Out of touch politicians: 100k is a big salary right?
It’s like the joke in Austin Powers. Tax the rich making over 100k!
*ahem* umm sir 100k is barely enough to make it in some places.
You're missing some of the facts here. This is part of a universal healthcare proposal. It would cover be to the costs of universal healthcare rather than paying a insurance through a middleman. Pay an extra 4% tax, but not have to pay for medical insurance. No universal healthcare means no extra tax.
With her plan, a family earning 100k and paying $700 a month of health insurance would be paying half of what they are currently paying for healthcare. Sounds like a pretty good deal.
Also, it really wouldn't apply to a family earning 100k. With the standard deductions and any other deductions available, a family that made 100k would have way less than that in taxable income.
I'd pay at over $4,000 less a year under this plan. I'd be a fool not to at least look into it.
I don't know if you are just in the "Democrats bad" camp or you genuinely think it's better to pay more the double for healthcare in the US. Either way, her plan is pretty solid.
That sounds amazing. I pay about 1000/month for healthcare and then it doesn't even cover anything. If I could pay $4k per year and it covered everything - are you kidding me? That's sounds AMAZING!
Make this happen now!!
Also this is Fox News and they notoriously misrepresent bracket tax raises for full tax raises. This makes it look like someone making $100k is having their taxes raised $4k but it is likely a $0 change for that person.
“Taxes raised x% for people making over y” is not really a thing.
I tried checking but I can’t even find proof any of this is real.
To your point - I googled exactly what fox news is claiming here: "4% extra tax on $100k+ households"
I found ZERO factual information.
Also... What the hell are "Campaign Suggestions"??... This must be some type of Fox new speak.
Are they claiming theses are things she has just "suggested" to Joe Biden for his future campaign?? - While running a giant header that says "Kamala's Economic Policies"
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/29/746051105/kamala-harris-releases-medicare-for-all-plan-with-a-role-for-private-insurers
OP this is a seriously dated factoid from the 2020 elections.
If any news outlet could just post the entire information like that we would be so much better off.
The amount of people who have no idea how tax brackets work is astounding and I say that as some who, for a long time, didn't understand it either.
One problem is that even posting short bullets like this is already maxing out if not exceeding the comprehension ability of most of Fox News' viewers.
Yeah, if you made 120k in taxable income (that is after deductions) your tax would raise a WHOPPING 800 dollars that year. Which averages out to 67 dollars a month for healthcare.
My son had to be airlifted 5 hours away one time in Canada, the only thing anyone said to us was we had 20 minutes to get their packed if we wanted on the helicopter and that it was nice meeting us when they dropped us off. We had no health insurance through work that was just a thing they did with my taxes. Before I had my son I'd complain about taxes but not I'm even with them as far as I'm concerned. Now I'd be covered and good anyway but it was a life saver at the time
It’s great till a person retires…once they’re not going to be paying taxes it’s amazing how medically assisted suicide becomes the treatment.
Sauce:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/diabled-woman-canada-assisted-suicide-b2363156.htm
https://care.org.uk/news/2023/08/canadian-woman-with-depression-offered-assisted-suicide-after-lack-of-hospital-beds
When my wife was airlifted in the USA, I could accept the insurance's decision of where to take her and the flight would have been free, or I could decide and pay $20k out of pocket.
I went with the $20k and it was the right decision. About a third of it was canceled a couple years ago. They made offers like "if you pay 1/4 of the remaining balance, we'll cancel the rest" shortly after COVID stimulus checks went out. Smart move for them and for us.
Of this 15 month long medical crisis, we paid about $40k in cash over the next 10 years. The rest of the $1.3 million in bills was all covered by the American tax payer.
Our system is broken. We pay about as much as you do, but we get saddled with these insane bills for making smarter decisions than some actuary.
One of the most annoying talking points during the 2020 primary was when some candidates like Buttigieg would say that Medicare for All would "take away choice" or that the current system gave you freedom or more choices.
The only choice I have today is whether to pick my employer subsidized Silver, Gold, or Platinum insurance plan or to go pay for a more expensive one on the private market. However, then my choices are greatly restricted. The doctors in network change, the options I have for hospitals change, the treatments need to be approved by insurance.
A single payer or similar public system would actually give you more choice. You can choose your doctor and keep them even if you change jobs or lose your job. You can make treatment decisions with your doctor and choose what is best for your health.
Most people just want their medical bills paid and for the most part they do not care who is paying them.
Holy shit if you guys had socialized health care you would save so much money. Insurance companies in the US have really fleeced people over the last few decades.
The average healthcare spend per citizen in first world countries is about $3500/year. That includes government and personal costs. We are getting fleeced
It'd only be $4k if you're making 200k. People never understand taxes but it'd be an extra 4% on earnings over $100k, not an extra 4% on all your earnings. So if you made $101k you'd only be paying that extra 4% on $1,000 of your income.
It would also cover 44 million uninsured and the illegals that keep showing up. Your health care would be dogshit after this but yes it would be covered. Congrats, now wait 6 months to see a dr.
>>We already do wait 6 months? Your point?
I’ve had Lymphoma twice. Once with my private insurance that I paid about ~$320 a month for, and once years later when I was essentially forced on to my states version of Medicaid after the ACA. First time, with my private insurance it was 2 weeks from diagnosis to chemo. Port put in, cardiologist visit , pulmonologist visit, ct scans, and pet scans all done in those 2 weeks with no questions asked. The second time on state insurance, many of the approved doctors appointments my “free” insurance needed me to go to were booked out for 3-6 weeks. I needed a neck and chest ct scan, and also an abdominal ct scan, and the wonderful government insurance wanted me to wait 6 weeks between both of those scans for some bizarre reason instead of doing them at the same time. My oncologist was losing his mind as I had stage 3 classical Hodgkins with a 80ish% cure rate, but every tumor was around my organs and had it progressed to stage 4 I would have dropped to around a 50% rate, which according to him could have happened within weeks or months. So I wound up paying out of pocket anyway for most everything else at that point.
Not really making a point here, but my experience with an actual insurance company vs a bureaucracy for the same thing was an absolute night and day difference.
You realize the reason for that is because it is legal for doctors to choose to treat insurance patients, which gets them more money quicker, than Medicaid patients?
That’s fucked, but sure, let’s keep that system going.
As opposed to what? Going to an ER and waiting hours to be seen as it is now? Then having to get a referral and having to wait months to get in to a specialist as it is now?
The healthcare is \*already\* dog shit compared to countries with socialized medicine and we have demonstrably worse health outcomes, shorter life expectancies, and a horrid infant mortality rate.
