• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Should government tax revenues be more, less, or the same as now?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should real federal tax revenues be increased from what they were in FY2012?

  • Yes (Obama's FY2013 requested revenue increases were reasonable or they didn't go far enough)

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Taxes and revenue with it has to go up. The people who vote for expensive government programs need to actually feel the cost of those programs in their paychecks rather than putting it on the federal credit card.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
The issue isn't just profits, it's also inefficiencies and inflated costs, like duplicate forms and large amounts spent rejecting claims and then negotiating them.
And Democrats feel that government will do better at that than private companies. It's obvious they've never dealth with government as the payer.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Our life spans are generally about 3 years shorter than in most European countries and IIRC Canada. Are our lifestyles worse? Obesity is much worse here, but then again, I think we have about 20% smokers here and it's about 35% in Europe. Let's say our lifestyles are overall somewhat less healthy here, and that accounts for the lifespan difference. That leaves roughly equal outcomes for healthcare if averaged out over the entire systems. Yet they spend about half on it.
Medicare, which covers mainly the elderly, accounts for roughly half of all medical spending in the US. Rather than simply looking at spending per capita, perhaps we should compare spending per capita in age brackets. Americans seem to cling to life desparately. The phrase "if it saves just one life it will be worth it" comes to mind. We may have to re-evaluate that policy.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Medicare, which covers mainly the elderly, accounts for roughly half of all medical spending in the US. Rather than simply looking at spending per capita, perhaps we should compare spending per capita in age brackets. Americans seem to cling to life desparately. The phrase "if it saves just one life it will be worth it" comes to mind. We may have to re-evaluate that policy.
Perhaps, but in spite of that, we still have shorter life-spans. They don't seem to be letting their elderly die in other first world countries, but they're still paying a lot less for their health care.

You're touching on an important topic though. The state of medical science is such that we can treat a lot of chronic ailments and keep people alive for quite a while, but we still can't cure most of them. This is why health care in general is so much more expensive than it used to be.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Perhaps, but in spite of that, we still have shorter life-spans. They don't seem to be letting their elderly die in other first world countries, but they're still paying a lot less for their health care.

You're touching on an important topic though. The state of medical science is such that we can treat a lot of chronic ailments and keep people alive for quite a while, but we still can't cure most of them. This is why health care in general is so much more expensive than it used to be.
Average life spans is a pretty poor measure, we need better metrics before we attempt to do anything. They must exist, it's just a matter of getting past the sound bites.

My grandfather died following a car accident several years ago. He was kept alive, barely, for several weeks in the ICU at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was almost 80. Would he have received the same treatment elsewhere or would doctors have said "Your granddad lived a long full life and at his age the injuries are too severe to have much hope of recovery, visit him and say goodbye." We don't do that here. We will spend inordinate amounts of money to keep people alive and miserable for an extra week or two.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Taxes and revenue with it has to go up. The people who vote for expensive government programs need to actually feel the cost of those programs in their paychecks rather than putting it on the federal credit card.
That's too, too funny.

It is precisely those with a job that don't vote for these give away programs and you want them to pay more?

Stupid is as stupid does. Yes, we are stupid.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
oh fuck governmentworker777 is back. I was hoping you had a stroke or something.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
You have been banned for the following reason:
continued trolling after warning- starting a fight in a news thread
Date the ban will be lifted: 02-28-2012, 09:00 AM
See, there is hope.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Oh, you're on this 'nobody can ever know anything ever' kick again. I'm terribly sorry that you don't understand policy analysis, but I'm not going to be the one to teach it to you.
Funny but when I said that the US should have people who are qualified examine health care and determine the best ways to fix the system before legislating you had a fit and said we had all the answers, yet when I asked how you could guarantee that political sniping wouldn't chew any legislation first approach into pulp you had no answer. Whatever France has is due to an evolutionary process which has come about over time and is permitted by their government which does not conform our Constitution. For that matter what is "UHC" in your mind?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Our life spans are generally about 3 years shorter than in most European countries and IIRC Canada. Are our lifestyles worse? Obesity is much worse here, but then again, I think we have about 20% smokers here and it's about 35% in Europe. Let's say our lifestyles are overall somewhat less healthy here, and that accounts for the lifespan difference. That leaves roughly equal outcomes for healthcare if averaged out over the entire systems. Yet they spend about half on it.
They also have a higher population density and a waiting list for procedures. That means fewer expensive machines per person.

Speaking of, when my knee blew out and it was determined that I needed an MRI for an accurate diagnosis and treatment, I had it the same day. In some countries I'd have been wait listed for quite some time. In my case it made a difference.

Can there be improvement? Sure, but few want to know the best ways to go about it. They want to complain instead.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Taxes and revenue with it has to go up. The people who vote for expensive government programs need to actually feel the cost of those programs in their paychecks rather than putting it on the federal credit card.
How would that be done? I don't know how easy it would be to punish those who vote for social welfare while not hurting those who are libertarians so that's why I'm asking:)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,099
18,865
136
Funny but when I said that the US should have people who are qualified examine health care and determine the best ways to fix the system before legislating you had a fit and said we had all the answers, yet when I asked how you could guarantee that political sniping wouldn't chew any legislation first approach into pulp you had no answer. Whatever France has is due to an evolutionary process which has come about over time and is permitted by their government which does not conform our Constitution. For that matter what is "UHC" in your mind?
First, I don't remember any such question. Second, it's a dumb question. You want me to provide guarantees that legislation which hasn't been written will be great? That's just baffling. You don't ignore the obviously correct path of action just because there are ways that it possibly might not work out. That's life.

I didn't have a fit about more research being done, I just called it out as the obvious delaying tactic that it was. Calling for more research is a standard delaying tactic, one that's made even more transparent due to the fact that exactly what you were requesting had been going on as a continuing process for decades and decades and decades.

Look guy, if the absolutely overwhelming evidence already available hasn't convinced you that UHC is a superior solution, nothing will.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Do you even know what these to Acts do?

Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to prevent fraudently income reporting by corporations (in other words prevent companies from lying to investors). How is this a bad thing?
I agree that it was well meaning and does address some important things. However, it's cost was grossly underestimated. IIRC, the CBO estimated the cost of compliance in the hundreds of thousands range when it has turned out to be in the millions. Then, as usual, there's the unintended consequences that always show up in Washington's work - we've lost a big part of the financial market for emerging companies that need capitalization. That market has moved to London and Berlin. That's cost us revenue/GDP, jobs and severely hampered our ability to grow promising companies. Sar-Ox compliance averages $3 million, and you need to comply with it to raise to just a million under SEC rules. We've strangles infant business in their cribs.



Dodd-Frank bill is designed to prevent another too big to fail scenerio and provide basic comsumer protections, like banks and credit card companies from jacking interest rates without warning, amoung other accounting regulation.

Neither of these are business killing issues. Its just making sure that businesses are up front and honest with consumers and investors.
Dodd-Frank, while designed to prevent "too big to fail banks", has done the exact opposite. As I've posted here before, even federal banking regulators are now telling smaller banks they must sell or merge to be large enough to afford compliance. All the data shows that since Dodd-Frank was enacted banks have become much larger at a record pace (mostly via merger or buy-out of smaller banks), and smaller banks are disappearing at record rates too. It's done exactly the opposite of what was promised.

Heck, Dodd-Frank is much more than people realize. E.g., it regulates manufacturers (they're not even in the frickin banking business) by forcing them to ensure that no where in an endless supply chain any of their materials comes from certain African countries. It's absurd.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY