|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 23, 2014 13:13:08 GMT
Since I do not favor the very concept of the welfare state, I would not wish for Medicare (or Social Security) to be "a very good social welfare program." If Medicare were completely eliminated (as under your proposal), the effects upon me would be rather minimal. In fact, I can think of only two; both of which are rather minor: Part A coverage obviates the need to seek pre-approval from BC/BS for some types of hospital stays; and it results in the elimination of the $250 Admittance Fee attendant to hospitalization. I just do not know if everyone else would fare so well.
"Welfare State" is a term coined for political purposes where a "Welfare Burden" would actually be a better expression. "Welfare State" refers to the government providing the assistance necessary to address the "Welfare Burden" but whether the assistance is provided for by the "public" or "private" sector the "Welfare Burden" still exists and is unchanged. The "Welfare Burden" is created by poverty and it places a financial burden upon the "people of the nation" regardless of how that burden is funded.
For example SNAP is providing about $80 billion a year in food assistance and that reflects the "Welfare Burden" being carried by the "public" but the "Welfare Burden" is greater than that which is why we have private food banks. I'm not sure how much the private food banks provide in assistance but if we simply assume $20 billion (which is probably more than the food banks provide) then we have a $100 billion "Welfare Burden" related to food for Americans because of poverty. It the government cuts the $80 billion to $70 billion then the private sector food banks need to come up with another $10 billion so that the $100 billion total "Welfare Burden" in food assistance is provided for.
Now what I find stupid with Social Security is that the average benefit level generally creates a "Welfare Burden" for half of all retirees where they require other assistance. For example a person with only $15,000 in Social Security benefits would also qualify for SNAP assistance. Instead of one government welfare program we need two government welfare programs to meet the "Welfare Burden" of at least 1/2 of those collecting Social Security retirement benefits. If we want "smaller" government then having two "welfare programs" to address a known situation that could be addressed by just one is rather stupid IMHO.
When I address the elimination of Medicare it doesn't change the "costs" of providing health care services for the elderly. What it addresses is the fact that if people have the financial assets to pay for their own health insurance at retirement then it reduces the "Welfare Burden" for Americans. In 2014 the projected Medicare spending is about $600 billion and while not all of that spending would be eliminated (some would fall under Medicaid that I don't eliminate) it would be dramatically reduced because people could afford their own private health insurance because of personal wealth created by the privatization of Social Security.
Once again my proposals for taxation and privatization of Social Security are based upon reducing the "Welfare Burden" created by poverty. They increase disposable income for the bottom 50% of income earners while also building personal wealth that increases generationally as the investment assests are "vested" in the person as opposed to being taxation that is spent by the government on social welfare programs.
"Reducing Poverty" reduces the "Welfare Burden" of the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 23, 2014 20:39:53 GMT
Since I do not favor the very concept of the welfare state, I would not wish for Medicare (or Social Security) to be "a very good social welfare program." If Medicare were completely eliminated (as under your proposal), the effects upon me would be rather minimal. In fact, I can think of only two; both of which are rather minor: Part A coverage obviates the need to seek pre-approval from BC/BS for some types of hospital stays; and it results in the elimination of the $250 Admittance Fee attendant to hospitalization. I just do not know if everyone else would fare so well.
"Welfare State" is a term coined for political purposes where a "Welfare Burden" would actually be a better expression. "Welfare State" refers to the government providing the assistance necessary to address the "Welfare Burden" but whether the assistance is provided for by the "public" or "private" sector the "Welfare Burden" still exists and is unchanged. The "Welfare Burden" is created by poverty and it places a financial burden upon the "people of the nation" regardless of how that burden is funded.
For example SNAP is providing about $80 billion a year in food assistance and that reflects the "Welfare Burden" being carried by the "public" but the "Welfare Burden" is greater than that which is why we have private food banks. I'm not sure how much the private food banks provide in assistance but if we simply assume $20 billion (which is probably more than the food banks provide) then we have a $100 billion "Welfare Burden" related to food for Americans because of poverty. It the government cuts the $80 billion to $70 billion then the private sector food banks need to come up with another $10 billion so that the $100 billion total "Welfare Burden" in food assistance is provided for.
Now what I find stupid with Social Security is that the average benefit level generally creates a "Welfare Burden" for half of all retirees where they require other assistance. For example a person with only $15,000 in Social Security benefits would also qualify for SNAP assistance. Instead of one government welfare program we need two government welfare programs to meet the "Welfare Burden" of at least 1/2 of those collecting Social Security retirement benefits. If we want "smaller" government then having two "welfare programs" to address a known situation that could be addressed by just one is rather stupid IMHO.
When I address the elimination of Medicare it doesn't change the "costs" of providing health care services for the elderly. What it addresses is the fact that if people have the financial assets to pay for their own health insurance at retirement then it reduces the "Welfare Burden" for Americans. In 2014 the projected Medicare spending is about $600 billion and while not all of that spending would be eliminated (some would fall under Medicaid that I don't eliminate) it would be dramatically reduced because people could afford their own private health insurance because of personal wealth created by the privatization of Social Security.
Once again my proposals for taxation and privatization of Social Security are based upon reducing the "Welfare Burden" created by poverty. They increase disposable income for the bottom 50% of income earners while also building personal wealth that increases generationally as the investment assests are "vested" in the person as opposed to being taxation that is spent by the government on social welfare programs.