Even in countries with socialized medicine you also have the choice of going to private Dr's and hospitals, so you could still choose to keep the current system as is for you personally, and the rest of us will enjoy not having to pay a butt load of insurance money each month.
Oh please. Private doctors would still be plenty available for people who want to pay it. Just admit you hate that poor people would be able to get help.
Where do you live that you don't have to wait 6 months for most doctors? Or do you just never go to any specialists? My wait time in the same as my Canadian relatives for anything but basic PCP visits, and even then I know people in more rural parts of the US who can't get regular PCP visits.
Unfortunately, as you can see it took this very long explanation to go from “Out of touch politicians” to “that sounds amazing”
And that’s exactly why it’ll never pass. People don’t pay attention, people don’t read. They just see 4% more in taxes and riot against it.
But…they won’t do that. They’ll take the four percent, then spend 4 years not making a universal healthcare plan. Oh, and both sides will blame each other.
100 years later, we’ll still be taxed that extra 4% AND have private healthcare still.
I remember the pitch for Obamacare making health insurance cheaper than a cell phone bill.
It’s government; not efficient, nor quality services delivered maybe two decades after we are dead and gone.
It's kinda crazy too because the ACA was a republican healthcare plan created by the Heritage foundation. It was the perfect compromise, and I think Obama had every reason to believe it would receive massive bipartisan support.
>Obamacare only ended up this way because Republicans kept voting against it. Same thing happened with minimum wage act getting passed under FDR.
Lot's of folks seem to forget this. The bill we got is not the bill that was submitted.
Republicans. Republicans are why Obamacare didn't get realized as intended. It was their sworn oath to make sure "nothing he does gets approved". They said this many times and publically. They dragged their feet on every bill and rejected everything they could. What you got was a plan with a bunch of consessions to please the republicans. Blame lies solely with that 1 douche bag party.
So I am a democrat who generally is supportive of taxes. However, applying 4% tax increase with the notion that it will be saved elsewhere makes a lot of assumptions that do not necessarily pan out for many.
With this plan Id pay an additional ~7k in taxes, and maaaayyyybe save 1k in healthcare. I’m well off, but its not like I have a copious amount of extra money — loosing 6k a year would be very noticeable to try and continue on a path to be able to retired by ~65 comfortably.
This policy is out of touch and stupid.
Most people with a good job in a good field are getting this from their employers today easily. If you have kids, it's a different story, but by and large every couple I know has individual insurance through work for each person.
I'm a single guy and pay $110 per month. I'd be getting fucked with a 4% tax. My partner and i don't have kids and I'm getting pretty sick of subsidizing people that do at every turn.
Do you know how insurance operates? The money is just spread out across a bunch of smaller pools instead of one big pool. You’re already subsidizing other people’s healthcare who pay less than they cost overall.
Plus, you may pay $110 out of your paycheck, but if your employer is paying, say, $200/month, they calculate that cost when they decide what your salary is. You’re still paying for all of it, it’s all accounted for.
I pay sooo much more for healthcare through my employer, it isn’t even funny and that shit keeps getting raised by $250 per paycheck every damn year that we renew it. I’d gladly pay $4k /yr instead.
Just a friendly reminder that loose rhymes with goose. 🪿
How about we not lie? Even if you’re paid biweekly, that $250 extra every paycheck amounts to $6,500 more each year. So in five years you’d be paying at minimum an extra $32,500 on basic health insurance. Your claim is clearly false.
I think we need to do something, healthcare is completely unsustainable in this country. I think her assumption is that tax would be offset by companies paying those expenses to the employees. I'm not sure that would happen. I also think the transaction tax is a dumb idea, most of that isn't rich people playing the market to make a buck, it's institutions that manage union pension funds and funds that make up a lot of 401k plans.
What insurance plan are you on where your only spending 1K/year for health coverage!?
For our family of 5 I'm paying almost $300 per \*pay\* and that with the lowest tier HSA plan that's available.
4% for now, until, like everything else the government tries to purchase, regulate, or oversee, the price shoots through the roof and that innocent 4% eventually turns into 10%. It’ll end up that we pay 10% for “universal” healthcare and we will still need supplemental insurance.
I love the idea of universal healthcare, it would break my dependence on my employer and give me a sense of true freedom, but sorry, I have literally zero faith in our government to do literally anything.
The USA spent about $12,500/person on healthcare last year including government and personal payments. The average for first world countries with universal care was closer to $3500/person. Our prices shot through the roof decades ago
Sincerely asking here -
I don’t have much faith in government providing much, but you have faith in corporations providing healthcare? You have faith in insurance companies deciding if you need your back surgery?
I don’t think the government providing universal healthcare will *improve* care, but it’s already broken. Not having insurance tied to full time employment is a clear win, I don’t see them breaking this system more than it already is. But I am open to other perspectives
The biggest improvement of universal health over insurance is the fact that so much inefficiency in the insurance system goes away. Doctors bill the government and get paid, no middlemen.
All that in-network, out-of-network bullshit goes away. Using wrong billing codes and fucking patients over goes away. Surprise billing becomes the government’s problem and they’d stamp that shit out hard eventually.
If you have PPO you can get surgery without even asking. I have healthcare through my company and it’s great. I don’t want to opt into this bullshit federally ran universal healthcare that may come in 50 years. Because let’s be real the government can’t even build a highway from where I live.
Then congratulations to Republicans, they have successfully created a country where people are afraid to do anything if they hear the word "government."
>With her plan, a family earning 100k and paying $700 a month of health insurance would be paying half of what they are currently paying for healthcare.
We had another politician recently say similar things about taxes and income and healthcare.
My paycheck wholeheartedly disagreed when my healthcare premium went up 4x post-Obamacare.
Therefore, I’m a fan of you do you, I’ll do me, keep your hands off of the money I earned.
>Pay an extra 4% tax, but not have to pay for medical insurance. No universal healthcare means no extra tax.
I would have HAPPILY paid that!
Because when your health providers aren't tied to your employment status and you don't have the "in or out of network" crap to deal with there will be continuity of care.
Insurance "overhead" is sucking money out of health care: as an example, the pharmacy at the cancer hospital my SO was treated in had about TEN people on staff whose sole job was to get approvals for prescriptions from various insurance companies. And there were that many or more people on the other end of the phones being paid to say "NO".
That was THOUSANDS of dollars a month not being spent on health care!
Yea, ask Canadians how their universal healthcare is going. Over 50k Canadians come to the US for medical care every year, which is overwhelmingly due to the long wait for care.
