Well, I don't even trust Manchin as far as I can throw him. But he's under a lot of pressure right now, and his constituents are quite populist in terms of economics. So I think there's a real possibility.
I resent the idea that we must wait with bated breath to see what these two clowns will further do to have something passed that is in dire need of happening. Manchin may need cred as you state but I don’t trust either one of them. This tax is beyond necessary. Do I think it will pass? Hell to the no.
Totally agree that it's unbelievably frustrating and aggravating that Manchin and Sinema are determining the nation's fate on this and so much else. Even more frustrating and aggravating is that not a singe Republican senator will budge on this or any other issue.
If they had a decent educational system and long term critical thinking, they would, but alas repugnicans would prefer an idiot populace as they are far far easier to manipulate and control to maintain their power. Religion does the same thing to maintain its power, using slightly different forms of manipulation, primarily guilt.
I think that part of what manchin is all about is being in such a power position - AND with ALL EYES ON HIM; gonna be hard to impossible for him to give that up..
Yesterday I read an article suggesting that once the really wealthy start raking it in (as opposed to someone w/ inherited wealth) it becomes addictive to see how much MORE you can get.... and then.... my personal opinion is that if they are self-starters like Bezos and Musk, they also become competitive with each other (although in reality I also think the latter should just privately go together into a dark alley, measure themselves and be done with it...).
I take exception to Mary calling these senators "clowns". This is an insult to the theatrical profession. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Emmett Kelly, and Carol Burnett are clowns. They showed us what we are but make them think it's them.
As far as the rich not paying taxes, you are right. Ms. Helmsley was right "Only poor people pay taxes" much as she is disliked she was right.
For those who are not tax experts but would like information written for the newspaper reading scholars, I recommend the following books. Some are dated but the theme is the same.
1963, Philip M. Stern's The Great Treasury Raid, Random House
1973, Philip M. Stern's , The Rape of the Taxpayer, Random House
198? , Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who really Pays the Taxes?
2001, David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal.
All except Stern won the Pulitzer Prize for their reporting.
Shakespeare said there is no theatre without an audience, The truth is there, Learn and share.
Your first paragraph = LOL. (I actually thought the same but moreso that "clown" was HARDLY the word to describe these despicably corrupt, self-serving, traitorous leeches.)
I appreciate your taking exception on slandering clowns. But, may I point out the Q-publicans are laughing up their collective sleeves? Besides, court jesters were among the >original< clowns!
Mitch; it is my understanding what Barnum said was "There's a customer born every minute". His detractors may have invented the "sucker" quote. See The Quote Investigator. it is less known Barnum made his fortune and than endowed Tufts University where the skeleton of Jumbo stood for many years. My sister is a Tufts alumnus.
I really hope Democrats can do well in the midterms, hold or improve their majorities. Even without a wealth tax some big gaps could be closed just by taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income, applying the social security tax on 100% of incomes and getting rid of the "carried interest" loophole.
You are right Benjamin but the Republicans won't even close capital gains income. They won'd do ANYTHING....because they don't have to, they are kept in power by the elite class, not the majority.
“…taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income…”
I agree, but this would have to be enacted on people with a higher than average personal wealth. Otherwise the middle class people that have had their retirement invested in 401k’s that rolled over into a stock portfolio will get hammered.
@Todd. I agree. There should be a progressive structure to any such tax so it only hits people lightly at the lower levels, let's say even under $1 million in a single transaction would be as today's rates, but as you go to higher transactions you go to higher rates. This is the structure of the tax on income and modifying the capital gains tax to match earned income gives us the same opportunity, to set tax brackets. Hell, I even envision capital gains exclusions for incomes below a certain level and according to life circumstances, e.g. retirees taxed at lower rates than hedge fund operators...
@Frank aka jboone. To get away from ad hominem and closer to the substance, I think I can give a perspective that will resonate with jboone, and therefor bridge a little bit the gap in the points of view. Frank might want to consider that the lefties as he calls them aren't really smart enough or well-organized enough to run a conspiracy. Sometimes you hear a similar viewpoint voiced from many sources, but this is not due to a conspiracy - this is due to so many people see the same cynicism and falsity coming from the right.
In regard to the midterms, I still believe healthcare may be a winning issue for Democrats. Let Biden issue an executive order to provide Federal Medicare to all who want it, and to mandate employers who already provide health insurance to their employees, to provide this option also. Payments would be based on income. Employers would favor ir because it would lower their costs.
[Note, this is NOT Medicare-for-All, which is a vote loser. Democrats often mistakenly say that the majority of Americans want MFA. Not quite true. What is true is that if you poll Americans on the issue, 72% say they want MFA, but if you ask the follow-up question "By the way, you do realize this means you too would have Medicare?" support drops in half, to 36%. So what we think Americans hear when asked "Do you want MFA?" what they are hearing is "Do you want Universal healthcare?"]
That said, within a year of issuing the executive order for MFA Who Want It, Medicare would become extremely popular - as in "Hey, Joey has no copays or deductibles and he likes his doctors." Let Manchin or McConnell try to take that away from their constituents. It could spell the end for the GOP.