"Reducing Poverty" reduces the "Welfare Burden" of the nation.
Actually, I believe that a better term for "the welfare state" would be The Benefactor State. And I simply do not believe in the core concept of beneficent government. (In my opinion, the very finest government ever created by humankind--and that would probably be the American government, as created by the Framers--was merely a necessary evil, essential for staving off anarchy and the chaos that would surely ensue therefrom; but nothing any more glorious than that.) If government-sponsored assistance were removed, presumably, private assistance would increase proportionately, to fill the void, since potential contributors would have that much more disposable income to use for charitable purposes. As for the person with "only $15,000" in annual Social Security benefits, the fact is that my own check is for merely $1,021 per month, or a little over $12,000 per year ($12,252, to be exact). So $15,000 per year looks pretty good to me. (Yes, I do have other sources of income; although all of these, combined, make for a rather modest annual income. And Social Security was never intended--even by the left-leaning FDR--to serve as a fully sufficient source of retirement income. That is why one should do a little planning; and most people have almost half a century of a working lifetime, in which to plan adequately.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 24, 2014 11:47:13 GMT
Actually, I believe that a better term for "the welfare state" would be The Benefactor State. And I simply do not believe in the core concept of beneficent government. (In my opinion, the very finest government ever created by humankind--and that would probably be the American government, as created by the Framers--was merely a necessary evil, essential for staving off anarchy and the chaos that would surely ensue therefrom; but nothing any more glorious than that.) If government-sponsored assistance were removed, presumably, private assistance would increase proportionately, to fill the void, since potential contributors would have that much more disposable income to use for charitable purposes. As for the person with "only $15,000" in annual Social Security benefits, the fact is that my own check is for merely $1,021 per month, or a little over $12,000 per year ($12,252, to be exact). So $15,000 per year looks pretty good to me. (Yes, I do have other sources of income; although all of these, combined, make for a rather modest annual income. And Social Security was never intended--even by the left-leaning FDR--to serve as a fully sufficient source of retirement income. That is why one should do a little planning; and most people have almost half a century of a working lifetime, in which to plan adequately.)
When the United States was founded there really weren't any taxes imposed on the average person (with the possible exception of the Whiskey Tax).
Today the lowest income workers carry the highest total tax burden relative to income in the United States. If we look at just the Social Security tax (both SS and Medicare) tax imposed on the labor of the worker it's 15.3% which is higher than what many very wealthy people (e.g. Mitt Romney) pay in federal taxes on double-digit multi-million dollar annual incomes. At the state level of taxation, where taxes like the sales tax are highly regressive, the tax burden on low income households can be as much as 14-times greater on the low income household than on a high income household.
Because of the high overall tax burdern on low income workers they generally don't have enough disposable income to invest during their working career to be able to accumulate the personal wealth necessary for retirement. We can assume that a person with below average SS retirement benefits falls into the group that is least likely to have the disposable income to invest. We can certainly assume that anyone receiving welfare assistance, such as SNAP, doesn't have the disposable income to invest and today that represents 40 million households alone.
Remember that if a household has a retirement investment account with assets the government will not provide assistance like SNAP as it expects the person to use those assets to live on.
Basically our government forces a low income worker that would require assistance to NOT have any retirement investments to provide income when they become too old to work. The spend their entire lives living in poverty and then are subjected to even worse poverty when they retire under Social Security.
The people that have the disposable income to provide assistance to the poor are already giving as much as they would choose to give to private charity. Decreasing government assistance will not increase their donations to charities. Not even changing the tax codes to make this charitable donations offset by tax credits will change their donation amount (but will provide a huge tax break for the wealthy) IMHO. But we could try it.
Let's provide the "tax break" and if it results in more income to charities then reduce the government welfare spending based upon the increased load being carried by private charities. What would be irresponsible it to cut the federal assistance on a remote hope that greedy Americans will donate more to charity because that is very unlikely to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 19:55:32 GMT
Actually, I believe that a better term for "the welfare state" would be The Benefactor State. And I simply do not believe in the core concept of beneficent government. (In my opinion, the very finest government ever created by humankind--and that would probably be the American government, as created by the Framers--was merely a necessary evil, essential for staving off anarchy and the chaos that would surely ensue therefrom; but nothing any more glorious than that.) If government-sponsored assistance were removed, presumably, private assistance would increase proportionately, to fill the void, since potential contributors would have that much more disposable income to use for charitable purposes. As for the person with "only $15,000" in annual Social Security benefits, the fact is that my own check is for merely $1,021 per month, or a little over $12,000 per year ($12,252, to be exact). So $15,000 per year looks pretty good to me. (Yes, I do have other sources of income; although all of these, combined, make for a rather modest annual income. And Social Security was never intended--even by the left-leaning FDR--to serve as a fully sufficient source of retirement income. That is why one should do a little planning; and most people have almost half a century of a working lifetime, in which to plan adequately.)
When the United States was founded there really weren't any taxes imposed on the average person (with the possible exception of the Whiskey Tax).
