The Affordable Care Act

[mpholland]

I guess to simplify my thoughts, i believe we pay too much for what we get in return. If they would just cut the waste and make everyone pay a fair share we could do it for much less harm to the middle class. The economic cycles seemed to be fairly stable before the Reagan era when the wealthy paid 50%. I don't think the rate that the wealthy are taxed has jack shit to do with stimulating the economy. Now that they are only taxed at around 35%, the economy has been in the shitter for years. This is not part of the natural economic cycle.

[donquixote99]

They say 1/3 of medical procedures are unnecessary and at least potentially harmful. The problem is knowing which 1/3.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I guess to simplify my thoughts, i believe we pay too much for what we get in return. If they would just cut the waste and make everyone pay a fair share we could do it for much less harm to the middle class. The economic cycles seemed to be fairly stable before the Reagan era when the wealthy paid 50%. I don't think the rate that the wealthy are taxed has jack shit to do with stimulating the economy. Now that they are only taxed at around 35%, the economy has been in the shitter for years. This is not part of the natural economic cycle.

I concur.

I remember my high school economics teacher (Late 1970s) telling us that high end investors (Read; ultra-wealthy) tend to dislike Keynsian economics because the lack of volatility in the markets makes for humdrum returns. A steady 3% return over ten years is not very exciting, but a 200% return over week is. Problem is a volatile market usually means wildly fluctuating job market and chaotic financial conditions at the lower economic strata.

Looking back at the intervening years, I'd have to say he was spot on.

Dave

[bobabode]

There you have it, Dave.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/...LEFTTopStories

"As they sift through the Washington mess, some money managers think it could be a blessing, at least for their investments.

With the government shutdown heading toward a second week, economists say it could hold back economic growth, business confidence and corporate earnings, but probably won’t cause a recession. Many money managers doubt the damage will be lasting. Any stock selloff, they say, would be a great buying opportunity." courtesy of those grand old folks at WSJ.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

There you have it, Dave.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/...LEFTTopStories

"As they sift through the Washington mess, some money managers think it could be a blessing, at least for their investments.

With the government shutdown heading toward a second week, economists say it could hold back economic growth, business confidence and corporate earnings, but probably won’t cause a recession. Many money managers doubt the damage will be lasting. Any stock selloff, they say, would be a great buying opportunity." courtesy of those grand old folks at WSJ.

Exactly, Bob.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I guess to simplify my thoughts, i believe we pay too much for what we get in return. If they would just cut the waste and make everyone pay a fair share we could do it for much less harm to the middle class. The economic cycles seemed to be fairly stable before the Reagan era when the wealthy paid 50%. I don't think the rate that the wealthy are taxed has jack shit to do with stimulating the economy. Now that they are only taxed at around 35%, the economy has been in the shitter for years. This is not part of the natural economic cycle.

I agree with you on pre-Reagan tax on the wealthy. However the countervailing wind of the Howard Jarvist Proposition 13 acolytes have sort of hurt us also. That caused taxes on all other things like cars and utilities to go up..the ones you do not like. And California loses tons of money on huge properties (like amusement parks like Disneyland ) because they cannot be taxed at today's rates thanks to Prop 13.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I concur.

I remember my high school economics teacher (Late 1970s) telling us that high end investors (Read; ultra-wealthy) tend to dislike Keynsian economics because the lack of volatility in the markets makes for humdrum returns. A steady 3% return over ten years is not very exciting, but a 200% return over week is. Problem is a volatile market usually means wildly fluctuating job market and chaotic financial conditions at the lower economic strata.

Looking back at the intervening years, I'd have to say he was spot on.

Dave

I wonder if low marginal tax rates don't have the effect of encouraging risk-taking in search of those double-digit returns. I think some of the overbuilding (sprawl, always more big retail boxes) may have been symptoms of this too-low-risk aversion. OTOH, if the fruits of big-score-profits are taxed away mostly, that encourages more slow steady dependable growth, right? Better for everyone, right?

[BlueStreak]

Around here the building continues at a fever pitch. Yet you can stop into any one of those chain restaurants, and be one of maybe five customers in the whole place.

The only exception might be Friday or Satrurday at dinnertime.

And this is a resort area that also has a massive military presence.

I think you may be onto something. There is something to be said for overbuilding, in fact we saw examples of this during the housing bust.
Entire neighborhoods sitting empty in the weeds.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by icenine

Plus homeowners get a tax subsidy and itemize on top of everything else.....so it is not like we are totally raped....

Not once the house is paid off, and property tax here was closer to $4500.

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...acare/?hpid=z4

Factchecker at WaPo dispels the myth about the 1200+ exemptions to the ACA.