Could the order be challenged in Congress? Yes. Would it succeed? Perhaps not, because it would pay for itself. But it would require some gonadal fortitude approaching that of Roosevelt.......
While it's true that 72% of the voting public say they would like Medicare for all, the only reason that drops off to 36% is because of the instilled public notion that Reagan put into play when he said, & I'm paraphrasing here; 'Hi, it's the government and we're here to help'... that stupid remark, along with his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks on unions still is ringing in the heads of the people that desperately want it to be true (when it's NOT) and until that portion of the voters become aware [somehow] that the Republicans are not there to help them (except for that single thing they base their votes on-- like abortion or tax cuts) there can be no advancement to making the government work for all Americans.
The sad part is that we could become [more] fiscally responsible by instituting Medicare For All as long as the private insurance industry is locked out of operating (like they currently do with this bogus Medicare part C garbage we see advertised constantly on TV) then we could actually save about (at the last estimate I saw) $10,000 per year per person.
Plus, it would ease the burden on small businesses and every other employer while at the same time including everyone and honor every American with cost effective comprehensive health coverage. I hate to say it but we may see ALL the polar ice melt before we see any real action in this critical area.
I agree with much of what you say, in particular that MFA would save a lot of money (we estimate $1 trillion per year, or about $3,000 per American). However - Democrats and Bernie please note - MFA is a VOTE LOSER, because of the above.
Better MFAWWI, and this could be the result of an executive order. I think the House would only be able to overturn it if it cost federal dollars, and as you point out, it would actually save money. Moreover, the House will be in Democrat hands at least until the midterms, and MFAWWI might seal and expand their numerical advantage).
MFAWWI is a stealth bomb which could destroy the GOP as we know it. Let McConnell and Manchin (yes, he's soo GOP) try taking it away from their constituents, then stand back and watch. Oh, and if Manchin starts blowing off about deficits, well, it's deficit neutral.
Yes, somehow we need to get the message out that not only would MFA be affordable, but in the future it would save us all a lot of money. But, if it's not disseminated on MSM there are millions that will never know these facts.
And the other thing is that once universal health coverage is instituted, there has been not one single country who's citizens demanded it be killed. It's 100%.
And what is the WWI part? I'm not familiar with that acronym other than World War I...?
@JAB. I hope you are wrong about this - we really need to push for universal health care. I ran a company for decades, and paid out millions to health insurance companies only to see copays and premiums rise every year while coverages did not get better (usually). If I were in that position today I would gladly pay a corporate tax to have Medicare cover all my employees and their families!
Speaking of abortion, how does banning it help people who are struggling and really do need help? Rhetorical question obviously, but your excellent comments prompted it.
They don’t like the word because it’s associated with geezers. But once you have it your life is transformed. They don’t know that because they have no experience with it.
Your taxes do. Just like they pay for everything the government supplies, like schools, roads & bridges and every other program. The fact that the Pentagon wastes billions every year (and has some estimates that their waste is around 20 trillion since the 1990s) and the fact that with M4A we would not be (through our payment to our health insurance companies) be paying for billion dollar profits and ridiculous salaries and bonuses that always run in the millions for every executive, we would be much better off. The [for profit] health care system in America is a huge scam-- almost as big a scam as religion.
That is one of the biggest challenges in the USA. Our government does not know how to balance their budget. I do agree with you on many points. Thanks for caring.
Standard Medicare (for those over 65 and the disabled) is paid in part by contributions an individual makes during the years of employment. Most Medicare recipients will say they have paid for all of it, but this is not the case, Medicare is far too expensive to be paid for by contributions from the average citizen. MOST of Medicare is paid by taxes, which is why it's a favorite target for the GOP.
What I am advocating is that MFAWWI would be paid either by a corporate employer, in lieu of paying for commercial insurance, or by a self-employed person. Either way, expensive though it is, it is less expensive than commercial insurance, so employers will like it. The main reason it is less expensive is because of low overheads and bureaucracy.
Michael. Thanks for your explanation about who pays for Medicare. The reason I through this out for an answer is because I have paid for this service for several years with my taxes on my paycheck. When my husband and I retired at 65 years young we now have Medicare. We pay out of pocket $450.00 each month. Plus another amount taken out of our Social Security checks each month too. So Medicare is not cheap but we have been very happy with our services except it does not cover dental and vision. (Unless you buy another rider) Also many Americans pay their Social Security and Medicare on their pay checks and die before the can collect their benefits. Ever wonder what happens to all the money?
The $450 is presumably to cover the 20% outpatient costs that Medicare doesn't cover. If it is Medicare Advantage, then this will cover most services, such as specialist visits and imaging, but there will often be a copay as well. If it is AARP, then it will be a little more expensive in terms of monthly payments, but you should have little or nothing to pay for specialists and imaging. Incidentally, Medicare Advantage is also subsidized by tax dollars, another reason the GOP has it in their crosshairs.
If you are at the poverty level (about 13% of seniors) then Medicare Advantage is free.
Setting aside a personal preference for the idea: is the federal government obligated (strategically or otherwise) to wait for states to extend Medicaid to the uninsured? (Is it a settled matter as to when state obligations under the ACA have not been met?)
MFAWII would replace the ACA. The ACA had many flaws owing to the fact that Obama compromised with the insurance industry and big Pharma to get it across the line. The result? Higher copays, higher deductibles, and higher drug prices. Issue an executive order for MFAWWI and you bypass these difficulties.
@Michael. Careful what you ask for. Anything that puts the ACA in front of the current SCOTUS will likely reduce its current effectiveness, and an executive order along the lines you suggest would very likely mobilize vast resources against it.
There is no question, a lot of entrenched interests would be arrayed against it, but it's an executive order right? Even Nixon issued a successful executive order to expand Medicare to those with disabilities, it's the same kind of thing. I know, the insurance industry is much stronger now than it was 50 years ago, but it's still an executive order.
It cannot be unconstitutional because it cannot be considered immoral (unlike abortion), there is no coercion, and because it would actually increase trade by increasing competition, therefore a claim cannot be made that it would reduce trade. So I don't know how or why SCOTUS could be involved.
And sure, it might fail, but nothing is easy, particularly those things of value.
The super wealthy don’t pay taxes because they borrow money against the stocks they own and use that money for living expenses and mansion purchases. They do not sell their stocks because this would trigger capital gains taxes. Borrowing money and spending it does not trigger taxes.
What do you do when you buy an expensive home in the Berkeley hills? You get a mortgage rather than liquidate money in your 401k. Same is true if you take a reverse mortgage. Once you die the basis of your assets will adjust and your heirs don’t have to pay capital gains taxes. They can sell the home and pay back the mortgage without ever having to pay capital gains taxes. (But they do have to pay inheritance taxes. There is a generous exemption.)
Same is true if assets are donated to a foundation, it avoids paying taxes. The basis of the stock donated will adjust to the market value. Thus the proliferation of private foundations.
Biden’s proposal is a good one but as you write it is unlikely to pass so it is just a bone thrown in the direction of the progressives.
One doesn't. there are interest only mortgages. Why would you want to pay down your mortgage. You probably have to withdraw money from your 401K and pay ordinary income taxes. With home prices rising your home equity grows without paying down your mortgage.
Let's hope the only disappointment is in reading this post *after* taking the time to read the ProPublica article (as reading the post was *way, way* faster!)...
Prof Reich It’s a tax none of your Fan club has to pay. The acclaim will be universal and the condemnation of Mansion will be assured. But there are the silent super rich Democrats who even want to restore a tax deduction on their big mansions and block any fiscal reform changes if they do not get their way. This is one tax they cannot avoid. Have you seen the mansions of Pelosi and Feinstein? Feinstein’s husband just passed away. She has many millions of capital gains in her home, all forgiven, not a penny in capital gains taxes. So it is not just the horrible Republicans….
and then there is of course Schumer, remember him? He protects the hedge fund managers from paying ordinary income taxes rather than capital gains taxes. These are of course the fund managers for the gazillionaires.
Oh you are such hypocrites when you claim that it is all Mansion's fault.
Many multi-millionaires and billionaires are hedge fund managers who use the carried interest tax loophole to avoid paying taxes. Can't Biden and company at least convince enough members of Congress to get rid of this loophole?
Speaking of the Senate double-agent spies and sellouts we must tolerate (Manchin & Sinema) for a few court nominations… it’s common knowledge that lobbyists often write legislation for the politicians they bribe and own. How can we show that lobbyists may be writing major portions of SCOTUS opinions for Thomas, who was silent for decades? Just like the Weiner scandal allowed authorities to confiscate a former Hillary staffer’s computer, might we get access to Ginni Thomas’s?
I’m going to look at the entire budget, trust the people who put this together and reserve judgment. There are so many complicated factors in “just” a county budget of $1.5 billion with which I have experience, let alone a federal. More than ever, and especially because we need our children raised with clean air and water, a peaceful world, and a world actually resilient from climate change, we have to accept Democracy’s inevitable imperfection. Trickle down economics started us down the path of this amplified income disparity. and the Citizen’s United ruling further amplified. Humbly stated, as someone who grew up in a double union household, steeped in FDR values, then JFK’s, I am trusting DEMOCRATS and our Biden/Harris team. Doing anything else enables Trump and the other truly malevolent forces that prey upon people whether homeless in California or NYC, or disabled in Ohio or West Virginia. The centabillionare’s can afford this. And, it gives us moral equivalency for what we are doing in foreign policy. IMHO
@Paula. I love the way you made your points! There seems to be a reality that many "public servants" and ALL political systems exact a certain "cost of doing business" that takes the form of graft, fraud, exploitation, corruption, actual waste and personal enrichment for some of those office holders. Governments, including ours is rated on various international scales (e.g. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-corrupt-countries). On this particular scorecard, the USA ranks 67 with 100 being perfect. There are 26 countries on this chart with better scores, but most of them are small countries with racially and culturally homogeneous people, and they are all democracies.