Today the lowest income workers carry the highest total tax burden relative to income in the United States. If we look at just the Social Security tax (both SS and Medicare) tax imposed on the labor of the worker it's 15.3% which is higher than what many very wealthy people (e.g. Mitt Romney) pay in federal taxes on double-digit multi-million dollar annual incomes. At the state level of taxation, where taxes like the sales tax are highly regressive, the tax burden on low income households can be as much as 14-times greater on the low income household than on a high income household.
Because of the high overall tax burdern on low income workers they generally don't have enough disposable income to invest during their working career to be able to accumulate the personal wealth necessary for retirement. We can assume that a person with below average SS retirement benefits falls into the group that is least likely to have the disposable income to invest. We can certainly assume that anyone receiving welfare assistance, such as SNAP, doesn't have the disposable income to invest and today that represents 40 million households alone.
Remember that if a household has a retirement investment account with assets the government will not provide assistance like SNAP as it expects the person to use those assets to live on.
Basically our government forces a low income worker that would require assistance to NOT have any retirement investments to provide income when they become too old to work. The spend their entire lives living in poverty and then are subjected to even worse poverty when they retire under Social Security.
The people that have the disposable income to provide assistance to the poor are already giving as much as they would choose to give to private charity. Decreasing government assistance will not increase their donations to charities. Not even changing the tax codes to make this charitable donations offset by tax credits will change their donation amount (but will provide a huge tax break for the wealthy) IMHO. But we could try it.
Let's provide the "tax break" and if it results in more income to charities then reduce the government welfare spending based upon the increased load being carried by private charities. What would be irresponsible it to cut the federal assistance on a remote hope that greedy Americans will donate more to charity because that is very unlikely to happen.
You appear to have assumed a leftist's mindset here: non-poor Americans in general--and especially wealthy Americans--are just, well, downright "greedy." By the way, I am very far from being wealthy--except, perhaps, by Third World standards--yet I managed to sock away a full 26 percent (more than one quarter) of my gross income into a 401(k) for the last several years of my working life. (Prior to that, it was just 15 percent.) And I maxed out my IRA at $2,000 per year in contributions, by automatic debit of $166.66 each month to Vanguard. (At the time, $2,000 was the maximum allowable contribution.) And please note that my wages topped out as a rate of (gasp!) a whole $12 per hour. Not exactly an impressive income. I think it is largely about priorities: Would one rather spend the money on the latest gadget or gizmo that is widely advertised? Or would one rather sock away the money in a retirement account--the older term for it was delayed gratification--and watch it grow, exponentially, in Quicken or Microsoft Money (whichever one happens to have), and/or in an online portfolio in the Internet? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 25, 2014 11:33:32 GMT
You appear to have assumed a leftist's mindset here: non-poor Americans in general--and especially wealthy Americans--are just, well, downright "greedy." By the way, I am very far from being wealthy--except, perhaps, by Third World standards--yet I managed to sock away a full 26 percent (more than one quarter) of my gross income into a 401(k) for the last several years of my working life. (Prior to that, it was just 15 percent.) And I maxed out my IRA at $2,000 per year in contributions, by automatic debit of $166.66 each month to Vanguard. (At the time, $2,000 was the maximum allowable contribution.) And please note that my wages topped out as a rate of (gasp!) a whole $12 per hour. Not exactly an impressive income. I think it is largely about priorities: Would one rather spend the money on the latest gadget or gizmo that is widely advertised? Or would one rather sock away the money in a retirement account--the older term for it was delayed gratification--and watch it grow, exponentially, in Quicken or Microsoft Money (whichever one happens to have), and/or in an online portfolio in the Internet?
I don't know that I would call the wealthiests of Americans intentionally "greedy" as they do contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to charities but we do know that they could contribute far more and that private charities don't even come close to providing the necessary assistance to Americans in need. The wealthiest person in the United States is Bill Gates and he gives about $500 million annually to charitable causes (mostly education) and one-half billion dollars a year is a lot of money. At the same time Bill Gates is worth about $76 billion and, while I don't have an exact number, probably earns between $5-$10 billion a year. I wouldn't call Bill Gates greedy but if he wanted to he could donate billions of dollars to charity and still be expanding his vast material wealth. Seriously, does anyone by any stretch of the imagination need $76 billion or $5-$10 billion/yr in income? Seriously, $76 billion equals roughly 1.5 million times the annual income of Americans.
It is true that $12/hr or about $25,000/yr is not a lot of income assuming it's a person where that is the only income for the household. Of course if a man and wife are both earning $12/hr then thats $50,000/yr in annual income which makes one hell of a difference. Of course if we compare that to the average Walmart employee that earns about $9/hr or $18,700/yr the difference alone is over $6,000/yr. A person can buy a lot more food and still invest a little with that additional $6,000 in income. Virtually all of the new jobs being created today are in low paying hourly jobs that average perhaps $9/hr and that doesn't leave any money left over to buy "gadgets" because they can't even afford to pay for all of the food they need if they're a single parent raising a child.
But let's return to the topic. I don't see any need for the government to provide catastrophic health insurance but I also don't see any reason why employers shouldn't be paying for health insurance for their employees. I've previously made the proposal that all employers should either provide health insurance or pay between $1.50-$2.00/hr to a fund that their employees can access to subsidize a private insurance policy. The argument that "employers can't afford it" is pure BS if all employers are required to provide a health care benefit to their employees. There is no competitive advantage if it applies to all enterprises with employees.
I'm in the process of creating an new start-up manufacturing company with a partner and we address our future employees as being "partners" in the enterprise because it's upon their shoulders as much as ours to make the enterprise succeed. Here's a breakdown of our employee compensation package in our business plan:
1. $20/hr starting wage for employees that require on the job training. 2. Group health insurance for all employees (even though we'll be below the "Obamacare" mandate) 3. Profit sharing where 10% of annual net profits are distributed to employees based upon a "points" system paid on December 1st so they have money for Christmas. 4. A $50 gift card for Thanksgiving - Everyone should be able to have a wonderful day of giving thanks. 5. A cash bonus for every five-years of employment. 6. A company paid pension plan vested at the end of 10 years of service. 7. A 401K retirement plan with company participation.
We consider this to be a very good compensation package and it is based upon what we would want to receive if we were an employee of the company. We believe it will lead to very high production by the employees and the lowest possible turn-over rate (turn-over is extremely expensive as it requires roughly six months on the job before an employee earns their keep). Also of note we will only purchase "Made In America" parts we will require from vendors. With all of this our business plan still shows that we will make a good profit from this enterprise once we get it up and running.
BTW Just so you know we will be manufacturing after market "custom" parts for the new Harley-Davidson Street 500 and Street 750 motorcycles that the other major after market motorcycle parts manufacturers aren't currently interested in because the motorcycles haven't even hit the market. We'll be focused on manufacturng rigid frames, custom exhausts, and have subcontracted custom girder forks and radiators for building "old school" bobbers and choppers from these motorcycles. We anticipate a large market because of the low costs associated with building custom bobbers and choppers using the H-D Street 500 and Street 750 motorcycle as the platform. Instead of the pricetag starting at about $30,000 for a Harley choppers a Street 750 based Harley chopper will typically cost less than $20,000 to build.
If you happen to like motorcycles and interesting commentary on them visit our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/stonefreemfg
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 25, 2014 17:07:50 GMT
You appear to have assumed a leftist's mindset here: non-poor Americans in general--and especially wealthy Americans--are just, well, downright "greedy." By the way, I am very far from being wealthy--except, perhaps, by Third World standards--yet I managed to sock away a full 26 percent (more than one quarter) of my gross income into a 401(k) for the last several years of my working life. (Prior to that, it was just 15 percent.) And I maxed out my IRA at $2,000 per year in contributions, by automatic debit of $166.66 each month to Vanguard. (At the time, $2,000 was the maximum allowable contribution.) And please note that my wages topped out as a rate of (gasp!) a whole $12 per hour. Not exactly an impressive income. I think it is largely about priorities: Would one rather spend the money on the latest gadget or gizmo that is widely advertised? Or would one rather sock away the money in a retirement account--the older term for it was delayed gratification--and watch it grow, exponentially, in Quicken or Microsoft Money (whichever one happens to have), and/or in an online portfolio in the Internet?
I don't know that I would call the wealthiests of Americans intentionally "greedy" as they do contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to charities but we do know that they could contribute far more and that private charities don't even come close to providing the necessary assistance to Americans in need. The wealthiest person in the United States is Bill Gates and he gives about $500 million annually to charitable causes (mostly education) and one-half billion dollars a year is a lot of money. At the same time Bill Gates is worth about $76 billion and, while I don't have an exact number, probably earns between $5-$10 billion a year. I wouldn't call Bill Gates greedy but if he wanted to he could donate billions of dollars to charity and still be expanding his vast material wealth. Seriously, does anyone by any stretch of the imagination need $76 billion or $5-$10 billion/yr in income? Seriously, $76 billion equals roughly 1.5 million times the annual income of Americans.
It is true that $12/hr or about $25,000/yr is not a lot of income assuming it's a person where that is the only income for the household. Of course if a man and wife are both earning $12/hr then thats $50,000/yr in annual income which makes one hell of a difference. Of course if we compare that to the average Walmart employee that earns about $9/hr or $18,700/yr the difference alone is over $6,000/yr. A person can buy a lot more food and still invest a little with that additional $6,000 in income. Virtually all of the new jobs being created today are in low paying hourly jobs that average perhaps $9/hr and that doesn't leave any money left over to buy "gadgets" because they can't even afford to pay for all of the food they need if they're a single parent raising a child.
But let's return to the topic. I don't see any need for the government to provide catastrophic health insurance but I also don't see any reason why employers shouldn't be paying for health insurance for their employees. I've previously made the proposal that all employers should either provide health insurance or pay between $1.50-$2.00/hr to a fund that their employees can access to subsidize a private insurance policy. The argument that "employers can't afford it" is pure BS if all employers are required to provide a health care benefit to their employees. There is no competitive advantage if it applies to all enterprises with employees.
I'm in the process of creating an new start-up manufacturing company with a partner and we address our future employees as being "partners" in the enterprise because it's upon their shoulders as much as ours to make the enterprise succeed. Here's a breakdown of our employee compensation package in our business plan:
1. $20/hr starting wage for employees that require on the job training. 2. Group health insurance for all employees (even though we'll be below the "Obamacare" mandate) 3. Profit sharing where 10% of annual net profits are distributed to employees based upon a "points" system paid on December 1st so they have money for Christmas. 4. A $50 gift card for Thanksgiving - Everyone should be able to have a wonderful day of giving thanks. 5. A cash bonus for every five-years of employment. 6. A company paid pension plan vested at the end of 10 years of service. 7. A 401K retirement plan with company participation.
We consider this to be a very good compensation package and it is based upon what we would want to receive if we were an employee of the company. We believe it will lead to very high production by the employees and the lowest possible turn-over rate (turn-over is extremely expensive as it requires roughly six months on the job before an employee earns their keep). Also of note we will only purchase "Made In America" parts we will require from vendors. With all of this our business plan still shows that we will make a good profit from this enterprise once we get it up and running.
BTW Just so you know we will be manufacturing after market "custom" parts for the new Harley-Davidson Street 500 and Street 750 motorcycles that the other major after market motorcycle parts manufacturers aren't currently interested in because the motorcycles haven't even hit the market. We'll be focused on manufacturng rigid frames, custom exhausts, and have subcontracted custom girder forks and radiators for building "old school" bobbers and choppers from these motorcycles. We anticipate a large market because of the low costs associated with building custom bobbers and choppers using the H-D Street 500 and Street 750 motorcycle as the platform. Instead of the pricetag starting at about $30,000 for a Harley choppers a Street 750 based Harley chopper will typically cost less than $20,000 to build.
If you happen to like motorcycles and interesting commentary on them visit our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/stonefreemfg
I certainly agree with you that no one really "need" mega-billions of dollars in income. (The fact is that even if, say, $10 billion were suddenly to fall into my lap--even $10 billion in after-tax money--I simply cannot imagine how it might alter my day-to-day lifestyle, as I am not a fancy or pretentious person.)
Still, I would not want to have the government make the determination as to how much money is "enough," as President Obama has hinted that it should do. And I am not at all comfortable with government-enforced redistributionist policies--not even in the absence of some glorious alternative.
Yes, the compensation package for your startup does, indeed, appear to be "very good." I commend you for that. (As you noted, however, a part of it--such as the inclusion of healthcare coverage--is not a matter of government compulsion, but your own voluntary preference. And this is a good thing, as I simply do not believe that the government should be allowed to intrude upon private businesses' decisions--and that, irrespective of those businesses' size.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 26, 2014 7:05:59 GMT
Still, I would not want to have the government make the determination as to how much money is "enough," as President Obama has hinted that it should do. And I am not at all comfortable with government-enforced redistributionist policies--not even in the absence of some glorious alternative.
Yes, the compensation package for your startup does, indeed, appear to be "very good." I commend you for that. (As you noted, however, a part of it--such as the inclusion of healthcare coverage--is not a matter of government compulsion, but your own voluntary preference. And this is a good thing, as I simply do not believe that the government should be allowed to intrude upon private businesses' decisions--and that, irrespective of those businesses' size.)
I don't agree with the Obama tax proposals nor should the government impose a limit on wealth accumulation but it shouldn't have tax policies that are solely intended to increase the wealth of those that are already wealthy at that impose twice the tax burden on everyone else.
Taxation to fund the authorized expenditures of government is not "redistribution of wealth" regardless of what the government believes are necessary expenditures.
So you don't believe that the government shouldn't intervene on a "business decision" that would poison our water supply? Or impose regulations on the safety requirements for automobiles, or that prevent unfair debt collection practices, or have any banking rules, or regulations that prevent securities fraud, or that require minimum safety standards for the workers, or even require a business license? It is amazing that "conservatives" support most regulation of business all of which affects "business decisions" but oppose that regulation if it benefits the workers of the enterprise. Can you explain that one?
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Apr 26, 2014 10:44:37 GMT
America's problem is profit-based health insurance where all the competing services require cross coordinated billing, both internal and external. This is the result.  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 26, 2014 11:08:44 GMT
America's problem is profit-based health insurance where all the competing services require cross coordinated billing, both internal and external. This is the result.
A great chart but unfortunately the conclusion reached that it is due to "for profit" insurance is false because the same situation exists if all insurance was provided for by "not for profit" insurance companies. We know, for example, that well over 1/2 of all medical expenditures are paid for by "not for profit" insurance because at least 1/2 are paid for by Medicare/Medicaid and many private insurance companies are also not for profit enterprises.
One of the major problems during the 2009 debates on health service costs was that the Democrats citied problems with Medicare/Medicaid and then tried to blame private insurance. I watched on C-Span as one House Democrat used a flip-chart where he went through about a dozen pages of problems with Medicare/Medicaid and it wasn't until the last page that he blamed all of the problems he'd just presented on private insurance.
BTW - Far more medical services are being provided by medical technicians and nurses today than they were in the past but the chart doesn't reflect the huge growth in medical technicians and nurses since the 1970's. An accurate chart would have to address "medical service provider personnel" and not just adminstrators. In fact many that are listed at "adminstrators" might have actually been technicians that do provide medical services for all we know.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 26, 2014 20:28:30 GMT
Still, I would not want to have the government make the determination as to how much money is "enough," as President Obama has hinted that it should do. And I am not at all comfortable with government-enforced redistributionist policies--not even in the absence of some glorious alternative.
Yes, the compensation package for your startup does, indeed, appear to be "very good." I commend you for that. (As you noted, however, a part of it--such as the inclusion of healthcare coverage--is not a matter of government compulsion, but your own voluntary preference. And this is a good thing, as I simply do not believe that the government should be allowed to intrude upon private businesses' decisions--and that, irrespective of those businesses' size.)
