Medicaid for All Would ‘Bankrupt the Nation,’ Warns Bernie Sanders—In 1987 – Hit & Run : Reason.com

“Notably absent from Sanders’ proposed single-payer system was a detailed plan to pay for it. The senator said he would lay out the tax hikes necessary to fund his new system in separate legislation.

That may be because enthusiasm for single payer tends to die down pretty quickly once people get a sense of what sort of tax increases would be necessary to fund it. An Urban Institute analysis of a previous version of Sanders’ plan estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over a decade.

It promises huge overall savings along with coverage that would be far more expansive, and far more expensive, than Medicaid for all, with no clear way to pay for it, and no specific strategy for driving costs or spending down.

In 30 years of political advocacy, Sanders has not solved any of the fundamental problems with single payer. He has merely opted to pretend they do not exist.”

[Note: On annualized basis, that would more than double the amount we currently spend annually on healthcare.  And past projections related to the costs of gov’t programs always vastly underestimate the actual costs, as evidenced below. – The Sovereign Patient]

“The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.” http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster

Source: Medicaid for All Would ‘Bankrupt the Nation,’ Warns Bernie Sanders—In 1987 – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Will Trumponomics Mean More Freedom and Prosperity? | International Liberty

danmitchel

Dan Mitchell

I was sitting directly under a television in a Caribbean airport yesterday when Trump got inaugurated, so I inadvertently heard his speech.

The bad news is that Trump didn’t say much about liberty or the Constitution. And, unlike Reagan, he certainly didn’t have much to say about shrinking the size and scope of Washington.

On the other hand, he excoriated Washington insiders for lining their pockets at the expense of the overall nation. And if he’s serious about curtailing sleaze in DC, the only solution is smaller government.

But is that what Trump really believes? Does he intend to move policy in the right direction?

Well, as I’ve already confessed, I don’t know what to expect. The biggest wild card, at least for fiscal policy, is whether he’ll be serious about the problem of government spending. Especially entitlements.

Source: Will Trumponomics Mean More Freedom and Prosperity? | International Liberty

What Lesson Will Leftists Learn from another “Successful” Tax Increase? | International Liberty

I tell them that they are right about higher taxes on tobacco leading to less smoking (also more smuggling, but that’s a separate issue).

Yet these people simultaneously claim that higher tax rates on income (especially on the evil rich!) won’t lead to less work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship.

Back in August, I acknowledged that lifestyle leftists in California won a real victory. They imposed a tax on sugary soft drinks in Berkeley and achieved a reduction in consumption. But I pointed …

Source: What Lesson Will Leftists Learn from another “Successful” Tax Increase? | International Liberty

The Myth and Reality of Trickle-Down Economics | International Liberty

…allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. Letting everyone keep more of the value they create through exchange means that everyone has more incentive to create such value in the first place, whether it’s through the ownership of capital or finding new uses for one’s labor.

Now that we’ve dispensed with the silly left-wing caricature of trickle-down economics, let’s discuss how there actually is a sensible way to think about the issue.

Source: The Myth and Reality of Trickle-Down Economics | International Liberty

How Much Does Paul Krugman Want to Tax LeBron James? – John C. Goodman – Page 1

John C. Goodman

John C. Goodman

When asked about the study in a Huffington Post online video, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman agreed with the conclusion wholeheartedly:

What you really should want to do is to soak the rich as much as possible … So the top tax rates should be whatever it is that collects the most revenue, and now the question is, how high is that?

However, when asked by the interviewer about LeBron James, Krugman dismissed the example — referring to James’ salary as a piker’s income. Yet, James and Bill Gates were the two personalities that Krueger pointed to in explaining how the high tax rates should work.

That made me curious. So I decided to delve more deeply.

In 2013, you were in the top 1% of households if your income exceeded $525,000. You were in the top tenth of 1% if your income exceeded $1,600,000. How much does LeBron James make? Almost $22 million a year. So whenever Krugman insults, ridicules or castigates the top 1% or the top tenth of 1% – which he does almost every other week – LeBron James is way up there with lots of other rich people.

So why doesn’t Krugman want to admit that, by his own criteria, LeBron would be taxed to the hilt? I was perplexed.

via How Much Does Paul Krugman Want to Tax LeBron James? – John C. Goodman – Page 1.