't rich.  

If your only incentive for working is to become as wealthy as possible, paying tax is not going to take that away.  If anything, the tax would incentivize you work a little more just to get back to where you would have been before the tax. Paying a little tax isn't going to cut anybody off.

The bolded question is a great question and actually supports the reasoning for taxing the rich.  Their excess wealth is literally coming from the labor of others.

So now you are claiming the "super wealthy" can maybe buy an "entry level home" in the SF area by spending 2/3 to 3/4 of their take home pay.

Let's go look at your prior claim. After I said this:

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA. Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

You replied:

Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    

Well, which is it? The most expensive market or the "average" market? Looks to me like your "super wealthy" is pretty close to poor. And if he follows your advice, he's chained to a ridiculous mortgage forever and likely winds up dead broke.

Why should anyone follow your advice on the wonderful world of communism?

They'd likely find out the hard way you were grossly mistaken or lying.

You said -

This entire sidetrack is a cherry pick in itself because we are discussing an extreme subset of conditions in rare extreme markets.  The overwhelming majority of this tiny fraction of people earning 300,000 would easily afford a home in most markets. Its all just a distraction and a reach for you to desperately try to prove a point. 

It's YOUR ARGUMENT and YOUR PHRASE "Super wealthy." Live with it.

The point that these are still the employing class is quite a valid point. You act like these people live like royalty, and you want to remove their incentive for working as hard as they do, but they employ a large percentage of the people who make less than them. It is a lot like a food chain in nature. You can't just cut off the top half and expect everything to work out just fine. Also there is the very simple question of what entitles you to the labor and resources of others?

Public corruption is not the only form of corruption.  

As for your scenarios.  You have switched a lot of things around in your calculations that have thrown everything off.  I will try to break everything down

1. "super wealthy" is a relative term.  These are people who have income in the 95 percentile so they are super wealthy relative to most people.  

2.  I don't agree with what you are calling the "conservative model" because it is not meant to be applied to the typical person and does not apply to the "super wealthy"  in the same way because 75% of the median income leaves an individual with 45000 in other living expenses while much less than 75% of 300,000 is necessary to fulfill other expenses.  The higher your income, the more percentage of your income you can spend.   The most important part of this is that you have changed the actual number.  The number should be based on gross income and you based it on "take home" which makes it significantly lower.  No one uses that.  You snuck that in to make it look like I was the one lying.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/05/030905.asp
Again, the higher your income, usually the more sense it makes that you can afford to spend a larger percentage of it.  

3.  You used the average home price instead of median home price which again is misleading.  The average home price is a pretty meaningless number that is skewed by ultra high value homes.  If anything, it would be most appropriate to use a "entry level home price" to figure out if someone can afford to buy a home.
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/10/20689307/median-home-price-house-sf-san-francisco-2019
Median sale price is 1.7 million. Keep in mind the median home price in the US is $226,000.  
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Francisco-CA/house,condo,land_type/80743196_zpid/20330_rid/0-500000_price/0-1907_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/38.183688,-122.161789,37.581045,-123.12584_rect/9_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Francisco-CA/house,condo,land_type/2124214951_zpid/20330_rid/0-500000_price/0-1907_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.374648,-121.978455,36.974032,-125.834656_rect/7_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/59792371_zpid/2-_beds/0-900000_price/0-3432_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853848,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592487_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/2121141340_zpid/2-_beds/0-900000_price/0-3432_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/89237732_zpid/2-_beds/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/2_p/0_mmm/

4. This entire sidetrack is a cherry pick in itself because we are discussing an extreme subset of conditions in rare extreme markets.  The overwhelming majority of this tiny fraction of people earning 300,000 would easily afford a home in most markets.  Its all just a distraction and a reach for you to desperately try to prove a point.  

5. Is "no one can afford to buy a house" really even the argument you want to be making on behalf of more expensive healthcare?

And "what you would like' is just about as bad an idea as the many time you've stretched or completely ignored the truth in things you have said here.

Your plan involves increasing taxes, so it involves increasing the pot from which corruption is engendered.


Really? The 11,250 is net take home of 300k / year which is what you call "super wealthy." And you consider that "super wealthy?"


I assume you'd agree with the "conservative model" used in the banking industry that the house payment should not exceed 25% of take home income. That'd be $2812 payment including taxes, interest, and insurance, and PMI.

Please show me examples of houses in the most expensive market of San Francisco for which the monthly payment is $2812 or less. Zillow is fine.  Actually, I think you are just making things up again. Median prices in those neighborhoods are 3-5M. Taking the lower number, 3,000,000 and assuming an interest rate of 4.5%, monthly interest paid would be 11,250. To that you must add principal pay down, insurance, taxes, and PMI.

So you are just lying again, and poorly.

I'm seeing the average house in SF running a mortgage of 6-7000 per month, way outside what someone with a take home pay of 11250 could afford.

Maybe you want to reconsider what you consider "super wealthy?"

And that's the reason nobody should pay any attention to your rosy claims about the wonders of communism. So much of what you say is untrue, why should those things you say about communism be any different?

Enough to buy a house, yes, but you're still going to have it mortgages as you're most likely still going to live out of your means (It's a great American thing that we do here)

After taxes from the Fed and NY though, that amount is going to be much much lower. You're walking away with about $191k after taxes.


I'm confused on what you're trying to touch on here. Are you saying that these small business deductions are leading to people paying no taxes and that's a bad thing? There's a reason for these taxes, and its to incentivize investment and growth. It also allows you to deduct expenses of doing business (which makes sense, as it would never make any sense to pay taxes on your revenue instead of income)

Can you clarify this portion?

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system.


This is an invalid point.  This fake person makes 50k not 300k.  Income taxes are not based on revenue and the fact that you don't know that means you are either intentionally dishonest or way too rich or too poor to be in touch with basic tax concepts.  Besides, most people in that sort of situation described could use small business deductions like property depreciation or smart accounting to report their adjusted gross income to near 0 to pay minimal taxes.  The business isn't doing great.

Corruption is based on available corruptables, and you would like a large pot of money there.

It's obviously a target for taking by those who would do so.

A blanket system that everyone uses with no qualifiers actually reduces the amount of bureaucracy and red tape.  Less corruption because there is no work to be done in regards to finding out how something will be paid for or by who or for whom. 



And yes.   Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    Funny how that works huh?  Its almost as if a lot of thought has been put into coming up with a plan that works for everyone. 

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

You might be honest, while I have my doubts, you are most certainly ignorant. Who do you think is employing the other 95%? What if that guy who makes 300k a year spends $250k in payroll every year? Suddenly this works for the 0%.

Well yeah thats 5%.  This is bad for 5% and good for 95%.     I'm just being honest.  No program or policy benefits everyone. 

LOL. Anyone who earns more than 300k a year is super wealthy. K.

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  If you hold shares of insurance companies, of course you don't want those shares to go to zero and simultaneously have to pay more in taxes.  Its a lose-lose for the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

Who would want private companies to get in the way of corrupt communists?