I don't agree with the Obama tax proposals nor should the government impose a limit on wealth accumulation but it shouldn't have tax policies that are solely intended to increase the wealth of those that are already wealthy at that impose twice the tax burden on everyone else.
Taxation to fund the authorized expenditures of government is not "redistribution of wealth" regardless of what the government believes are necessary expenditures.
So you don't believe that the government shouldn't intervene on a "business decision" that would poison our water supply? Or impose regulations on the safety requirements for automobiles, or that prevent unfair debt collection practices, or have any banking rules, or regulations that prevent securities fraud, or that require minimum safety standards for the workers, or even require a business license? It is amazing that "conservatives" support most regulation of business all of which affects "business decisions" but oppose that regulation if it benefits the workers of the enterprise. Can you explain that one?
If those "authorized expenditures of government" are merely income-transfer payments, then that is, indeed, a redistribution of wealth. And your reductio ad absurdum argument--i.e. that to oppose promiscuous regulations is tantamount to one's believing in the "poison[ing]" of "our water supply," and even in the non-necessity of one's obtaining "a business license" (which, by the way, is not even a function of the federal government), is simply absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 27, 2014 9:27:58 GMT
If those "authorized expenditures of government" are merely income-transfer payments, then that is, indeed, a redistribution of wealth. And your reductio ad absurdum argument--i.e. that to oppose promiscuous regulations is tantamount to one's believing in the "poison[ing]" of "our water supply," and even in the non-necessity of one's obtaining "a business license" (which, by the way, is not even a function of the federal government), is simply absurd.
Federal welfare assistance benefits are not income and, in fact, the federal government provides little in the way of welfare assistance to the person. In most cases the federal government provides funding to state welfare programs so it is the state, not the person, that is receiving the federal funds. The vast majority of welfare benefits aren't even income to the person. They are subsidies to enterprises that provide the benefits. For example a SNAP card doesn't provide a dime of income to the person. It pays the grocery store owner money but doesn't pay the SNAP recepient a dime and is not transferable into money by the SNAP recepient.
But even I want to reduce the taxation required to provide welfare assistance to the poor and my primary proposal is the address the causes behind the necessity for the welfare assistance.
If, for example, my proposals for taxation where the federal government replaced tax deductions and tax credits with an "exemption" from taxation on income and the states used a consumption tax with prebates then we'd stop the practice of the government taking money from the poor with one hand and giving it back with the other.
If all employers provided health insurance or contributed to a pool for their employees to draw from to purchase health insurance it would significantly reduce the Medicaid expenditures. An employer paying into a "health insurance" pool wouldn't necessarily be a tax as the pool could be independent of government but think of the advantage by considering this situation.
An small employer has a part time employee that only works 30hrs/wk and it is cost prohibitive for the employer to pay for health insurance while that same employee works at two part time jobs for a total of 60 hrs/wk. The cost to each employer is only $45/wk (@ $1.50/hr) which isn't going to break the bank for any employer but the employee, at the end of the year, would have $4,680 in an "insurance" fund that they could draw from to purchase private health insurance. A husband and wife both working part time with 60 hrs/wk of combined work would have the same $4,680 subsidy and they would have "earned" it with their labor.
Here is perhaps where we differ in our opinions. I believe that the worker has "earned" this health insurance or the insurance subsidy with their labor and that the "employer" isn't giving the employee a single dime that they haven't earned. I believe a person should be fully paid for their labor while some believe that the employer should be able to cheat the worker out of their labor. A payment specifically dedicated to "health care" for the employee, regardless of whether it's provided for by group health insurance or a payment into a pool to subsidize the private purchase, is not cost prohibitive for any employer. Even paying into the pool $2/hr only equals $80/wk for a full time employee working 40 hrs and that is an insignificant cost to an enterprise.
For the vast majority of enterprises the "payroll" is a relatively small percentage of the monthy expenditures. For example if my math is correct the Walmart payroll only equals about 9% of gross revenues.
I'm a true capitalist that believes in the fundamental proposition of exchange in caplitalism where every exchange is mutually beneficially to the parties involved and this needs to exist between the enterprise and the customer and between the enterprise and the employee. When a person can't afford the basic necessities like food, housing, energy, TAXES (I have to include that because everyone pays taxes currently) and health care then they are "working at a loss" where the enterprise is "working at a profit" and that is not a mutually beneficial relationship.
For me every employee requires health care and their labor earns that health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 27, 2014 23:39:10 GMT
If those "authorized expenditures of government" are merely income-transfer payments, then that is, indeed, a redistribution of wealth. And your reductio ad absurdum argument--i.e. that to oppose promiscuous regulations is tantamount to one's believing in the "poison[ing]" of "our water supply," and even in the non-necessity of one's obtaining "a business license" (which, by the way, is not even a function of the federal government), is simply absurd.
Federal welfare assistance benefits are not income and, in fact, the federal government provides little in the way of welfare assistance to the person. In most cases the federal government provides funding to state welfare programs so it is the state, not the person, that is receiving the federal funds. The vast majority of welfare benefits aren't even income to the person. They are subsidies to enterprises that provide the benefits. For example a SNAP card doesn't provide a dime of income to the person. It pays the grocery store owner money but doesn't pay the SNAP recepient a dime and is not transferable into money by the SNAP recepient.
