Chalnoth said:I really really really don't get how you can possibly think, Nebula, that the money spent on entitlement and research programs isn't spent.
How are they not part of the economy? If it goes to utilize research facilities, for example, it will by large go to paying upkeep and maintenance for said facilities.Nebula815 said:If the money is spent to utilize research facilities, it goes to the university or government that controls the facilities, and thus not into the economy.
How? The vast majority of entitlements are services (medical care being the largest).Nebula815 said:If it goes to entitlements, it can go into people's pockets. Again, it depends.
Chalnoth said:How are they not part of the economy? If it goes to utilize research facilities, for example, it will by large go to paying upkeep and maintenance for said facilities.
How? The vast majority of entitlements are services (medical care being the largest).
Do you really think that there are many institutions around that are flush with cash under the current economic conditions?Nebula815 said:Certainly. But maybe the facilities are already maintained by other money and the money charged is just used to help offset some of the cost, and is saved by the institution.
You have never quantified such things, nor shown how they aren't stimulative (e.g. money going to a senator's pet project may be corrupt, but it still stimulates the economy because it's still the government buying something).Nebula815 said:I mean via fraud and corruption issues and so forth, which tend to plague government programs.
Chalnoth said:Do you really think that there are many institutions around that are flush with cash under the current economic conditions?
You have never quantified such things, nor shown how they aren't stimulative (e.g. money going to a senator's pet project may be corrupt, but it still stimulates the economy because it's still the government buying something).
That's your only response? Seriously? Just for one small example, due to the budget crisis in California, the University of California has had to increase its tuition by 32% since this crisis began, just to make ends meet.Nebula815 said:I don't know. A lot of them sure charge a lot of money to attend!
But where does that happen, precisely?Nebula815 said:If it goes into people's pockets instead of directly to buying things, there is no way to know if it will be stimulative or not.
Chalnoth said:That's your only response? Seriously? Just for one small example, due to the budget crisis in California, the University of California has had to increase its tuition by 32% since this crisis began, just to make ends meet.
But where does that happen, precisely?
No, that would be a policy that actually makes sense. California's problem is that it is nigh impossible for the state to raise taxes (requires a 2/3rds majority), but the populace have been crying out for more social services.Nebula815 said:I meant privately-owned institutions. California's problem is because every time they raise taxes, they increase spending further, so then an economic crises hits and the state goes bankrupt.
In this case, we'd be talking about labs staying open as opposed to being closed down due to lack of funds.Nebula815 said:Although I am not saying private institutions are per se flush with cash either. But I do not see how funding for research programs can stimulate the economy, as the facilities of the university must be maintained regardless of whether research is carried out or not.
Those don't just hand money to people. The people to whom the benefits are applied never even see the money: it is spent directly on the goods and services in question.Nebula815 said:Medicare and Medicaid are two. So is the public education system. It is the nature of any government program. To get more money year after year, the program will find ways to waste money. Oftentimes that meanshiring a lot of unecessary people for example.
Chalnoth said:Those don't just hand money to people. The people to whom the benefits are applied never even see the money: it is spent directly on the goods and services in question.
Chalnoth said:No, that would be a policy that actually makes sense.
California's problem is that it is nigh impossible for the state to raise taxes (requires a 2/3rds majority), but the populace have been crying out for more social services.
In this case, we'd be talking about labs staying open as opposed to being closed down due to lack of funds.
Those don't just hand money to people. The people to whom the benefits are applied never even see the money: it is spent directly on the goods and services in question.
Highest income tax from $47k to ~$175, then NJ, Ha, and Oregon take 1st prize.Nebula815 said:Not really. [California] already has the highest taxes in the country ...
No, the prison guard unions and the teachers unions have been crying for continued overly high pay. See, e.g.:Chalnoth said:... California's [...] populace have been crying out for more social services...
I don't understanding how paying most of the cost of medical care counts as handing money to people.WhoWee said:Medicare and Medicaid DO "just hand money to people".
Hardly.Nebula815 said:Not really. The state already has the highest taxes in the country and is an incredibly harsh environment for businesses, which are causing businesses to flee. It is a vicious cycle that will occur.
That's not really a valid assumption under the current economic climate.Nebula815 said:I agree with you if the labs and facilities would otherwise be closed down, there would be a dropoff probably in economic activity in terms of their maintenance, I was talking under the assumption that they stay open regardless.
Define "a lot".Nebula815 said:A lot of people know how to rip off the system, and there is a lot of fraud and corruption that occurs within these programs.