Thank you, Benjamin. I will take a look at your ratings link. I wrote my comments after reading the NYT and Am Prog links Robert provided, and based on my own experience. For sure, we can do much better...it’s the arc of justice bending in a positive direction that matters. Emotions of anger and sadness can paralyze and make matters worse. I played softball growing up. Getting up to bat, then swinging is a start, right? Can’t get to first base, otherwise. That is NOT to say we, and especially those in current public service, should UNDULY compromise. And no corruption! People’s lives depend on that.
I must say the NYT article made my stomach churn...for those of us who have undoubtedly been sickened, afflicted by mercury, etc., in that neck of the woods. I understand the jobs issues, too. Let’s just keep doing our best. For me, that’s as a Democrat.
It may be helpful to visualize where you and your family stand in relation to those who run corporate America and determine your standard of living. In 2016, the wealthiest American was estimated to be worth 81 Billion dollars. Measuring 81 inches on a wall would create a graph 6 feet 9 inches tall. By 2020 with the wealthiest American now worth 179 Billion (perhaps with the help of an enormous tax break) the graph would have grown to 15 feet, nearly two stories in height. Today the Real-Time Billionaires list estimates the wealthiest American to be worth 290 Billion, creating a graph 24 feet or three entire stories. Meanwhile, an individual who worked and saved all their life to retire with 1 Million dollars would be equivalent to only one, one thousandth of an inch, or roughly the thickness of a human hair at the very bottom of the graph. The rest of us wouldn’t even show up without the aid of a microscope. We are truly invisible. Depicting a similar graph seems like a perfect project for Inequality Media.
Taxing the super wealthy is a great idea, but getting it done is a different story. There are other issues that need to be addressed also. News is no longer news anymore. I no longer watch any news on TV anymore because it isn't news, it's opinions. There should be disclaimers running at the bottom of the screen saying as much . And as for Biden saying saying Putin needs to be gone, I say good for him. He only said out loud what everyone else is thinking.
Vickie Jacobson ; I agree, and could not stop yelling at the tv pundit standing in for Katy Tur who seemed to want everyone she 'interviewed' to say Biden should ratchet down his rhetoric, which was 'dangerous', because he made a stand and said Putin is a war criminal who should be stopped. Later, Biden restated his true feelings, but noted they were not 'policy', lest anyone be worried about escalation.
@David. Love your sentiment, but taxing "wealth" vs. income is sure to be challenged in court, likely overturned. Read that part of Professor Reich's essay?
20% as a minimum tax? Doesn’t that really mean as a maximum? If they’re paying much less than 20% than 20% is a ceiling, not a floor. Why is 20% rate a success? Isn’t the highest marginal tax rate on the rest of us 37%? Is everyone going to get a tax cut as well?
Declaring that a nurse shouldn’t pay more in taxes than a billionaire pays seems to be code for a flat tax. Am I wrong? 20% is a tax cut. Will the nurses et Al get a tax cut too?
But declaring that a nurse or a secretary should pay less than a billionaire is not a code for a flat tax - it is an effort to show that the impact of loopholes, exclusions and various credits in the tax code are applicable only if you have great wealth, access to tax lawyers and the ability to put your money into the protected categories. When Mr. Buffet made that point he was also saying that he was going to file his taxes legally and take advantage of the tax code law in spite of the fact that he felt it was not fair to most income earners. He was basically criticizing Congress for having too many loopholes and other advantages for the very rich...
I trust Joe Manchin no farther than I can throw him, as that old saying goes. But I do hope you are correct Dr. Reich.
Well, I don't even trust Manchin as far as I can throw him. But he's under a lot of pressure right now, and his constituents are quite populist in terms of economics. So I think there's a real possibility.
We need the encouraging word, thank you.
I would rather be approximately right (like you), than definitely wrong. "For now, we see in a mirror dimly".
"but then face to face" We shall see Brian.
I resent the idea that we must wait with bated breath to see what these two clowns will further do to have something passed that is in dire need of happening. Manchin may need cred as you state but I don’t trust either one of them. This tax is beyond necessary. Do I think it will pass? Hell to the no.
Totally agree that it's unbelievably frustrating and aggravating that Manchin and Sinema are determining the nation's fate on this and so much else. Even more frustrating and aggravating is that not a singe Republican senator will budge on this or any other issue.
Vote them out…. Need to convince their constituents of their local and national toxicity.
They tried in KY to help constituents understand how keeping mcconnell in office was working against them but it didn't work..
@MM. It didn't work - yet!!
Do you think they’d elect a true democrat in West Virginia???
Voting for fake Democrats is a strategy too, it seems.
If they had a decent educational system and long term critical thinking, they would, but alas repugnicans would prefer an idiot populace as they are far far easier to manipulate and control to maintain their power. Religion does the same thing to maintain its power, using slightly different forms of manipulation, primarily guilt.
You gotta love our chances: only a winning team can afford not one but *two* clowns.
= D
There are more than two clowns in the Democratic Party, only two are being put in the media spotlight.
Yes. One of my senators is another one.