But even I want to reduce the taxation required to provide welfare assistance to the poor and my primary proposal is the address the causes behind the necessity for the welfare assistance.
If, for example, my proposals for taxation where the federal government replaced tax deductions and tax credits with an "exemption" from taxation on income and the states used a consumption tax with prebates then we'd stop the practice of the government taking money from the poor with one hand and giving it back with the other.
If all employers provided health insurance or contributed to a pool for their employees to draw from to purchase health insurance it would significantly reduce the Medicaid expenditures. An employer paying into a "health insurance" pool wouldn't necessarily be a tax as the pool could be independent of government but think of the advantage by considering this situation.
An small employer has a part time employee that only works 30hrs/wk and it is cost prohibitive for the employer to pay for health insurance while that same employee works at two part time jobs for a total of 60 hrs/wk. The cost to each employer is only $45/wk (@ $1.50/hr) which isn't going to break the bank for any employer but the employee, at the end of the year, would have $4,680 in an "insurance" fund that they could draw from to purchase private health insurance. A husband and wife both working part time with 60 hrs/wk of combined work would have the same $4,680 subsidy and they would have "earned" it with their labor.
Here is perhaps where we differ in our opinions. I believe that the worker has "earned" this health insurance or the insurance subsidy with their labor and that the "employer" isn't giving the employee a single dime that they haven't earned. I believe a person should be fully paid for their labor while some believe that the employer should be able to cheat the worker out of their labor. A payment specifically dedicated to "health care" for the employee, regardless of whether it's provided for by group health insurance or a payment into a pool to subsidize the private purchase, is not cost prohibitive for any employer. Even paying into the pool $2/hr only equals $80/wk for a full time employee working 40 hrs and that is an insignificant cost to an enterprise.
For the vast majority of enterprises the "payroll" is a relatively small percentage of the monthy expenditures. For example if my math is correct the Walmart payroll only equals about 9% of gross revenues.
I'm a true capitalist that believes in the fundamental proposition of exchange in caplitalism where every exchange is mutually beneficially to the parties involved and this needs to exist between the enterprise and the customer and between the enterprise and the employee. When a person can't afford the basic necessities like food, housing, energy, TAXES (I have to include that because everyone pays taxes currently) and health care then they are "working at a loss" where the enterprise is "working at a profit" and that is not a mutually beneficial relationship.
For me every employee requires health care and their labor earns that health care.
If you are going to be intellectually honest--and I have no reason to suspect otherwise--you will have to admit that very few employers (if any) are going to simply eat any additional cost; they will merely consider it a cost of doing business, and pass that cost along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices. Or else hire fewer new employees. Or allow fewer hours of work for current employees. Or any combination thereof. And I believe it should be left to each individual to decide if the prospective relationship is "mutually beneficial." If he (or she) believes otherwise, then he (or she) may simply elect to eschew the job proposal. (Which, I believe, would be an excellent idea; yes, under any circumstances.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 28, 2014 13:38:07 GMT
If you are going to be intellectually honest--and I have no reason to suspect otherwise--you will have to admit that very few employers (if any) are going to simply eat any additional cost; they will merely consider it a cost of doing business, and pass that cost along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices. Or else hire fewer new employees. Or allow fewer hours of work for current employees. Or any combination thereof. And I believe it should be left to each individual to decide if the prospective relationship is "mutually beneficial." If he (or she) believes otherwise, then he (or she) may simply elect to eschew the job proposal. (Which, I believe, would be an excellent idea; yes, under any circumstances.)
We'll share a little intellectual honesty. First and foremost an employer is going to always attempt to have the optimal number of employees required by the enterprise. The optimal number is not determined by the "cost of labor" but instead is determined by the "necessity for labor" by the enterprise.
Yes, an enterprise establishes prices based upon the overall costs of providing goods and services to the customer. It includes the rent, products it must purchase, energy it uses, labor costs, etc. but it is not tied to any single expenditure. The overall costs for labor are, for most enterprises, one of the smallest expenditures they have. As I noted Walmart statistics reflect the labor costs of a large retail chain of stores and the labor costs only represent about 9% of the revenue of Walmart. Walmart averages about $9/hr in wages (as I recall) and increasing that by $2/hr to cover health insurance would represent a 22% increase in the cost of labor (actually less because the Payroll tax is an unreported cost of labor on top of the $9/hr).
If Walmart increased it's labor costs by $2/hr to cover health care it would increase the "cost of labor" from 9% of gross revenue to 11% of gross revenue. If that cost was passed on to the customers it would result in a 2% increase in the prices of goods sold by Walmart. The consumers like you and I wouldn't even notice a 2% increase in the costs of the goods that Walmart sells.
When we have 18 million unemployed and the only real job growth is in low paying jobs the unemployed person is not looking for a "mutual beneficial" relationship. They're looking at the fact that starvation wages are better than no wages at all. They don't have the leverage to bargain for a mutually beneficial exchange because their choice is, in a fundamental sense, work or die. If it were not for government welfare assistance that is exactly the choice they would face and given the choice between dying tomorrow or dying next year the person would choose to postpone it as long as possible by working for wages that they can't live on indefinately.
