Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No One Goes There Anymore

noonegoesthereanymore.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 322 posts

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#121

Post by perl4ever »

sandworm101 wrote: post #113
perl4ever wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow how this could be possible. I'd think most people in the US either would be getting health insurance from the government (Medicare, Medicaid), from an "Obamacare" exchange and subsidized, or from an employer where they don't pay cash. So where would the discrepancy in accounting between that and Canada come from? It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health…

>> It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health insurance retail. They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or-miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime. >> The new report highlights that 5.5% of children under the age of 19 were uninsured, largely because of a decline in publ…

"They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or-miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime."

That's a general complaint that has nothing to do with insurance being a cost you pay out of your take-home salary in the US.

Your anecdote seemed to be predicated on an accounting difference between the US and Canada, that the Chinese supposedly didn't know about. I'm saying that doesn't really exist. The sort of people who adopt would have a job with insurance, but the price of the insurance would not be included in their salary.

In my lifetime, I have been uninsured, insured by my employer, on an ACA (Obamacare) plan, etc. But never been in the situation where I was making a good salary and paying full price out of it for a health insurance policy, like people do with car insurance. Nor have I ever known anyone who did. Of course, somebody probably has, somehow, but it's not common, let alone a norm that some government would assume.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#122

Post by giancarlostoro »

perl4ever wrote: post #106
sandworm101 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are making international comparisons, I would add the cost of health insurance in california as a "tax". That's the only way to reasonably compare western countries. I had a friend try to adopt a baby from china many years ago (1990s). He was rejected. The Chinese thought he didn't earn enough to safely raise a kid. They were using a means test designed for US applicants. My friend lobbied to explain all the th…

I don't follow how this could be possible. I'd think most people in the US either would be getting health insurance from the government (Medicare, Medicaid), from an "Obamacare" exchange and subsidized, or from an employer where they don't pay cash. So where would the discrepancy in accounting between that and Canada come from? It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health…

> or from an employer where they don't pay cash.

I only heard of startups doing this. Outside of that you pay x % for healthcare per paycheck the employer covers some other amount. Healthcare might not be socialized but at least I can always find a new provider if I absolutely wanted one just pay out of my own pocket is the only downside. The subsidizing happens for bigger corps usually and negotations between healthcare providers vs insurance companies. The more clients you have the more effective the negotiations.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#123

Post by sandworm101 »

vxNsr wrote: post #120
sandworm101 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Taxes on the wealthy in the US aren’t dramatically lower than in Europe. Apples and oranges comparison. The US government is fundamentally different concept of national government. Between healthcare and the military, US per-citizen spending it far beyond, as European examples, Germany (more than double). In short, the US has to tax more because its government is so much bigger. Add to that the greater wealth disp…

> Germany: 399 billion / 83 million people = ~$5,000/person/year > US: 3.8 Trillion / 328 million people = ~$12,000/person/year Apples and oranges comparison. The US subsidies most EU militaries. NATO spending is a great example. US is the only member who actually fulfills their obligations. Basically GP is more right than you

It doesn't matter what the money is being spent on. For purposes of budget and tax, all that matters is that the money is being spent. The US chooses to spend more, to have a big government. Other countries choose to spend less and have smaller governments. They both have to get the money somewhere.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#124

Post by masonic »

sandworm101 wrote: post #113
perl4ever wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow how this could be possible. I'd think most people in the US either would be getting health insurance from the government (Medicare, Medicaid), from an "Obamacare" exchange and subsidized, or from an employer where they don't pay cash. So where would the discrepancy in accounting between that and Canada come from? It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health…

>> It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health insurance retail. They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or-miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime. >> The new report highlights that 5.5% of children under the age of 19 were uninsured, largely because of a decline in publ…

  5.5% of children under the age of 19 were uninsured
Bear in mind that this paper is a survey, not a study that looks at actual coverage records, and the survey population is not consistent year to year.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#125

Post by masonic »

dan-robertson wrote: post #60
ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If half your paycheck is going to taxes you must have a bunch of $$$, I personally make around 300k/year and I feel like I'm not paying that much taxes. I could be paying much more and still live pretty comfortable, it's pretty outrageous.

