Some off-topic bickering split from the 'Peak Econobox' thread

[redpoint5]

As I said, I'm all for impeachment proceedings. Anything to get the federal government to stop "working" to reduce our liberty with a distraction that's going nowhere. I just wish they wouldn't spend so much money in the process. Still, probably much cheaper than whatever else they'd have frivolously thrown money at had they spent their time dreaming up new ways to seize power from the people.

[freebeard]

This is also true: "The slippery slope is a fallacy. There is always some countervailing force."

Your stairway to heaven is short a rung or two.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Xist

Does anyone want to discuss Medicare for All? Bernie recently said that the top 0.1% would pay for it, but I cannot find any numbers for how much income they average, just their wealth. Whatever DQYDJ.com is, they say the average 0.1% individual is worth $43,090,281. They also say there were 126.0 million households in the United States in 2017, so the top 0.1% is 126,000 families. https://dqydj.com/net-worth-brackets...ts-one-percent

$43,090,281 x 126,000 = $5.43 trillion.

How much would Medicare-for-all cost? Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez both cited a study from George Mason University saying:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/th...icare-for-all/

I do not know how you would seize the assets of millionaires and billionaires, but 100% of it would cover 16.65%

According to that DQYDJ.com page, the top 10% are worth on average $1,182,390.36. That would be 12,600,000 families, worth a total of almost 15 trillion.

That is still less than half what would need to cover it for ten years.

The net worth of the richest 90%, according to DQYDJ.com totals just under $29 trillion, so how in the world would you finance it when it costs more than every American is worth?

The bottom 10% have a negative net worth, so I excluded them.

Elizabeth Warren also promotes Medicare for All.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uch-bottom-90/

If 100% of the top 90% would be insufficient, 2-3% of the top 10-11% would be wholly inadequate.

The problem is that Medicare only pays 60% as much as insurance. Hospitals do not profit from Medicare, they lose money. They profit off of insurance, which may be charging too much, but 40% extra for all services?

“You don’t need insurance companies for Medicare for all,” Dr. Gaffney added. “You need hospitals.”

"The majority of hospitals are nonprofit or government-owned."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/h...hospitals.html

1). No untaxed property. Eliminate capital gains tax. All income treated as same. Stocks, bonds, etc. Own it 3/100s of a second, and pay.

2). No trusts, charities or other tax-avoidance instruments .

3). Inheritance limited to $2-million in a lifetime. Never more than $1-million per time.

4). No income cap on SS/FICA contributions.

5). And the USA needs to quit paying $500-billion annually on the fictitious national debt.

As much loot also is illegal gains (all drugs controlled by ultra-rich thru CIA, etc) using NSA to shut that down should handily start the shooting portion of the current domestic war.

[Xist]

A little too much time alone on the road, SlowMover?

[freebeard]

5). And the USA needs to quit paying $500-billion annually on the fictitious national debt.

That third national bank needs to follow the first two into the recycle bin. The rest of the world has gone to negative interest rates. The other central banks have to give the money away to retain their controls.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Xist

A little too much time alone on the road, SlowMover?

Answers, per se, are embedded in the question.

1). Large inherited wealth will always destroy republican government. What folks might need is more akin to a family business that can be bought and sold. A home is the other item. For those two, private banks aren’t needed any more than an aristocracy.

2). What taxation exists should be clear and simple. No deduction or other avoidance.

3). The sickness of wealth accumulation has an easy answer to protests about “limits”: Get a life.

I’m also in favor of voters being only those who are married male property owners. (Net). One must also be able to defend that vote. As it’s purpose is to forestall violence, it’s the only thing that will work.

Ones family should be the focus of one’s concern. For which the husband answers. As he is the only one who can.

Thus his fate is tied to neighbors and that larger regional community. A “state” becomes a stretch, and the federal level becomes abstract.

I certainly see no need for corporations. Except as limited purpose and with stated lifespan (to complete a project).

I hold no hope of this type of sensibility coming about. War is on us past the lives of all breathing, and only the shooting phase needs to commence. Agree or not, lifelong indebted servitude isn’t going away on its own. Painting murals on the ghetto walls means nothing.

In retort to “alone”, you’re not one of those owns a TV, are you?

Since approximately WWII we’ve been enveloped with EMF. It’s only worsened. To the point that the hilarious HOPE & WONDER of the majority is free electricity transmitted invisibly. Tesla and his atmospheric currents.

That’s wishing for an unbreakable jail cell.

TV (and all other image transmission) has made willing slaves.

Disagree? Show us the pic of the TVs on the trash heap. And every video device of any sort.

No one escaped. No one will. The “program” here or in a Roman colony produced the same result.

What we might do afterwards ought to be sensible. Responsibility from the ground up.

[freebeard]

I certainly see no need for corporations. Except as limited purpose and with stated lifespan (to complete a project).

That's what they were, before they took over the world.