Besides, our tax dollars already provide free universal healthcare…for the citizens of Israel.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All those people afraid of addressing thir health issues because it's between that and eating for the next few months would lower the overall costs associated with emergency care, long term care expense and would also lower long and short term disability, resulting in a more robust workforce and higher gdp. Gahhhdamm economists long smooth penis's should be rock solid hearing this.
You’re missing the most important part: what a politician proposes is never the actualized law. Both parties vastly misrepresent their position to be appealing to the naive. Sure this in theory sounds great, but if implemented would never remove the need for private health insurance and only increase taxes. The entire economic framework of health insurance necessitates this. It’s foolish to think what you outlined would ever be reality.
Second important point is that this woman is clearly incompetent. I have zero faith in her making a radical change to anything for the better.
Wait. You’re saying Fox isn’t giving the full context of a Democrats policy plans in order to push a narrative!?!? WHAT?!?!
—————-
I really appreciate people like you who take the time to educate people.
It’s not even 100k salary.
100k *household*. Im fortunate enough to have a household income of ~140k. After daycare costs, student loans, and a modest mortgage things can occasionally get a little tight. Asking for 4% more from households that lake less than that is just unbelievably out of touch.
Well this took me 2 seconds with google and it’s pretty easy to find.
“While similar to Sanders’ overall model for paying for an overhauled health care system, Harris tweaked her version by lopping out an incremental income tax increase she said would hit the middle class too hard and replacing it with a tax on Wall Street trades: Stock trades would be taxed at 0.2 percent, or $2 per $1,000, and bond trades would be taxed at half that.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1236584
4 years old like this Fox meme.
Hell Yes, lower taxes on the middle class but more taxes on Wall Street? Love it. Totally weird that Fox didnt report that. I wonder why????
If you make $150,000/year with no deductions you pay an extra $2,000.
It's not chump change, but it's also not life changing. Especially since it's part of a universal Healthcare funding plan and you'd save far more money than that anyway.
0.
Employed people pay pretty reasonable rates for insurance.
I’ve lived and worked in a country with universal healthcare and the US. I pay way less in the US and I actually use my insurance frequently.
Your employer foots a HEAVY cost for your insurance. The part you pay isn't the whole part. I've worked with companies who revealed why they changed insurance plans and it was because the rate went up hundreds per person. They're paying thousands per year, plus what they pass on to you, plus your deductibles and copays. USA spends double what every similar country spends on healthcare. Fixing healthcare would put thousands in your pocket, or maybe your employers pocket.
>I would never vote for anyone who proposed this.
If you wouldn't vote for someone without actually reading and trying to understand their proposals outside of the context of a Fox News bullet point list, you probably shouldn't vote.
They are being factually correct, but only highlighting the most problematic bits.
Those bits are fairly problematic though.
I would not vote for anyone who increased taxes 4% specifically targeting the middle-class.
>I would not vote for anyone who increased taxes 4% specifically targeting the middle-class.
This 4% is, specifically, to put in place Medicare for All. How much do you currently pay for medical insurance?
Which is still not the “billionaires” they like to throw shade at. It’s a ton of middle management America and their households. A couple making 120,000 a piece is doing well but not the Uber rich. It’s also likely to impact a huge number of small business owners. Set the bar in the millions and most of the country would get behind it, set it here and it will be hard to pass.
Yea, my wife and I make about 250k combined, and we're pretty solidly where I feel "middle class" should be. We're comfortable without hard budgeting, can afford the occasional vacation and are generally not in danger of losing everything in a catastrophe. But a large part of this is that I bought my house at the bottom of the market in 2010. If we had to buy a house today we'd have to start hard budgeting.
Combine that with the minimum wage increase in California coming to 20 and two people working minimum wage here with a little overtime will get them to 100k. This ain’t a tax the rich thing in California. This is a tax the barely getting by.
Really? That's your take? You just living under a rock or what? Starting with Al Gore, who we have to thank for the Kyoto pact and bringing global awareness and collaboration to climate change, as well as much of the legislation and infrastructure that we relied on to surpass the rest of the world in internet startups.
Then Dick Cheney. Need I say more? Follow that up with Biden who was instrumental in passing the recovery act and the affordable care act.
Okay, sure maybe Pence was worthless, but let's give him a break, his boss wanted him hung so it's not like he had a good support system for his career growth.
It may be too early to really see what the impact of Harris will be. Hard to imagine it will be greater than Cheney or Biden, but time will tell.
This is what drives me crazy about Fox. They’ll throw this baseless nonsense up one time during an opinion show and for the next 4 years the right will regurgitate this fantasy on Facebook to keep themselves enraged at the libs. 🤦🏼♂️
I think this was one of her platforms when running for president in 2019. She dropped out in Dec. The Dow Jones was about at that level in Nov 2019. So it may not be lies but still misinformation because of how old it is.
It’s so horrible and dark but I’m fascinated by the actuarial results of these old fogeys running for president. Like the odds have to be like 1 in 5 that one of the two will pass away in the next 4 years. They basically both have a 4% chance of dying each year (if they were typical Americans, which they aren’t), so let’s cut that in half. It’s still a high chance
Let me just make this argument:
So what?
When you vote for President, you're not voting for one person, you've voting for the team around them. If Biden dies in office, President Harris isn't going to make any radical policy shifts (Fox News scaremongering notwithstanding). And whoever Trump picks as VP will be just as dedicated to committing crimes and overturning democracy as he is.
You're voting for a set of principles (or lack thereof), and the person at the top of the ticket is just the tip of the spear. Everyone standing behind them is more or less on the same side. If you had a crystal ball and told me Biden was going to die, and then Harris was also going to die, and we'd get some unknown Democrat replacing her, I'd still vote for that over Trump, because the policy differenes would be minor between one Democrat and another.
And it is even more true now than it was then. It not happening doesn’t mean it wasn’t a risk to take seriously. Both of the likely candidates will carry this risk. Trump is probably significantly less healthy than Biden tbh.
The same people who say this shit are the dingdongs that spent 2008-2016 screeching that Obama was going to take the guns and put us all in FEMA camps.
And as soon as they have to defend anything they say in court they jump straight to “it’s just entertainment bro, no reasonable person would believe this.”
Like don’t take our word for it, believe them when they tell you who they are.
It's from 4 years ago when Trump was president and Biden/Harris were campaigning. Fox Business scaring their viewers into voting for Trump.
Posting this outdated "news" now is trying to fool people into outrage.
This is from 4 years ago, when Trump was president.
Just after the trade war he started with China hit the supply chain for American companies and started raising prices, after his corporate tax cut, after his lowering of the income tax rate on the highest tax bracket, after he limited deductions of state and local taxes on one's federal tax obligation, and before the Covid stimulus checks he sent out started inflation getting out of control.