Few countries even in Europe will let your effective income tax rate reach 50% but this may be an effect of tax system structure more than anything else. Eg in the U.K. the max marginal income tax rate is 45% but that doesn’t count payroll taxes (employer or employee), which are called “national insurance”, or student loan “repayments” (9% of income above a threshold, though not super relevant to people in the top ba…

  in the U.K. the max marginal income tax rate is 45%
That's a big change from years ago, when it was 95% (hence "it's one for you, nineteen for me" in the Beatles' "Taxman").

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#126

Post by masonic »

rayiner wrote: post #88
newacct583 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're quoting nominal rates and not effective taxation. The very wealthy don't pay their "marginal dollar" in "income tax" at a 37% federal bracket (plus state), they pay it in capital gains tax at 20%. If they pay it at all, given that in fact much income at these levels is sheltered from tax entirely via international tricks. There's plenty of analysis out there showing how the very wealthy in the US pay less effe…

Capital gains is 20% federal plus state (13% in California). Germany’s capital gains rate is 30.5%, lower than California and New York. Regardless, there is just not enough capital gains income for that to matter. For example, Biden’s plan to tax capital gains as ordinary income for taxpayers making over $1 million per year is expected to bring in less than $50 billion a year in revenues. Eliminating the capital gain…

  Capital gains is 20% federal plus state (13% in California)
But long term capital gains are not indexed to inflation, so the effective rate is higher for long-held appreciated assets... like real estate. This is part of why turnover of real estate is suppressed in high appreciation areas, even outside of CA.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#127

Post by c3534l »

ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #40

Genuine question: what is the point made in the post? I feel like I'm missing something.

My guess is its one of those style over substance articles, like something by David Sedaris. Not really something we're used to on hackernews where we expect the author to argue X is bad, or we need more Y. The point is entertainment or poetry. Maybe I'm wrong and the author wants to achieve some rhetorical goal, but I think its just a blog post for the sake of it.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#128

Post by sandworm101 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #119
sandworm101 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> when their combined wealth is in the trillions, and their assets keep growing. Because capital gains, ironically, do not apply to gains in capital assets. They have to "realize" the gains as "income", usually by selling the asset. So a millionaire (stockholder) can become a billionaire without ever paying a cent in capital gains tax. Only when they sell the stock is it subject to taxation. This allows them to pay…

Indeed. Wealth tax != Income tax. You can grow your wealth without virtually no taxable income. It's real wealth - you can buy houses and yachts with it - but you don't need to pay tax unless you choose to. In reality most money at this level is made by speculation, and speculation is spectacularly under-taxed. For example Forex trading in the City of London moves $6.6 trillion of money around, every single day. A To…

"Net value taxation" may be the future. How much were you worth last year? How much are you worth today? Net = income. We would need exceptions for things like houses, but such an approach would capture all capital gains in real time.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#129

Post by masonic »

cortesoft wrote: post #81
ciupicri wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can donate money to the US Government if you feel that you're not giving it enough. See https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...

This doesn't make sense. If I decide to give more money to the government, nothing will change because my money is a drop in the bucket. If everyone gives more money, we can actually make things better. I am willing to pay more taxes if it actually helps, which is why I will only give more when we make everyone give more.

   I will only give more when we make everyone give more
If everyone took the same attitude towards energy consumption or pollution, we'd make no progress at all.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#130

Post by sandworm101 »

perl4ever wrote: post #121
sandworm101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would assume that even Americans buy health insurance retail. They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or-miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime. >> The new report highlights that 5.5% of children under the age of 19 were uninsured, largely because of a decline in publ…

"They aren't assuming anything. They know that healthcare in the US is hit-or-miss, that it is normally for people to move between having and not having healthcare throughout a lifetime." That's a general complaint that has nothing to do with insurance being a cost you pay out of your take-home salary in the US. Your anecdote seemed to be predicated on an accounting difference between the US and Canada, that the Chin…

I never said my friend had a job. Part of the problem, in the US, is the link between employment and insurance. My friend earned reasonable money as a moderately-sucessful artist but did not have an employer. In the US that would mean paying out of pocket. In canada he didn't have to pay a dime.
Post reply on HN