They have their imitators and wanna be's too.
I think that part of what manchin is all about is being in such a power position - AND with ALL EYES ON HIM; gonna be hard to impossible for him to give that up..
The money he gets from the corporate lobbyists is hard to give up.
Yesterday I read an article suggesting that once the really wealthy start raking it in (as opposed to someone w/ inherited wealth) it becomes addictive to see how much MORE you can get.... and then.... my personal opinion is that if they are self-starters like Bezos and Musk, they also become competitive with each other (although in reality I also think the latter should just privately go together into a dark alley, measure themselves and be done with it...).
If he needs cred he should act like a decent human being. It’s not difficult.
I take exception to Mary calling these senators "clowns". This is an insult to the theatrical profession. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Emmett Kelly, and Carol Burnett are clowns. They showed us what we are but make them think it's them.
As far as the rich not paying taxes, you are right. Ms. Helmsley was right "Only poor people pay taxes" much as she is disliked she was right.
For those who are not tax experts but would like information written for the newspaper reading scholars, I recommend the following books. Some are dated but the theme is the same.
1963, Philip M. Stern's The Great Treasury Raid, Random House
1973, Philip M. Stern's , The Rape of the Taxpayer, Random House
198? , Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who really Pays the Taxes?
2001, David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal.
All except Stern won the Pulitzer Prize for their reporting.
Shakespeare said there is no theatre without an audience, The truth is there, Learn and share.
Your first paragraph = LOL. (I actually thought the same but moreso that "clown" was HARDLY the word to describe these despicably corrupt, self-serving, traitorous leeches.)
They are "killer clowns", since their actions are "killing" us all!
The best humor has some truth in it, not the lies seen from certain wingers. Lies are not funny, they are destructive, and harmful.
J. David Reno ; Leona Helmsley may have been right, but her actually gloating about it was the real insult.
Agreement!
I appreciate your taking exception on slandering clowns. But, may I point out the Q-publicans are laughing up their collective sleeves? Besides, court jesters were among the >original< clowns!
Court jesters were beneficial.
Clowns? How frequently, supposedly, did Barnum say, long ago, that suckers were born? And the population is much larger now https://medium.com/skeptikai/the-real-story-behind-the-quote-theres-a-sucker-born-every-minute-1db9a7220d34
Mitch; it is my understanding what Barnum said was "There's a customer born every minute". His detractors may have invented the "sucker" quote. See The Quote Investigator. it is less known Barnum made his fortune and than endowed Tufts University where the skeleton of Jumbo stood for many years. My sister is a Tufts alumnus.
I really hope Democrats can do well in the midterms, hold or improve their majorities. Even without a wealth tax some big gaps could be closed just by taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income, applying the social security tax on 100% of incomes and getting rid of the "carried interest" loophole.
Yes. And eliminate the "stepped-up-basis at death" rule. And repeal the Trump tax cut.
You are right Benjamin but the Republicans won't even close capital gains income. They won'd do ANYTHING....because they don't have to, they are kept in power by the elite class, not the majority.
A million likes!
“…taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income…”
I agree, but this would have to be enacted on people with a higher than average personal wealth. Otherwise the middle class people that have had their retirement invested in 401k’s that rolled over into a stock portfolio will get hammered.
@Todd. I agree. There should be a progressive structure to any such tax so it only hits people lightly at the lower levels, let's say even under $1 million in a single transaction would be as today's rates, but as you go to higher transactions you go to higher rates. This is the structure of the tax on income and modifying the capital gains tax to match earned income gives us the same opportunity, to set tax brackets. Hell, I even envision capital gains exclusions for incomes below a certain level and according to life circumstances, e.g. retirees taxed at lower rates than hedge fund operators...
Would this actually apply to stock portfolios in an IRA? Don't these withdrawals come out as regular income?
For a social writer you are very poorly informed!
Hmmm, writes social misfit newsletter.
Not even smart enough to figure that out!
Your capacity to learn has been dwarfed by your tiny brain.
Dude, you’d better stand up, you’re suffocating your brain
@Frank aka jboone. To get away from ad hominem and closer to the substance, I think I can give a perspective that will resonate with jboone, and therefor bridge a little bit the gap in the points of view. Frank might want to consider that the lefties as he calls them aren't really smart enough or well-organized enough to run a conspiracy. Sometimes you hear a similar viewpoint voiced from many sources, but this is not due to a conspiracy - this is due to so many people see the same cynicism and falsity coming from the right.
In regard to the midterms, I still believe healthcare may be a winning issue for Democrats. Let Biden issue an executive order to provide Federal Medicare to all who want it, and to mandate employers who already provide health insurance to their employees, to provide this option also. Payments would be based on income. Employers would favor ir because it would lower their costs.
[Note, this is NOT Medicare-for-All, which is a vote loser. Democrats often mistakenly say that the majority of Americans want MFA. Not quite true. What is true is that if you poll Americans on the issue, 72% say they want MFA, but if you ask the follow-up question "By the way, you do realize this means you too would have Medicare?" support drops in half, to 36%. So what we think Americans hear when asked "Do you want MFA?" what they are hearing is "Do you want Universal healthcare?"]