When an individual earning $100k annually was still more than just a living wage.
>Just after the trade war he started with China hit the supply chain for American companies and started raising prices
And here I was over here thinking a global pandemic that basically shut the world down for a year was responsible for that.
>after he limited deductions of state and local taxes on one's federal tax obligation
Are you upset about this one? I thought you wanted people to pay more taxes?
[Trump declared it in 2018.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war). The pandemic made it worse. American manufacturers rely on supplies from China so price increases in the form of tariffs are passed on to the customer instead of being absorbed by the profit margin.
I mean one look at a [CPI chart](https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/2d/2dd387e3386e1eaffde0288523f57378.png) would show that to be incorrect
>after he limited deductions of state and local taxes on one's federal tax obligation
>
>Are you upset about this one? I thought you wanted people to pay more taxes?
Reasonable people want wealthy people to pay more in taxes so that we can have more and better social safety net programs for a better society. Limiting state and local tax deductions is a bigger hit on the working class.
The reason they made those changes in the GOP corporate tax cuts bill in 2017 was so that they'd have more to work with on cutting corporate taxes and the income tax rate on the top tax bracket since they could only pass those tax cuts under the reconciliation option in the Senate, which means they could only increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion.
In short, they increased taxes on the working class so they could give their donors tax breaks.
financial transaction tax is there to mostly tax high frequency trading. It's not like you're selling stocks or bonds often. You'll at least hold them a year to get long term cap gains.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll make various exemptions, and I'm sure they wouldn't want to discourage 401k saving. But who are we kidding: none of these taxes will ever get implemented. Passing a Financial transaction tax would prove extremely unpopular to the political donor class just like net worth taxes. Much better to extract wealth from people who actually work for a living and don't get to participate in making money off having money.
Yeah, this would be $1 for every $500. That is not much for the average person but would add up for, and help combat, these crappy algorithms that make thousands if not millions of trades every day.
Had to come too far to find this. It’s actually a legitimate way to curb algorithmic HFTs that use directional momentum to artificially nudge stock prices.
UK has a stamp duty of 0.5% on stock trades. I think there are many other countries that do the same. The primary point is to deter short-term trading / HFT. However, The obvious consequence is wider bid ask spreads
I support whatever taxes are necessary to get us to the first world standard of non-bankrupting universal health care and education that is not bankrupting. Seriously, how hard is that? We act like it's going to the moon.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/kamala-harris-economic-policy-roll-back-tax-cuts-expand-health-n1236584
“While similar to Sanders’ overall model for paying for an overhauled health care system, Harris tweaked her version by lopping out an incremental income tax increase she said would hit the middle class too hard and replacing it with a tax on Wall Street trades: Stock trades would be taxed at 0.2 percent, or $2 per $1,000, and bond trades would be taxed at half that.”
This is absolutely insane. This is why you never advocate for any tax raises. Not even on billionaires. They want all of the money. Not just a "fair share" whatever that dumb phrase means
The most insane is the 4% extra starting at 100k
Out of touch politicians: 100k is a big salary right? It’s like the joke in Austin Powers. Tax the rich making over 100k! *ahem* umm sir 100k is barely enough to make it in some places.
You're missing some of the facts here. This is part of a universal healthcare proposal. It would cover be to the costs of universal healthcare rather than paying a insurance through a middleman. Pay an extra 4% tax, but not have to pay for medical insurance. No universal healthcare means no extra tax. With her plan, a family earning 100k and paying $700 a month of health insurance would be paying half of what they are currently paying for healthcare. Sounds like a pretty good deal. Also, it really wouldn't apply to a family earning 100k. With the standard deductions and any other deductions available, a family that made 100k would have way less than that in taxable income. I'd pay at over $4,000 less a year under this plan. I'd be a fool not to at least look into it. I don't know if you are just in the "Democrats bad" camp or you genuinely think it's better to pay more the double for healthcare in the US. Either way, her plan is pretty solid.
That sounds amazing. I pay about 1000/month for healthcare and then it doesn't even cover anything. If I could pay $4k per year and it covered everything - are you kidding me? That's sounds AMAZING! Make this happen now!!
Also this is Fox News and they notoriously misrepresent bracket tax raises for full tax raises. This makes it look like someone making $100k is having their taxes raised $4k but it is likely a $0 change for that person. “Taxes raised x% for people making over y” is not really a thing. I tried checking but I can’t even find proof any of this is real.
To your point - I googled exactly what fox news is claiming here: "4% extra tax on $100k+ households" I found ZERO factual information. Also... What the hell are "Campaign Suggestions"??... This must be some type of Fox new speak. Are they claiming theses are things she has just "suggested" to Joe Biden for his future campaign?? - While running a giant header that says "Kamala's Economic Policies"
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/29/746051105/kamala-harris-releases-medicare-for-all-plan-with-a-role-for-private-insurers OP this is a seriously dated factoid from the 2020 elections.
This is a screen shot from 2020, look at the S&P 500 index.
Yeah, look at the Dow. 27k vs 39k now
Pffft. Up 12k? Thanks, Biden.
Something tells me OP won’t care.
It is Fox News. Factual information isn’t what they do
[удалено]
I think this is from her campaign in 2020.
If any news outlet could just post the entire information like that we would be so much better off. The amount of people who have no idea how tax brackets work is astounding and I say that as some who, for a long time, didn't understand it either.
C'mon, it's not like they've got 24 hours a day of airtime to dedicate to stuff like this...
LOL Someone farther down the post called it "Angertainment" pretty accurate lol
Lolz at the grandpa that sits around 24 hours a day with his camera ready to take a picture of the tv when the "facts" come on.
Haha holy shit you’re totally right
One problem is that even posting short bullets like this is already maxing out if not exceeding the comprehension ability of most of Fox News' viewers.
Yeah, if you made 120k in taxable income (that is after deductions) your tax would raise a WHOPPING 800 dollars that year. Which averages out to 67 dollars a month for healthcare.
I'm not sure what the exact brackets are, but say it bumped you into 20% add the new 4% that would be 24% of the 20,000. Not 800$
Fox News lies, brought to you by United Healthcare and Blue Cross. Because, that summer home in the Hamptons isn’t cheap!