I've noted this before in other discussions. The nature of the Law of Supply and Demand when there is high unemployment creates coercion upon the unemployed to accept employment below what it costs them to survive. The "law of contract" nullifies any contract where a person is "coerced" into accepting the contract and when applied to the employment contract these "below cost of living" employment contracts are a violation of the Law of Contract.
But let's return to the topic because if we take the two extreme ends of the argument we have two fundamental choices.
1. Employment provides for health care. 2. Government provides for health care.
Which one would you pick?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 28, 2014 19:43:22 GMT
If you are going to be intellectually honest--and I have no reason to suspect otherwise--you will have to admit that very few employers (if any) are going to simply eat any additional cost; they will merely consider it a cost of doing business, and pass that cost along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices. Or else hire fewer new employees. Or allow fewer hours of work for current employees. Or any combination thereof. And I believe it should be left to each individual to decide if the prospective relationship is "mutually beneficial." If he (or she) believes otherwise, then he (or she) may simply elect to eschew the job proposal. (Which, I believe, would be an excellent idea; yes, under any circumstances.)
We'll share a little intellectual honesty. First and foremost an employer is going to always attempt to have the optimal number of employees required by the enterprise. The optimal number is not determined by the "cost of labor" but instead is determined by the "necessity for labor" by the enterprise.
Yes, an enterprise establishes prices based upon the overall costs of providing goods and services to the customer. It includes the rent, products it must purchase, energy it uses, labor costs, etc. but it is not tied to any single expenditure. The overall costs for labor are, for most enterprises, one of the smallest expenditures they have. As I noted Walmart statistics reflect the labor costs of a large retail chain of stores and the labor costs only represent about 9% of the revenue of Walmart. Walmart averages about $9/hr in wages (as I recall) and increasing that by $2/hr to cover health insurance would represent a 22% increase in the cost of labor (actually less because the Payroll tax is an unreported cost of labor on top of the $9/hr).
If Walmart increased it's labor costs by $2/hr to cover health care it would increase the "cost of labor" from 9% of gross revenue to 11% of gross revenue. If that cost was passed on to the customers it would result in a 2% increase in the prices of goods sold by Walmart. The consumers like you and I wouldn't even notice a 2% increase in the costs of the goods that Walmart sells.
When we have 18 million unemployed and the only real job growth is in low paying jobs the unemployed person is not looking for a "mutual beneficial" relationship. They're looking at the fact that starvation wages are better than no wages at all. They don't have the leverage to bargain for a mutually beneficial exchange because their choice is, in a fundamental sense, work or die. If it were not for government welfare assistance that is exactly the choice they would face and given the choice between dying tomorrow or dying next year the person would choose to postpone it as long as possible by working for wages that they can't live on indefinately.
I've noted this before in other discussions. The nature of the Law of Supply and Demand when there is high unemployment creates coercion upon the unemployed to accept employment below what it costs them to survive. The "law of contract" nullifies any contract where a person is "coerced" into accepting the contract and when applied to the employment contract these "below cost of living" employment contracts are a violation of the Law of Contract.
But let's return to the topic because if we take the two extreme ends of the argument we have two fundamental choices.
1. Employment provides for health care. 2. Government provides for health care.
Which one would you pick?
As regarding your final question: It is a false alternative. What I would select, instead, is individual responsibility; which is to say, the prospective employee should either look exclusively for a job whose benefits include good group healthcare insurance, or else he (or she) should purchase that insurance individually. The fundamental problem is not that of poor "job growth" in middle-class jobs. Rather, the fundamental problem is too many people with a limited skillset expecting "a living wage" (complete with an exemplary benefits package). They would do better to upgrade their skills. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 29, 2014 11:33:13 GMT
1. Employment provides for health care. 2. Government provides for health care.
Which one would you pick?
As regarding your final question: It is a false alternative. What I would select, instead, is individual responsibility; which is to say, the prospective employee should either look exclusively for a job whose benefits include good group healthcare insurance, or else he (or she) should purchase that insurance individually. The fundamental problem is not that of poor "job growth" in middle-class jobs. Rather, the fundamental problem is too many people with a limited skillset expecting "a living wage" (complete with an exemplary benefits package). They would do better to upgrade their skills.
It is not a false alternative. As noted this addresses the two extremes where first it is the labor of the person that provides for their own health care needs (i.e. based upon the individual) or whether the cummulative labor of society (based upon all persons) provides for the health care needs of all individuals.
When you refer to "individual responsibility" you're actually advocating for "employment" providing for the health care services based upon the labor of the individual where it provides for the health care services. This is accomplished by either self-employment or by the employer-employee relationship as it depends upon the "labor of the person" to fund the necessary expenditures for health care services. The problem arises when the "labor" doesn't provide the funding necessary because a person cannot be held responsible if they don't have the "funds" necessary for the expenditure.
I would argue that "labor" alone is a skill set that warrants adequate compensation for survival that would include medical service necessities. I hate to mention this but I've been in a bathroom where it wasn't attended to and the "janitor" in that situation is more important than the CEO of the corporation. I really don't understand those that believe that "physical labor" isn't valuable. If it came to digging a ditch an "unskilled" laborer is more valuable than I am because I can't dig a ditch (bad hip).
|
|