No. The detailed information is at the link I provided up thread w/ 2009 information. That CNN money link is very out of date - 2002, and the income tax + sales tax composite 'total tax' ranking is not very useful since total sales tax vary by locality and can be avoided by not buying in state, etc, nor is any single figure that useful given the tax rates vary widely by income, as you must already know.Chalnoth said:Hardly.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/total_taxes/index.html
It's not the lowest, but it is far from the highest. It ranks 17th in total taxes.
The next highest sales tax rate in other states is 7%.State Sales Tax: 8.25% (food and prescription drugs exempt. Tax varies according to locality. Can be as high as 10.25%)
Gasoline Tax: * 39.9 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: * 44.5 cents/gallon
Cigarette Tax: 37 cents/pack of 20 plus an additional surcharge of 50 cents per pack, bringing the total to 87 cent
$60B/year medicare and medicaid fraud.Chalnoth said:Define "a lot".
At least my link looked at comprehensive tax receipts, instead of cherry picking a few places were California has higher taxes. For example:mheslep said:No. The detailed information is at the link I provided up thread w/ 2009 information. That CNN money link is very out of date - 2002, and the income tax + sales tax composite 'total tax' ranking is not very useful since total sales tax vary by locality and can be avoided by not buying in state, etc, nor is any single figure that useful given the tax rates vary widely by income, as you must already know.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html
From the income bracket starting at $47k/year up well into six figure income, California does indeed have the highest income tax in the United States as of California's 2009 budget agreements. After six figures at least NJ and Hawaii have higher top rate taxes. Ca's non-exempted sales tax rate is also the highest in the country at http://retirementliving.com/RLstate1.html#CALIFORNIA" as of 2009 (other state localities might exceed that).
The next highest sales tax rate in other states is 7%.
Only $60 billion? That's a pretty small fraction of the $2.2 trillion spent on medical care in the US. Losing three cents on the dollar shouldn't be a serious deterrent to spending money that needs to be spent.mheslep said:$60B/year medicare and medicaid fraud.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html" - "By some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud."
That's a spurious comparison. The correct comparison is to Medicare and Medicaid spending, for which that loss amounts to much higher than three cents on the dollar. If the entire US health system were run like M&M, we would expect losses to scale to the entire US heath system, as well as trashing the quality of the system.Chalnoth said:Only $60 billion? That's a pretty small fraction of the $2.2 trillion spent on medical care in the US. Losing three cents on the dollar shouldn't be a serious deterrent to spending money that needs to be spent.
Really? Are you sure? Because the person being quoted there first talked about the total health care spending of $2.2 trillion, and how this large magnitude made it prone to fraud. She didn't specify that the $60 billion was only for Medicare/Medicaid, and given that she was talking about the whole industry, it seems unlikely she was referring only to these.mheslep said:That's a spurious comparison. The correct comparison is to Medicare and Medicaid spending, for which that loss amounts to much higher than three cents on the dollar.
Citing income taxes and sales tax details is not cheery picking.Chalnoth said:At least my link looked at comprehensive tax receipts, instead of cherry picking a few places were California has higher taxes.
What do you mean, 'the person'?Chalnoth said:Really? Are you sure? Because the person
Of course it is an estimate, we're talking about fraud. Assume its on the high side if you like (I don't, as M/M is a rapidly expanding system, and such systems are the most prone to inefficiency)Chalnoth said:being quoted there first talked about the total health care spending of $2.2 trillion, and how this large magnitude made it prone to fraud. She didn't specify that the $60 billion was only for Medicare/Medicaid, and given that she was talking about the whole industry, it seems unlikely she was referring only to these.
And she also mentions that the $60 billion number was only by some estimates, by the way: she didn't state whether this was among the high or low end of the estimates.
Sure it is, because property taxes make up a huge fraction of total receipts.mheslep said:Citing income taxes and sales tax details is not cheery picking.
mheslep said:What do you mean, 'the person'?
said Attorney General Holder. "Every year we lose tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.
Holder could still well be correct in is statement even if the $60 billion number was referring to all of medical fraud (If fraud is roughly equal between public and private, $60 billion total would mean roughly $22 billion fraud under Medicare/Medicaid).The U.S. spends more than $2.2 trillion on health care, including more than $800 billion on Medicare and on Medicaid, the joint federal-state program for the poor. The sheer size of the health-care system makes it prone to fraud and abuse, Ms. Sebelius said. By some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud. Attorney General Eric Holder said frauds "contribute directly to rising health-care costs that all Americans must bear."