That said, within a year of issuing the executive order for MFA Who Want It, Medicare would become extremely popular - as in "Hey, Joey has no copays or deductibles and he likes his doctors." Let Manchin or McConnell try to take that away from their constituents. It could spell the end for the GOP.
Could the order be challenged in Congress? Yes. Would it succeed? Perhaps not, because it would pay for itself. But it would require some gonadal fortitude approaching that of Roosevelt.......
While it's true that 72% of the voting public say they would like Medicare for all, the only reason that drops off to 36% is because of the instilled public notion that Reagan put into play when he said, & I'm paraphrasing here; 'Hi, it's the government and we're here to help'... that stupid remark, along with his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks on unions still is ringing in the heads of the people that desperately want it to be true (when it's NOT) and until that portion of the voters become aware [somehow] that the Republicans are not there to help them (except for that single thing they base their votes on-- like abortion or tax cuts) there can be no advancement to making the government work for all Americans.
The sad part is that we could become [more] fiscally responsible by instituting Medicare For All as long as the private insurance industry is locked out of operating (like they currently do with this bogus Medicare part C garbage we see advertised constantly on TV) then we could actually save about (at the last estimate I saw) $10,000 per year per person.
Plus, it would ease the burden on small businesses and every other employer while at the same time including everyone and honor every American with cost effective comprehensive health coverage. I hate to say it but we may see ALL the polar ice melt before we see any real action in this critical area.
I agree with much of what you say, in particular that MFA would save a lot of money (we estimate $1 trillion per year, or about $3,000 per American). However - Democrats and Bernie please note - MFA is a VOTE LOSER, because of the above.
Better MFAWWI, and this could be the result of an executive order. I think the House would only be able to overturn it if it cost federal dollars, and as you point out, it would actually save money. Moreover, the House will be in Democrat hands at least until the midterms, and MFAWWI might seal and expand their numerical advantage).
MFAWWI is a stealth bomb which could destroy the GOP as we know it. Let McConnell and Manchin (yes, he's soo GOP) try taking it away from their constituents, then stand back and watch. Oh, and if Manchin starts blowing off about deficits, well, it's deficit neutral.
Yes, somehow we need to get the message out that not only would MFA be affordable, but in the future it would save us all a lot of money. But, if it's not disseminated on MSM there are millions that will never know these facts.
And the other thing is that once universal health coverage is instituted, there has been not one single country who's citizens demanded it be killed. It's 100%.
And what is the WWI part? I'm not familiar with that acronym other than World War I...?
MFAWWI: Medicare For All Who Want It (I agree, the acronym could be improved)
Ahh, it’s like every other acronym once you know what it means it makes sense… thanks 😊
@JAB. I hope you are wrong about this - we really need to push for universal health care. I ran a company for decades, and paid out millions to health insurance companies only to see copays and premiums rise every year while coverages did not get better (usually). If I were in that position today I would gladly pay a corporate tax to have Medicare cover all my employees and their families!
Speaking of abortion, how does banning it help people who are struggling and really do need help? Rhetorical question obviously, but your excellent comments prompted it.
They don’t like the word because it’s associated with geezers. But once you have it your life is transformed. They don’t know that because they have no experience with it.
Just out of curiosity who pays for Medicare?
Your taxes do. Just like they pay for everything the government supplies, like schools, roads & bridges and every other program. The fact that the Pentagon wastes billions every year (and has some estimates that their waste is around 20 trillion since the 1990s) and the fact that with M4A we would not be (through our payment to our health insurance companies) be paying for billion dollar profits and ridiculous salaries and bonuses that always run in the millions for every executive, we would be much better off. The [for profit] health care system in America is a huge scam-- almost as big a scam as religion.
I was just reading an article about Afghanistan that stated we’d spent some trillions of dollars there. Imagine where we’d be if we hadn’t done that.
That is one of the biggest challenges in the USA. Our government does not know how to balance their budget. I do agree with you on many points. Thanks for caring.
Standard Medicare (for those over 65 and the disabled) is paid in part by contributions an individual makes during the years of employment. Most Medicare recipients will say they have paid for all of it, but this is not the case, Medicare is far too expensive to be paid for by contributions from the average citizen. MOST of Medicare is paid by taxes, which is why it's a favorite target for the GOP.
What I am advocating is that MFAWWI would be paid either by a corporate employer, in lieu of paying for commercial insurance, or by a self-employed person. Either way, expensive though it is, it is less expensive than commercial insurance, so employers will like it. The main reason it is less expensive is because of low overheads and bureaucracy.
Michael. Thanks for your explanation about who pays for Medicare. The reason I through this out for an answer is because I have paid for this service for several years with my taxes on my paycheck. When my husband and I retired at 65 years young we now have Medicare. We pay out of pocket $450.00 each month. Plus another amount taken out of our Social Security checks each month too. So Medicare is not cheap but we have been very happy with our services except it does not cover dental and vision. (Unless you buy another rider) Also many Americans pay their Social Security and Medicare on their pay checks and die before the can collect their benefits. Ever wonder what happens to all the money?
The $450 is presumably to cover the 20% outpatient costs that Medicare doesn't cover. If it is Medicare Advantage, then this will cover most services, such as specialist visits and imaging, but there will often be a copay as well. If it is AARP, then it will be a little more expensive in terms of monthly payments, but you should have little or nothing to pay for specialists and imaging. Incidentally, Medicare Advantage is also subsidized by tax dollars, another reason the GOP has it in their crosshairs.
If you are at the poverty level (about 13% of seniors) then Medicare Advantage is free.
Setting aside a personal preference for the idea: is the federal government obligated (strategically or otherwise) to wait for states to extend Medicaid to the uninsured? (Is it a settled matter as to when state obligations under the ACA have not been met?)
MFAWII would replace the ACA. The ACA had many flaws owing to the fact that Obama compromised with the insurance industry and big Pharma to get it across the line. The result? Higher copays, higher deductibles, and higher drug prices. Issue an executive order for MFAWWI and you bypass these difficulties.
@Michael. Careful what you ask for. Anything that puts the ACA in front of the current SCOTUS will likely reduce its current effectiveness, and an executive order along the lines you suggest would very likely mobilize vast resources against it.
There is no question, a lot of entrenched interests would be arrayed against it, but it's an executive order right? Even Nixon issued a successful executive order to expand Medicare to those with disabilities, it's the same kind of thing. I know, the insurance industry is much stronger now than it was 50 years ago, but it's still an executive order.
It cannot be unconstitutional because it cannot be considered immoral (unlike abortion), there is no coercion, and because it would actually increase trade by increasing competition, therefore a claim cannot be made that it would reduce trade. So I don't know how or why SCOTUS could be involved.
And sure, it might fail, but nothing is easy, particularly those things of value.
The super wealthy don’t pay taxes because they borrow money against the stocks they own and use that money for living expenses and mansion purchases. They do not sell their stocks because this would trigger capital gains taxes. Borrowing money and spending it does not trigger taxes.
What do you do when you buy an expensive home in the Berkeley hills? You get a mortgage rather than liquidate money in your 401k. Same is true if you take a reverse mortgage. Once you die the basis of your assets will adjust and your heirs don’t have to pay capital gains taxes. They can sell the home and pay back the mortgage without ever having to pay capital gains taxes. (But they do have to pay inheritance taxes. There is a generous exemption.)
Same is true if assets are donated to a foundation, it avoids paying taxes. The basis of the stock donated will adjust to the market value. Thus the proliferation of private foundations.
Biden’s proposal is a good one but as you write it is unlikely to pass so it is just a bone thrown in the direction of the progressives.
Much will turn on the midterm elections.
In this scenario, how does one go about paying down a mortgage or loan?
One doesn't. there are interest only mortgages. Why would you want to pay down your mortgage. You probably have to withdraw money from your 401K and pay ordinary income taxes. With home prices rising your home equity grows without paying down your mortgage.
Thanks for this. So, is the monthly interest paid for with the very modest by comparison salary that is earned?
Let's hope the only disappointment is in reading this post *after* taking the time to read the ProPublica article (as reading the post was *way, way* faster!)...
= D
Thank you!
Prof Reich It’s a tax none of your Fan club has to pay. The acclaim will be universal and the condemnation of Mansion will be assured. But there are the silent super rich Democrats who even want to restore a tax deduction on their big mansions and block any fiscal reform changes if they do not get their way. This is one tax they cannot avoid. Have you seen the mansions of Pelosi and Feinstein? Feinstein’s husband just passed away. She has many millions of capital gains in her home, all forgiven, not a penny in capital gains taxes. So it is not just the horrible Republicans….
and then there is of course Schumer, remember him? He protects the hedge fund managers from paying ordinary income taxes rather than capital gains taxes. These are of course the fund managers for the gazillionaires.
Oh you are such hypocrites when you claim that it is all Mansion's fault.
Well stated. Both sides (left and right) are corrupt.
And the middle, as well.
Have Chris Rock insult Jeff Bezos' hair. That'll get it.
🤣🤣🤣
@Martha! LOL
Many multi-millionaires and billionaires are hedge fund managers who use the carried interest tax loophole to avoid paying taxes. Can't Biden and company at least convince enough members of Congress to get rid of this loophole?
Speaking of the Senate double-agent spies and sellouts we must tolerate (Manchin & Sinema) for a few court nominations… it’s common knowledge that lobbyists often write legislation for the politicians they bribe and own. How can we show that lobbyists may be writing major portions of SCOTUS opinions for Thomas, who was silent for decades? Just like the Weiner scandal allowed authorities to confiscate a former Hillary staffer’s computer, might we get access to Ginni Thomas’s?
