Spot on. Democratic Socialism is a far different beast than actual socialism. It's sad that we can't get that figured out. I'm for single payer, but against UBI - for example. One is based on input into the system, the other simply takes from one to give to another. Not cool.
Thoughts on this bailout and “stimulus”?
- Thread starter nontyp
- Start date
Spot on. Democratic Socialism is a far different beast than actual socialism. It's sad that we can't get that figured out. I'm for single payer, but against UBI - for example. One is based on input into the system, the other simply takes from one to give to another. Not cool.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Single source of payment to otherwise private providers? Or single payer that effectively nationalizes the practice of medicine? Would you make illegal medical care outside of the single payer system? The devil is in the details, some scenarios are a heavily regulated market and some are de facto socialism. That's why I hate the euphemism "democratic socialism" - it does not draw the listener's attention to the lines between real socialism and "compassionate democratic capitalism".
Democratic socialism is the commonly accepted name for what most western European Countries practice. Many of those rank high on Heritage's freedom index, too - btw.
As far as single payer - I think of it more as a national pool of insured under Medicaid expansion - enabling the basics of healthcare to be paid for through the Gov't acting as the insurer (like preventative, yearly screenings, trauma & necessary surgeries). The large pool helps keeps costs low, and they can better negotiate drug prices, etc. I don't think you need to nationalize all healthcare, just the way we pay for it to a certain extent. The largest profit sector seems to be pharma & hospitals. There are a number of laws that could be passed to reign those costs in, but the lobby for those two industries own a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle.
That wouldn't eliminate supplemental insurance for better coverage, etc, but a baseline coverage for all citizens would go a helluva long way towards creating more economic certainty & stability for the lower, working & middle classes. Elective procedures should be paid through supplemental insurance or out of pocket. We don't all need to pay for someone to get a new nose or butt lift.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So serious question, going to ask it specifically to @Ben Lamb and @VikingsGuy since I know they can be adults and not spout off partisan bull.
What is the difference between this stimulus and a tax cut? Money is fungible? Isn't this essentially a bigger than normal refund?
I understand tax brackets, poverty line, etc etc..
Net net though... kinda the same thinking and effect (on paper), correct?
What is the difference between this stimulus and a tax cut? Money is fungible? Isn't this essentially a bigger than normal refund?
I understand tax brackets, poverty line, etc etc..
Net net though... kinda the same thinking and effect (on paper), correct?
Gotcha. Ya like the “bros” I see all the time with their $80,000 trucks towing a $100,000 boat from their $650,000 house. And I’m like how? I know for an FACT you work at Taco Bell. You handed me my take out....
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
It's really risky. If a recession occurs you could lose your job and have to move, but have a house worth less than the amount owed. And your stocks would be down too. People would blame it on a perfect storm or black swan, but those things are well correlated and highly probable to happen every 10 years or so.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
True socialism has never been democratic so I dislike the term. It is at best misleading, and at worst lessens the impacts of the evils of true socialism.
True, but at my age the risk was worth it as I would have the time to recover. Obviously strategies change as you age. As was just pointed out to me what applied to me is not a solid choice for all.
The "stimulus" for citizens is more like a bonus. It's a panacea, quite frankly. So is payroll tax relief. You will still owe those taxes come april 15th of the next year. You just don't have to pay them now. Same goes for your employer. Industry bailouts are much different than tax breaks. This is money to keep those major corporations from going under. In many instances, companies that will benefit from this are still holding on to trillions offshore so they don't pay taxes on them. The Atlantic article I posted a few pages back has a decent take on the bailouts being pushed through now. The TLDR of it is - those bailouts may be needed, but we've created a system that favors that kind of socialism.
You know the difference betweem the Cosa Nostra and a major corporation? The corporation has better lobbyists and lawyers.
I would posit that the same could be said of capitalism. We've never experienced true capitalism (the absence of gov't intervention into the markets, labor force or regulatory environment) - or at least, not without significant harm to the populace. Though I acknoweldge & agree w/your point. Just saying what the rest of the world uses for the term.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Say we get $1000 checks from the fed, will we owe taxes on that money? It is considered "income".
I always get pissed when I have to cut trees down to develop a site. I then have to do a forest mitigation plan which essentially means I pay a penalty because I cut the trees down. To make sure the environment is saved, the "penalty" is then paid to some land owner who then places a permanent easement on a crappy piece of woods that would never have been developed anyway. That chump gets paid by me and supposedly the environment is saved along with it... Sorry, rant over.
It depends on how the bill is written. Lots of unhappy campers going to be around com April 15th anyway. What's another $300 on your tax bill?
Wildabeest
Well-known member
But there’s no reason the Feds couldn’t take the same money they are talking about giving to the general masses and instead inject it directly into each state’s unemployment insurance trust fund. That would prevent states from having to increase the payroll tax to cover the outflows. Unless it’s done this way, I agree with Straight Arrow that it would actually have a chilling effect on the economic recovery since increasing the payroll tax would disincent businesses from hiring because their net cost per employee would increase due to the additional payroll tax. Note that many states have automatic payroll tax increases statutorily mandated when their trust funds fall below certain levels.
Bud, we're pretty close there. The way we go about trying to offset development through mitigation is backwards in so many ways. There has to be some way to quantify the habitat being developed and the habitat being conserved for it to actually be a net conservation gain rather than simply paying someone for something that would never get developed. That actually exacerbates the issue that the credit is supposed to fix.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
It depends on how the bill is written. Lots of unhappy campers going to be around com April 15th anyway. What's another $300 on your tax bill?
I've read the tax code pretty thoroughly... gonna be $120 for me
I've read the tax code pretty thoroughly... gonna be $120 for me
"I put all my faith in this easily changed document that probably doesn't accurately reflect what will happen next year."
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Sure, punish us with the hard questions
If you are referring to the $1,000 per person check vs. a traditional tax cut, the differences from my limited understanding are its timing (much faster than waiting for refund check next April); it's disconnection from the progressive taxing approach (even Bill Gates would get $1,000); and its non-targeting of preferred activities or stakeholders (not favoring home owners or rental property owners, etc that most tax "reforms" do).
Frankly, I don't see an economic difference between this and the government just spending the money. It's more of a "libertarian" thing - supposedly better to allow 150 million Americans to spend/give $1,000 each than have "big government" spend $150 billion as it sees fit. It's also an easier political compromise, the left likes getting quick checks into the hands of those who need and the right likes to think of it as giving people their own money back.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Yes if you make enough money to pay taxes.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Last recession my recollection was that the prior year's stimulus check was not taxable income by the fed, but some states included it. But my memory could be fuzzy.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Sure, punish us with the hard questions
Nothing stalls a thread that is building momentum to go off the rails like a discussion of the tax code.