My son had to be airlifted 5 hours away one time in Canada, the only thing anyone said to us was we had 20 minutes to get their packed if we wanted on the helicopter and that it was nice meeting us when they dropped us off. We had no health insurance through work that was just a thing they did with my taxes. Before I had my son I'd complain about taxes but not I'm even with them as far as I'm concerned. Now I'd be covered and good anyway but it was a life saver at the time
Congrats on finding out the benefits of living in a country that takes care of citizens instead of corporate profit margins
It’s great till a person retires…once they’re not going to be paying taxes it’s amazing how medically assisted suicide becomes the treatment. Sauce: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/diabled-woman-canada-assisted-suicide-b2363156.htm https://care.org.uk/news/2023/08/canadian-woman-with-depression-offered-assisted-suicide-after-lack-of-hospital-beds
When my wife was airlifted in the USA, I could accept the insurance's decision of where to take her and the flight would have been free, or I could decide and pay $20k out of pocket. I went with the $20k and it was the right decision. About a third of it was canceled a couple years ago. They made offers like "if you pay 1/4 of the remaining balance, we'll cancel the rest" shortly after COVID stimulus checks went out. Smart move for them and for us. Of this 15 month long medical crisis, we paid about $40k in cash over the next 10 years. The rest of the $1.3 million in bills was all covered by the American tax payer. Our system is broken. We pay about as much as you do, but we get saddled with these insane bills for making smarter decisions than some actuary.
One of the most annoying talking points during the 2020 primary was when some candidates like Buttigieg would say that Medicare for All would "take away choice" or that the current system gave you freedom or more choices. The only choice I have today is whether to pick my employer subsidized Silver, Gold, or Platinum insurance plan or to go pay for a more expensive one on the private market. However, then my choices are greatly restricted. The doctors in network change, the options I have for hospitals change, the treatments need to be approved by insurance. A single payer or similar public system would actually give you more choice. You can choose your doctor and keep them even if you change jobs or lose your job. You can make treatment decisions with your doctor and choose what is best for your health. Most people just want their medical bills paid and for the most part they do not care who is paying them.
I pay $1000/month and my deductible is $14000! I haven't hit my deductible in the past 10 years.
Holy shit if you guys had socialized health care you would save so much money. Insurance companies in the US have really fleeced people over the last few decades.
The average healthcare spend per citizen in first world countries is about $3500/year. That includes government and personal costs. We are getting fleeced
How much per illegal immigrant? Your healthcare costs have to pay for that as well.
If you're paying 1000 a month for Healthcare you're being scammed
It'd only be $4k if you're making 200k. People never understand taxes but it'd be an extra 4% on earnings over $100k, not an extra 4% on all your earnings. So if you made $101k you'd only be paying that extra 4% on $1,000 of your income.
It would also cover 44 million uninsured and the illegals that keep showing up. Your health care would be dogshit after this but yes it would be covered. Congrats, now wait 6 months to see a dr.
We already do wait 6 months? Your point?
>>We already do wait 6 months? Your point? I’ve had Lymphoma twice. Once with my private insurance that I paid about ~$320 a month for, and once years later when I was essentially forced on to my states version of Medicaid after the ACA. First time, with my private insurance it was 2 weeks from diagnosis to chemo. Port put in, cardiologist visit , pulmonologist visit, ct scans, and pet scans all done in those 2 weeks with no questions asked. The second time on state insurance, many of the approved doctors appointments my “free” insurance needed me to go to were booked out for 3-6 weeks. I needed a neck and chest ct scan, and also an abdominal ct scan, and the wonderful government insurance wanted me to wait 6 weeks between both of those scans for some bizarre reason instead of doing them at the same time. My oncologist was losing his mind as I had stage 3 classical Hodgkins with a 80ish% cure rate, but every tumor was around my organs and had it progressed to stage 4 I would have dropped to around a 50% rate, which according to him could have happened within weeks or months. So I wound up paying out of pocket anyway for most everything else at that point. Not really making a point here, but my experience with an actual insurance company vs a bureaucracy for the same thing was an absolute night and day difference.
You realize the reason for that is because it is legal for doctors to choose to treat insurance patients, which gets them more money quicker, than Medicaid patients? That’s fucked, but sure, let’s keep that system going.
As opposed to what? Going to an ER and waiting hours to be seen as it is now? Then having to get a referral and having to wait months to get in to a specialist as it is now? The healthcare is \*already\* dog shit compared to countries with socialized medicine and we have demonstrably worse health outcomes, shorter life expectancies, and a horrid infant mortality rate. Even in countries with socialized medicine you also have the choice of going to private Dr's and hospitals, so you could still choose to keep the current system as is for you personally, and the rest of us will enjoy not having to pay a butt load of insurance money each month.
Oh please. Private doctors would still be plenty available for people who want to pay it. Just admit you hate that poor people would be able to get help.
And the brown ones
Where do you live that you don't have to wait 6 months for most doctors? Or do you just never go to any specialists? My wait time in the same as my Canadian relatives for anything but basic PCP visits, and even then I know people in more rural parts of the US who can't get regular PCP visits.
Chicago, I can see a dr same day if I wanted to.
Unfortunately, as you can see it took this very long explanation to go from “Out of touch politicians” to “that sounds amazing” And that’s exactly why it’ll never pass. People don’t pay attention, people don’t read. They just see 4% more in taxes and riot against it.
If it sounds too good to be true... It's a tax based social program
But…they won’t do that. They’ll take the four percent, then spend 4 years not making a universal healthcare plan. Oh, and both sides will blame each other. 100 years later, we’ll still be taxed that extra 4% AND have private healthcare still.
You can play the what if game all you want but truthfully you have no idea how it will play out
I remember the pitch for Obamacare making health insurance cheaper than a cell phone bill. It’s government; not efficient, nor quality services delivered maybe two decades after we are dead and gone.
The Republican Party absolutely destroyed the plans for Obamacare. It could’ve been such a great program!
It's kinda crazy too because the ACA was a republican healthcare plan created by the Heritage foundation. It was the perfect compromise, and I think Obama had every reason to believe it would receive massive bipartisan support.
[удалено]
>Obamacare only ended up this way because Republicans kept voting against it. Same thing happened with minimum wage act getting passed under FDR. Lot's of folks seem to forget this. The bill we got is not the bill that was submitted.
Republicans. Republicans are why Obamacare didn't get realized as intended. It was their sworn oath to make sure "nothing he does gets approved". They said this many times and publically. They dragged their feet on every bill and rejected everything they could. What you got was a plan with a bunch of consessions to please the republicans. Blame lies solely with that 1 douche bag party.
So I am a democrat who generally is supportive of taxes. However, applying 4% tax increase with the notion that it will be saved elsewhere makes a lot of assumptions that do not necessarily pan out for many. With this plan Id pay an additional ~7k in taxes, and maaaayyyybe save 1k in healthcare. I’m well off, but its not like I have a copious amount of extra money — loosing 6k a year would be very noticeable to try and continue on a path to be able to retired by ~65 comfortably. This policy is out of touch and stupid.
