Rumor What's going on in Portland?

No one here currently, but some are calling for equal wages across the board for all.

Sure that would be nice, but thats also very gray. Where are the lines drawn? And how is that done while not sacrificing one persona hard earn money to give some to another?

Raise taxes and distribute?


I mean I think all would be happy with Utopia, but somethings are simply not realistic.
Life isn't fair.

 

You're asking me, or us, to explain positions none of us believe in...because you feel that "some" want that?

That doesn't make sense. Equal wages for everyone is not a remotely mainstream position--nobody in the mainstream is calling for literal communism in America. Equal opportunity is the ideal that many of us want to work towards--what people do with their opportunity will lead to differing outcomes, but some people having little to no access to basic needs being met and to quality education is a terrible situation for our society. Leaving aside social justice or idealism, it's bad for society to have many people unproductive when the majority of them could be contributing to society.

 

Huh?

My first sentence was referring to you stating no one is calling for equal income. I said not in here. In this forum, currently, but it has been mentioned as wanted by some.

My second portion was based on what you said, minimize the gap, raise the floor, etc. I'm asking how that is done. I'm not asking you to explain something you don't believe in, i'm asking you to explain something you just stated you wanted.

I know not all needs are met for every human. I don't know of a country that is able to meet that standard. But regardless, equal opportunity has been addressed several times, affirmative action, etc.

I'm not following you at all, unless you are just stating more issues without answers?


I was asking you how you would make things better based on what you said. Not asking you to explain something you dont believe in. Not sure where that came from?

 

Ah okay. I thought the "that would be nice," which led the second portion, was about equal incomes from the first sentence. I misunderstood you.

Of course some people's incomes would have to be "sacrificed." That's part of being in a society--nobody can get rich without being part of a society (try to imagine someone becoming a billionaire through just their own hard work on a desert island). So part of the deal of being part of that society that allowed you to get rich, of making use of the infrastructure of the society, etc, is paying back into the society in the form of taxes.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, America had 90% marginal interest rates on the top income bracket. This in the midst of the "red scare" era, and no one considered the US to be a socialist nation. The Republican party in the 1970s and, especially the 1980s under Reagan, became much harder line on taxes on the rich. Not coincidentally, the gap between rich and poor (and the gradual reduction of a true middle class) exploded from that point on.

While what constitutes the "top income bracket" obviously would need to change relative to the '50s and '60s, we should get back to that kind of progressive taxation, where the highest income individuals and families pay more into the common good, which should be used for improving school systems in under-served areas and making sure everyone has sufficient food, clothing, shelter and safety so that they can focus on education and employment.

 

Yeah, I didn't say anything about an equal income across the board.

I'm not opposed to the wealthy, but I am opposed to systems that keep people so poor and destitute that it negatively impacts overall society.

I have no problem with supply and demand in the market place or regarding the workforce. I do have a problem with people suffering unnecessarily.

Too much of anything is not good. There is a healthy balance that can be attained and many countries are doing a better job of finding that balance than we are.

I support policies that allow our society to prosper in as healthy a manner as those countries.

 

Gotcha.
I tbink comparing our country to other countries can be very missleading. For example, logistics is extremely different for is than say, people in Sweden.
When we speak of costs of goods. Yea mfg and labor is a driving for e but so is frt transit.

Its easy to say, “see this country offers 100% free health care, why cant we?”
When not taking into consideration many other factors like defense budgets, geographical and population size, etc. it can provide some fairly misleading numbers.

 

sorry i could have also clarified better.
Let me do a bit of research on this as some things you mention im ignorant of.

 

cant link

speaking of conversations in text and on fb.

id have to backtrack and confirm but i beleive even dviss mention we should be able to have equal income for all.

 

Those are just excuses. Everything becomes less expensive at scale. That's why larger insurance pools pay lower rates here in the US.

The US could do everything those countries are doing at a lower price per person. We have every advantage those countries do not have.

Universal Healthcare here in the US would cost less than we're currently spending.

 

when you say cost less than what we are currently spending, are you refering to oboma care or individual out of pocket expenditures?

im pretty sure thst universal health care woudl cost the givernment more than they currently spend on health care. If you dosagree please show me some numbers?

Were starting to get into a numbers game where anyone can say anything to back the opinion. But is it fiscally feasable?

Show me the numbers.

 

how did Obama care work out?

 

Of course it would cost the government more. But the government's money comes from taxes, which amounts to what we spend. So the correct comparison is what we, combined, spend on insurance premiums. It should be obvious that government handling health care will cost less in total than private companies handling it--private companies have to make a profit, government just has to break even.

 

What's your alternative solution?

 

Mokay but the premium i pay im willing to bet is less than that tax increase would be if the gov. Took it over.
Again.
This is about numbers. We can all speculate all we want but to say one would cost less, well show me verifiable and credible numbers.

ive seen some links posted in the past that didn't take into account various circumstances/equations that would have an impact on the bottom dollar.
Im not saying it cant be done, but i have yet to sew anything concrete backing the claim that universal health care would dent my wallet less than the current system.

 

Those are valid complaints. It without a solution.

 

According to the CBO the most aggressive single payer plan in the world (Bernie Sanders Medicare For All) would cost less than we are currently projected to spend on healthcare.

The Political Economic Research Institute shows $500 billion in savings per year...

A whole bunch of developed countries spend 9-12% of their GDP on healthcare. The US spends 18-20%.

 

Does this take into account all the little things people currently live with without getting care vs what they would have treated if free?

i have a cyst on my knew. Im not paying to have it removed now but if it were free i would.

See i think reports like this are fairly misleading because of my above question.