I’m going to look at the entire budget, trust the people who put this together and reserve judgment. There are so many complicated factors in “just” a county budget of $1.5 billion with which I have experience, let alone a federal. More than ever, and especially because we need our children raised with clean air and water, a peaceful world, and a world actually resilient from climate change, we have to accept Democracy’s inevitable imperfection. Trickle down economics started us down the path of this amplified income disparity. and the Citizen’s United ruling further amplified. Humbly stated, as someone who grew up in a double union household, steeped in FDR values, then JFK’s, I am trusting DEMOCRATS and our Biden/Harris team. Doing anything else enables Trump and the other truly malevolent forces that prey upon people whether homeless in California or NYC, or disabled in Ohio or West Virginia. The centabillionare’s can afford this. And, it gives us moral equivalency for what we are doing in foreign policy. IMHO
@Paula. I love the way you made your points! There seems to be a reality that many "public servants" and ALL political systems exact a certain "cost of doing business" that takes the form of graft, fraud, exploitation, corruption, actual waste and personal enrichment for some of those office holders. Governments, including ours is rated on various international scales (e.g. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-corrupt-countries). On this particular scorecard, the USA ranks 67 with 100 being perfect. There are 26 countries on this chart with better scores, but most of them are small countries with racially and culturally homogeneous people, and they are all democracies.
Thank you, Benjamin. I will take a look at your ratings link. I wrote my comments after reading the NYT and Am Prog links Robert provided, and based on my own experience. For sure, we can do much better...it’s the arc of justice bending in a positive direction that matters. Emotions of anger and sadness can paralyze and make matters worse. I played softball growing up. Getting up to bat, then swinging is a start, right? Can’t get to first base, otherwise. That is NOT to say we, and especially those in current public service, should UNDULY compromise. And no corruption! People’s lives depend on that.
I must say the NYT article made my stomach churn...for those of us who have undoubtedly been sickened, afflicted by mercury, etc., in that neck of the woods. I understand the jobs issues, too. Let’s just keep doing our best. For me, that’s as a Democrat.
@Paula. Me too!
It may be helpful to visualize where you and your family stand in relation to those who run corporate America and determine your standard of living. In 2016, the wealthiest American was estimated to be worth 81 Billion dollars. Measuring 81 inches on a wall would create a graph 6 feet 9 inches tall. By 2020 with the wealthiest American now worth 179 Billion (perhaps with the help of an enormous tax break) the graph would have grown to 15 feet, nearly two stories in height. Today the Real-Time Billionaires list estimates the wealthiest American to be worth 290 Billion, creating a graph 24 feet or three entire stories. Meanwhile, an individual who worked and saved all their life to retire with 1 Million dollars would be equivalent to only one, one thousandth of an inch, or roughly the thickness of a human hair at the very bottom of the graph. The rest of us wouldn’t even show up without the aid of a microscope. We are truly invisible. Depicting a similar graph seems like a perfect project for Inequality Media.
Don’t buy from Amazon and Walmart and you might help bring that graph down a little. (Not you personally; everyone.)
Nice visualization! Bravo!
Taxing the super wealthy is a great idea, but getting it done is a different story. There are other issues that need to be addressed also. News is no longer news anymore. I no longer watch any news on TV anymore because it isn't news, it's opinions. There should be disclaimers running at the bottom of the screen saying as much . And as for Biden saying saying Putin needs to be gone, I say good for him. He only said out loud what everyone else is thinking.
Vickie Jacobson ; I agree, and could not stop yelling at the tv pundit standing in for Katy Tur who seemed to want everyone she 'interviewed' to say Biden should ratchet down his rhetoric, which was 'dangerous', because he made a stand and said Putin is a war criminal who should be stopped. Later, Biden restated his true feelings, but noted they were not 'policy', lest anyone be worried about escalation.
Bring back the 94% marginal tax rate and apply it to wealth for those above 100mil net worth
@David. Love your sentiment, but taxing "wealth" vs. income is sure to be challenged in court, likely overturned. Read that part of Professor Reich's essay?
20% as a minimum tax? Doesn’t that really mean as a maximum? If they’re paying much less than 20% than 20% is a ceiling, not a floor. Why is 20% rate a success? Isn’t the highest marginal tax rate on the rest of us 37%? Is everyone going to get a tax cut as well?
Declaring that a nurse shouldn’t pay more in taxes than a billionaire pays seems to be code for a flat tax. Am I wrong? 20% is a tax cut. Will the nurses et Al get a tax cut too?
@Joann. There are easy sources for you to answer your questions. For example: https://taxfoundation.org/2022-tax-brackets/
But declaring that a nurse or a secretary should pay less than a billionaire is not a code for a flat tax - it is an effort to show that the impact of loopholes, exclusions and various credits in the tax code are applicable only if you have great wealth, access to tax lawyers and the ability to put your money into the protected categories. When Mr. Buffet made that point he was also saying that he was going to file his taxes legally and take advantage of the tax code law in spite of the fact that he felt it was not fair to most income earners. He was basically criticizing Congress for having too many loopholes and other advantages for the very rich...
According to this just issued news report, Manchin appears to be against the 20% tax : https://about.bgov.com/news/what-to-know-in-washington-manchin-axes-bidens-budget-tax-plan/. Sadly, no surprise to me!
Tim I wish I had not seen your post. Darn