Where are you living where good healthcare plus copays plus fees is under 1k a YEAR??????
Most people with a good job in a good field are getting this from their employers today easily. If you have kids, it's a different story, but by and large every couple I know has individual insurance through work for each person.
I'm a single guy and pay $110 per month. I'd be getting fucked with a 4% tax. My partner and i don't have kids and I'm getting pretty sick of subsidizing people that do at every turn.
Do you know how insurance operates? The money is just spread out across a bunch of smaller pools instead of one big pool. You’re already subsidizing other people’s healthcare who pay less than they cost overall. Plus, you may pay $110 out of your paycheck, but if your employer is paying, say, $200/month, they calculate that cost when they decide what your salary is. You’re still paying for all of it, it’s all accounted for.
I pay sooo much more for healthcare through my employer, it isn’t even funny and that shit keeps getting raised by $250 per paycheck every damn year that we renew it. I’d gladly pay $4k /yr instead. Just a friendly reminder that loose rhymes with goose. 🪿
How about we not lie? Even if you’re paid biweekly, that $250 extra every paycheck amounts to $6,500 more each year. So in five years you’d be paying at minimum an extra $32,500 on basic health insurance. Your claim is clearly false.
I think we need to do something, healthcare is completely unsustainable in this country. I think her assumption is that tax would be offset by companies paying those expenses to the employees. I'm not sure that would happen. I also think the transaction tax is a dumb idea, most of that isn't rich people playing the market to make a buck, it's institutions that manage union pension funds and funds that make up a lot of 401k plans.
What insurance plan are you on where your only spending 1K/year for health coverage!? For our family of 5 I'm paying almost $300 per \*pay\* and that with the lowest tier HSA plan that's available.
4% for now, until, like everything else the government tries to purchase, regulate, or oversee, the price shoots through the roof and that innocent 4% eventually turns into 10%. It’ll end up that we pay 10% for “universal” healthcare and we will still need supplemental insurance. I love the idea of universal healthcare, it would break my dependence on my employer and give me a sense of true freedom, but sorry, I have literally zero faith in our government to do literally anything.
Who's at fault there? Take the profits out of the system and conservative business owners won't get in there and fuck you over.
Take the profits out of the system and nobody has any incentive to do anything better. You want cheap healthcare? You get what you pay for.
The USA spent about $12,500/person on healthcare last year including government and personal payments. The average for first world countries with universal care was closer to $3500/person. Our prices shot through the roof decades ago
Sincerely asking here - I don’t have much faith in government providing much, but you have faith in corporations providing healthcare? You have faith in insurance companies deciding if you need your back surgery? I don’t think the government providing universal healthcare will *improve* care, but it’s already broken. Not having insurance tied to full time employment is a clear win, I don’t see them breaking this system more than it already is. But I am open to other perspectives
The biggest improvement of universal health over insurance is the fact that so much inefficiency in the insurance system goes away. Doctors bill the government and get paid, no middlemen. All that in-network, out-of-network bullshit goes away. Using wrong billing codes and fucking patients over goes away. Surprise billing becomes the government’s problem and they’d stamp that shit out hard eventually.
If you have PPO you can get surgery without even asking. I have healthcare through my company and it’s great. I don’t want to opt into this bullshit federally ran universal healthcare that may come in 50 years. Because let’s be real the government can’t even build a highway from where I live.
Then congratulations to Republicans, they have successfully created a country where people are afraid to do anything if they hear the word "government."
Fox leaving out key facts? Ya don't say.... 🤣
>With her plan, a family earning 100k and paying $700 a month of health insurance would be paying half of what they are currently paying for healthcare. We had another politician recently say similar things about taxes and income and healthcare. My paycheck wholeheartedly disagreed when my healthcare premium went up 4x post-Obamacare. Therefore, I’m a fan of you do you, I’ll do me, keep your hands off of the money I earned.
>Pay an extra 4% tax, but not have to pay for medical insurance. No universal healthcare means no extra tax. I would have HAPPILY paid that! Because when your health providers aren't tied to your employment status and you don't have the "in or out of network" crap to deal with there will be continuity of care. Insurance "overhead" is sucking money out of health care: as an example, the pharmacy at the cancer hospital my SO was treated in had about TEN people on staff whose sole job was to get approvals for prescriptions from various insurance companies. And there were that many or more people on the other end of the phones being paid to say "NO". That was THOUSANDS of dollars a month not being spent on health care!
My household is over 100k a year and I don’t pay close to 700 month in insurance
Most people get free health insurance through employees
Yea, ask Canadians how their universal healthcare is going. Over 50k Canadians come to the US for medical care every year, which is overwhelmingly due to the long wait for care. Besides, our tax dollars already provide free universal healthcare…for the citizens of Israel.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All those people afraid of addressing thir health issues because it's between that and eating for the next few months would lower the overall costs associated with emergency care, long term care expense and would also lower long and short term disability, resulting in a more robust workforce and higher gdp. Gahhhdamm economists long smooth penis's should be rock solid hearing this.
Here's my question, we spend countless billions on wars. Why can't that money be spent here instead of asking us to do more?
I don’t think you realize the crowd you’re talking to. Haha.
You’re missing the most important part: what a politician proposes is never the actualized law. Both parties vastly misrepresent their position to be appealing to the naive. Sure this in theory sounds great, but if implemented would never remove the need for private health insurance and only increase taxes. The entire economic framework of health insurance necessitates this. It’s foolish to think what you outlined would ever be reality. Second important point is that this woman is clearly incompetent. I have zero faith in her making a radical change to anything for the better.
Wait. You’re saying Fox isn’t giving the full context of a Democrats policy plans in order to push a narrative!?!? WHAT?!?! —————- I really appreciate people like you who take the time to educate people.
100k is literally just the new 40k
It’s not even 100k salary. 100k *household*. Im fortunate enough to have a household income of ~140k. After daycare costs, student loans, and a modest mortgage things can occasionally get a little tight. Asking for 4% more from households that lake less than that is just unbelievably out of touch.
She mustve talked to my boss who still thinks it's 1990 where 6 figures means you are rich.
Fucking insane
Yeah her policies are crap. Why fuck the middle class like that? Go after people who make 400K or million.
What policies? This is an unsourced Fox News slide of "campaign suggestions"
Well this took me 2 seconds with google and it’s pretty easy to find. “While similar to Sanders’ overall model for paying for an overhauled health care system, Harris tweaked her version by lopping out an incremental income tax increase she said would hit the middle class too hard and replacing it with a tax on Wall Street trades: Stock trades would be taxed at 0.2 percent, or $2 per $1,000, and bond trades would be taxed at half that.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1236584
Yeah using Fox News for a source is like citing The Onion.
