From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/
The number I usually see is $32 trillion over 10 years, just for 'Medicare for all (single payer)'. Assuming uniform distribution of cost (unlikely) for ease of computation, that is an extra $3.2 trillion per year
A cursory search gives me total Medicare and health spending in 2015 of just shy of $986 billion
Allowing for 'perfect world' $3.2 trillion - $986 billion savings from traditional Medicare = $2.214 trillion in needed new revenue
$2.214 trillion ÷ $1.45 trillion = 1.527 since this is all needed additional revenue, average taxes need to rise an additional 152.7%, or if you paid $10000 previously, that would rise to $25270 (your other taxes certainly wouldn't go down and the new revenue requirement is in addition to your previous tax burden)
All so what are arguably free-riders can have what they are unwilling to work for (since there are programs like medicaid in place for the truly poor, I will assume the rest desiring me to pay for their coverage are of some means - they just don't want to spend it on health insurance combined with the ACA making insurance quite a bit more expensive)
No way that could ever be a drag on the economy
video
I think the traditional model, where you work for what you get, but if you're legitimately incapable of working, there's at least some social safety net, is reasonable and sustainable. But the full on welfare state is not sustainable, and they just want to keep adding more to that. And to do that they have to raise taxes. That crazy ***** keeps saying they can make it revenue neutral. As you've shown, that's just nonsense. There is no way to make that utopian wet dream revenue neutral. They'll have to raise taxes. A crap ton.
But, about the revenue increase needed, likely they'd raise taxes progressively so that they punish/rewarded disproportionately outrageous, including negative tax. So, if you're really making only 10K a year you'd be rewarded with money back to at least get you above poverty level. But, if you make more than that, you'd progressively be punished to lower your income so they can take your money away to give it to others. They'll also have to limit travel for the richest people so they don't try to flee from the obscene tax burden.
Oh. Not even Calculus I. She could get by taking Calculus for the Life and Social Sciences I. So, basically calculus-lite for grievance studies ideologues.
From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/
The number I usually see is $32 trillion over 10 years, just for 'Medicare for all (single payer)'. Assuming uniform distribution of cost (unlikely) for ease of computation, that is an extra $3.2 trillion per year
A cursory search gives me total Medicare and health spending in 2015 of just shy of $986 billion
Allowing for 'perfect world' $3.2 trillion - $986 billion savings from traditional Medicare = $2.214 trillion in needed new revenue
$2.214 trillion ÷ $1.45 trillion = 1.527 since this is all needed additional revenue, average taxes need to rise an additional 152.7%, or if you paid $10000 previously, that would rise to $25270 (your other taxes certainly wouldn't go down and the new revenue requirement is in addition to your previous tax burden)
All so what are arguably free-riders can have what they are unwilling to work for (since there are programs like medicaid in place for the truly poor, I will assume the rest desiring me to pay for their coverage are of some means - they just don't want to spend it on health insurance combined with the ACA making insurance quite a bit more expensive)
No way that could ever be a drag on the economy
This is fantastic. Sadly a large group of people will never see this and don't have the curiosity to intellectually (or emotionally) digest this.
Just like with an enfineering degree vs an engineering technology degree, where the latter is less rigorous, the degree programs for econ have different tiers. Generall a BS in econ will be much more mathematically intense than a BA in econ. After hearing all the nonsense she’s said about the economy, it’s pretty clear her BA didn’t really teach her anything about economics other than perhaps marxist theory. And who needs math for that?I suck something fierce at math and busted my ass to get a BS MET from Purdue. 2 Calc classes, 2 statics classes, etc, etc...
I sat in Statistics with the econ and nursing majors who were just totally mesmerized by the entire experience. I'd for sure trust a nurse to save my life based on her math skills, but I'm not trusting my economy to an econ major, honors grad or not.
She should have plenty of classmates who can comment on her college years. Let's hope some of them surface.
Like "O"s did.........
Just like with an enfineering degree vs an engineering technology degree, where the latter is less rigorous, the degree programs for econ have different tiers. Generall a BS in econ will be much more mathematically intense than a BA in econ. After hearing all the nonsense she’s said about the economy, it’s pretty clear her BA didn’t really teach her anything about economics other than perhaps marxist theory. And who needs math for that?
if ya just go to my gofundme page to fund my death star i promise to resolve all these problems for you. trust me.
I am probably alone here but I don't yet believe she is an idiot. She may be, but I'm not there yet.
Rather, she is a naive, optimistic progressive who cannot see the trees for the forest. In this regard neither can most other people, progressive or conservative.
We have $21.8 trillion in debt.
We have about $150 trillion (give or take about $50 trillion) in unfunded liabilities.
We are spending about $800 billion more than we take in, and it is getting worse.
Doctors and nurses do not control costs. Almost all of them belong to large medical conglomerates that control costs. Try finding a independent doctor in a metropolitan area. I tried in Ft. Wayne and found maybe(?) two (2). All the rest had been gobbled up by Lutheran or Parkview.
The problem is no one who is fiscally conservative has sat down with her and IN A NICE WAY had a debate using cold, hard numbers. It's like trying to talk to people who are against mass shootings, and so come to the conclusion that more gun control is needed. Few sit down not being on the defensive and discuss with gun owners the sad fact that mass killings CANNOT be stopped. This is a sad truth gun owners understand, but still dislike as much as the gun control folks.
Her and people like her believe in trying to achieve Utopia. Economists look at the big picture, but fail to see the work of each individual tree that really makes up the forest.
I don't believe her to be an idiot. However, when she (or anyone) is attacked they will get defensive and entrench themselves, and then there is no going back. On both sides...
Regards,
Doug
I would enjoy seeing her in a discussion or debate with any high-profile conservative, but she simply won't do it. Ben Shapiro offered Cortez ten grand towards a charity of her choice for debating him, but she accused him of "catcalling" because he's a man. When conservative women like Candace Owens stepped up and wanted to debate, Cortez wouldn't even give them a response. She knows she will get destroyed by any of them because she's ignorant about the topics she preaches on. That's what happens when you're motivated by feelings rather than facts.