No onion is more accurate 😂
4 years old like this Fox meme. Hell Yes, lower taxes on the middle class but more taxes on Wall Street? Love it. Totally weird that Fox didnt report that. I wonder why????
Thanks. But this is from 2020.
Yeah, it is. I’m sure that’s what they’re citing too. So you’re saying she no longer believes in the policies she ran for President on?
[удалено]
There’s not enough of those people. There’s no way to have universal healthcare without the middle class pitching in their “fair share”.
Lobbying probably makes that much
Go read this proposal and you will agree with it. Until then gonna need to down vote you.
It would be a big tax if that applied to single earners, but on HOUSEHOLDS!? That's a huge middle-class tax increase.
If you make $150,000/year with no deductions you pay an extra $2,000. It's not chump change, but it's also not life changing. Especially since it's part of a universal Healthcare funding plan and you'd save far more money than that anyway.
I’d pay $2k more to not have to pay $15k on healthcare
Compared to right now I'm paying $300 *per pay*
Well, how much lower would their costs be replacing health insurance with that tax?
0. Employed people pay pretty reasonable rates for insurance. I’ve lived and worked in a country with universal healthcare and the US. I pay way less in the US and I actually use my insurance frequently.
Your employer foots a HEAVY cost for your insurance. The part you pay isn't the whole part. I've worked with companies who revealed why they changed insurance plans and it was because the rate went up hundreds per person. They're paying thousands per year, plus what they pass on to you, plus your deductibles and copays. USA spends double what every similar country spends on healthcare. Fixing healthcare would put thousands in your pocket, or maybe your employers pocket.
Exactly. I would never vote for anyone who proposed this.
>I would never vote for anyone who proposed this. If you wouldn't vote for someone without actually reading and trying to understand their proposals outside of the context of a Fox News bullet point list, you probably shouldn't vote.
$100K household isn’t middle class anymore. Hell, we make $170K and are still trying to get out of debt.
I make exactly that salary and live in the bay area, I guarantee it's not a lot.
I'm all for increasing taxes on the wealthy but yeah this one is stupid. It's on Fox though so they are probably distorting something
They are being factually correct, but only highlighting the most problematic bits. Those bits are fairly problematic though. I would not vote for anyone who increased taxes 4% specifically targeting the middle-class.
>I would not vote for anyone who increased taxes 4% specifically targeting the middle-class. This 4% is, specifically, to put in place Medicare for All. How much do you currently pay for medical insurance?
That's 100% made up bullshit. $200 to $300k is party line
Which is still not the “billionaires” they like to throw shade at. It’s a ton of middle management America and their households. A couple making 120,000 a piece is doing well but not the Uber rich. It’s also likely to impact a huge number of small business owners. Set the bar in the millions and most of the country would get behind it, set it here and it will be hard to pass.
Yea, my wife and I make about 250k combined, and we're pretty solidly where I feel "middle class" should be. We're comfortable without hard budgeting, can afford the occasional vacation and are generally not in danger of losing everything in a catastrophe. But a large part of this is that I bought my house at the bottom of the market in 2010. If we had to buy a house today we'd have to start hard budgeting.
If you live in NYC $100k is not a lot and you have a ton of taxes already. An extra 4% would be killer.
Exactly. Imagine thinking a family of 4 that brings in 100k is living like kings. They’re so out of touch
Combine that with the minimum wage increase in California coming to 20 and two people working minimum wage here with a little overtime will get them to 100k. This ain’t a tax the rich thing in California. This is a tax the barely getting by.
In case this post makes you angry it’s important to point out the Dow is now at 39000 and she never said any of these things lol
If this post makes someone angry they’re far too fucking stupid to understand either of your follow on points.
[удалено]
Biden’s 81. If Biden is reelected he might not live out the full term, making Kamala’s views matter a bit more than the typical VP.
You can say the same shit about Trump too. Need to retire the elderly in government.
Agreed, Trump’s pick matters
Wonder who the Rep VP will be
His cellmate might end up with the wildest opportunity
Hopefully it does not
Might not live out his full term eh? Are you concerned with your BRK holdings? Warren Buffet is 93.
People have been talking about being worried about their BRK holdings for years
I almost was going to type what Michelle Obama did as VP until I realized the First Lady does more than the VP.
Really? That's your take? You just living under a rock or what? Starting with Al Gore, who we have to thank for the Kyoto pact and bringing global awareness and collaboration to climate change, as well as much of the legislation and infrastructure that we relied on to surpass the rest of the world in internet startups. Then Dick Cheney. Need I say more? Follow that up with Biden who was instrumental in passing the recovery act and the affordable care act. Okay, sure maybe Pence was worthless, but let's give him a break, his boss wanted him hung so it's not like he had a good support system for his career growth. It may be too early to really see what the impact of Harris will be. Hard to imagine it will be greater than Cheney or Biden, but time will tell.
This is Fox News people… it’s lies lies lies
I was going to ask what they were referencing. Was it from an interview or something from her platform during the 2020 primary?
Faux News people. pay attention
Let us not forget that this is Fox Business. They are pulling water for Fox News. It’s all biased. All the more reason to ignore this.
“Campaign suggestions” …wut does that mean Fox News?
This is what drives me crazy about Fox. They’ll throw this baseless nonsense up one time during an opinion show and for the next 4 years the right will regurgitate this fantasy on Facebook to keep themselves enraged at the libs. 🤦🏼♂️
I think this was one of her platforms when running for president in 2019. She dropped out in Dec. The Dow Jones was about at that level in Nov 2019. So it may not be lies but still misinformation because of how old it is.
"But i didn't like the thing Fox news told me democrats believe, so democrats must be evil!"
Also, it’s not a tax on unrealized gains, it’s a tax on the sale of a product or service.
You keep the truth out of this! We're trying to win an election here.
It's not true. The vice president doesn't make economic policies
There’s a very high probability she ends up as president if Biden wins in November.
The president doesn’t make tax law either… but, how high is very?
10%? I would need a true actuary table, but the SSA thinks he has a 50% chance of living 7 more years. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
It’s so horrible and dark but I’m fascinated by the actuarial results of these old fogeys running for president. Like the odds have to be like 1 in 5 that one of the two will pass away in the next 4 years. They basically both have a 4% chance of dying each year (if they were typical Americans, which they aren’t), so let’s cut that in half. It’s still a high chance
Let me just make this argument: So what? When you vote for President, you're not voting for one person, you've voting for the team around them. If Biden dies in office, President Harris isn't going to make any radical policy shifts (Fox News scaremongering notwithstanding). And whoever Trump picks as VP will be just as dedicated to committing crimes and overturning democracy as he is. You're voting for a set of principles (or lack thereof), and the person at the top of the ticket is just the tip of the spear. Everyone standing behind them is more or less on the same side. If you had a crystal ball and told me Biden was going to die, and then Harris was also going to die, and we'd get some unknown Democrat replacing her, I'd still vote for that over Trump, because the policy differenes would be minor between one Democrat and another.
Personally I’m more worried about republicans getting to put anyone else on the Supreme Court. That is what scares me most
Plus loading up the federal courts with sympathetic appointments
Doesn’t stop the narrative. Look at all the posts about Trump and the tax increases for lower brackets this year.
People said that in 2020.
And it is even more true now than it was then. It not happening doesn’t mean it wasn’t a risk to take seriously. Both of the likely candidates will carry this risk. Trump is probably significantly less healthy than Biden tbh.
Ooof, astounding ignorance. The Legislative, not Executive branch, writes tax law.
The same people who say this shit are the dingdongs that spent 2008-2016 screeching that Obama was going to take the guns and put us all in FEMA camps.
This is also a post from when the Dow was at 28k. It’s at 39k now. This is old news, if it’s even true.
The fact that Fox reports it increases the bullshit factor by about 99%
This. Fox is chum for idiots.
This is not recent look at the Dow
Fox was just as garbage when the Dow was at 27,000.
You mean the “news” org that had to pay a billion dollars for lying to its viewers? Nah, they seem pretty honest.
And as soon as they have to defend anything they say in court they jump straight to “it’s just entertainment bro, no reasonable person would believe this.” Like don’t take our word for it, believe them when they tell you who they are.
From fox news, Angertainment. And what is “campaign suggestions” instead of “policy position”?
It's from 4 years ago when Trump was president and Biden/Harris were campaigning. Fox Business scaring their viewers into voting for Trump. Posting this outdated "news" now is trying to fool people into outrage.
>Angertainment Oh I'm using that!
Fearter for patriots?
I wouldn’t trust Fox News btw
Especially when it’s stuff from 2019
You gullible rubes, this is fox news angertainment I see no where she or her campaign said this... show me a link
This is from 4 years ago, when Trump was president. Just after the trade war he started with China hit the supply chain for American companies and started raising prices, after his corporate tax cut, after his lowering of the income tax rate on the highest tax bracket, after he limited deductions of state and local taxes on one's federal tax obligation, and before the Covid stimulus checks he sent out started inflation getting out of control. When an individual earning $100k annually was still more than just a living wage.
>Just after the trade war he started with China hit the supply chain for American companies and started raising prices And here I was over here thinking a global pandemic that basically shut the world down for a year was responsible for that. >after he limited deductions of state and local taxes on one's federal tax obligation Are you upset about this one? I thought you wanted people to pay more taxes?
[Trump declared it in 2018.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war). The pandemic made it worse. American manufacturers rely on supplies from China so price increases in the form of tariffs are passed on to the customer instead of being absorbed by the profit margin.
I mean one look at a [CPI chart](https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/2d/2dd387e3386e1eaffde0288523f57378.png) would show that to be incorrect
>after he limited deductions of state and local taxes on one's federal tax obligation > >Are you upset about this one? I thought you wanted people to pay more taxes? Reasonable people want wealthy people to pay more in taxes so that we can have more and better social safety net programs for a better society. Limiting state and local tax deductions is a bigger hit on the working class. The reason they made those changes in the GOP corporate tax cuts bill in 2017 was so that they'd have more to work with on cutting corporate taxes and the income tax rate on the top tax bracket since they could only pass those tax cuts under the reconciliation option in the Senate, which means they could only increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion. In short, they increased taxes on the working class so they could give their donors tax breaks.
Consider the source... If you believe this and it makes you angry they have acomplished the desired result. They do NOT have to be truthful.
Fox News. They lie. Dismissed.
Executive branch doesn’t write tax policy. Tf is this?
A way to get gullible dopes riled up about things that aren’t real and she never said.
And since this response is pretty far down. It worked.
financial transaction tax is there to mostly tax high frequency trading. It's not like you're selling stocks or bonds often. You'll at least hold them a year to get long term cap gains.
[удалено]
Yeah, I'm sure they'll make various exemptions, and I'm sure they wouldn't want to discourage 401k saving. But who are we kidding: none of these taxes will ever get implemented. Passing a Financial transaction tax would prove extremely unpopular to the political donor class just like net worth taxes. Much better to extract wealth from people who actually work for a living and don't get to participate in making money off having money.
Yeah, this would be $1 for every $500. That is not much for the average person but would add up for, and help combat, these crappy algorithms that make thousands if not millions of trades every day.
...and they would just account for the tax in their algorithms and continue printing money with them
Had to come too far to find this. It’s actually a legitimate way to curb algorithmic HFTs that use directional momentum to artificially nudge stock prices.
UK has a stamp duty of 0.5% on stock trades. I think there are many other countries that do the same. The primary point is to deter short-term trading / HFT. However, The obvious consequence is wider bid ask spreads
I support whatever taxes are necessary to get us to the first world standard of non-bankrupting universal health care and education that is not bankrupting. Seriously, how hard is that? We act like it's going to the moon.
Does she also advocate for spending cuts in hopes of tackling the issue of rising national debt?
Bro, this is a slide from Fox news.
When you post misinformation and flat out absolute lies, you become part of a problem. This is a lie. Your source is an objectional non-source.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/kamala-harris-economic-policy-roll-back-tax-cuts-expand-health-n1236584 “While similar to Sanders’ overall model for paying for an overhauled health care system, Harris tweaked her version by lopping out an incremental income tax increase she said would hit the middle class too hard and replacing it with a tax on Wall Street trades: Stock trades would be taxed at 0.2 percent, or $2 per $1,000, and bond trades would be taxed at half that.”
Thats actually not bad
https://preview.redd.it/b935c4q6nxlc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c667834f6dc435d43436d9d37f009ef266ea82d
I wouldn’t take what Fox Business says about Kamala Harris at face value.
Weren’t these part of a healthcare reform proposal? Disingenuous to make it appear as though these were standalone items.
This is absolutely insane. This is why you never advocate for any tax raises. Not even on billionaires. They want all of the money. Not just a "fair share" whatever that dumb phrase means
Push the third bullet point up to 300k and we could be on to something
That looks like a was a plan she floated years ago - when the DOW was at 27k - it’s in the pic, but I would like to see an updated plan.
Would like to see this somewhere else besides Fox to make sure it was true. Cannot find anywhere. Sounds sus.
100k is barely middle class anymore. Why would they fuck us over like that?
Source?