The middle-class tax rates are in the 20’s. Add payroll tax and it gets near 30%. If you earn everything in capital gains you do better.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Yes the total income part is fine, but what are you talking about with $10 trillion in annual spending when that is 15 times the annual military budget?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
Current Federal Budget $4.4 Trillion
Current St & Local Budget $2 Trillion
Her Plans All Proposals. $4 Trillion
$10.4 Trillion
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
How are the current budgets already 60% of total income? Is that why we are a trillion in deficit? Anyway show a reference for those numbers because they don’t make sense. How does she spend six times what we do currently on the military?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Canada spends around $3,700 per person for healthcare. US citizen adds it up to 10 trillion.
Hire a Canadian arithmetician.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jimeichstedt
Jim D. – “Healthy people pay nothing like that much so it averages out to much less.”
$12,000 per person per year is the average – how can the average be less than the, uh, average? Total personal income in the US – 16 trillion dollars; total cost for health care, 3.5 trillion dollars. Or, 3.5 trillion dollars spent on health care by, let’s see, over 300 million US citizens. So maybe it’s only 11,000 dollars per year, per person. But 5% (your figure) of 16 trillion dollars is only, let’s see, 800 billion dollars – not the 3.5 trillion dollars we are spending now.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The way payroll tax works is that it would be 5% from the employee and another 5% from the employer, so 10%. That gives 1.5 trillion. Payroll tax is only covers half the total currently, but if we improved our efficiency to the level of other socialized systems, it could bring the cost down by half per person anyway. I think we need roughly 3 times the current Medicare budget, assuming Medicare’s level of efficiency, which is 0.7 trillion times three, 2.1 trillion.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Regarding the average, it is a very skewed distribution, so the median would be much less than the average.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jimeichstedt
Jim D – to have the health care you are suggesting would require a payroll tax of over twenty percent. Maybe we could lower health care costs by not reimbursing chiropractic care, psychiatric visits by dysphoric teenagers, surgery for back pain and other non-beneficial treatments. How about making hypochondria illegal and maybe, to cut costs, putting Big Pharma out of business. All kinds of things we can do to bring medical bills down.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The part paid out of income is a nickel on the dollar and that is the Medicare for all payment. You can compare that with insurance rates and issues those have with deductibles and cost efficiency. For that price you get full coverage, preventive, emergency, hospital, basic drugs. A good deal. If people don’t want to spend a nickel on the dollar for that, what are their priorities?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jimeichstedt
Jim D – not to beat a dead horse, but…
Medicaid is a better example of a government-managed health care system than Medicare. It costs almost 600 billion dollars annually to provide health care for a little over 70 million people – all younger than Medicare’s aged and many that require little or no care throughout the year. The cost is somewhat less than 600 billion dollars annually, about $8000 per year per person. Again, 5 or 10 or 15 percent payroll taxes won’t be enough for you plan.
I’m done.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jimeichstedt
oops! strike that – not all Medicaid recipients are younger than Medicare recipients. Many are in nursing homes. But the numbers are still valid.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Burl Henry
niclewis:
Regarding your post of 4:12 pm>
Yes, China ‘s SO2 emissions had very different annual totals in the run-up to 2014, but they had no bearing on those of 2014-2016. In 2014, a REQUIREMENT to reduce air pollution .was put into effect, with the result that they had fallen to 8.4 Megatons by 2016 (probably by turning on previously installed SO2 scrubbers).
The decrease was confirmed by both instrumentation results and a NASA satellite. I cannot agree that the jury is still out on this, And there was clearly a strong climatic response to this massive reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions!.
“The atmospheric loading is the total amount of aerosols emitted during a period equal to the average atmospheric lifetime of aerosols, not the total amount emitted in a year”
As I pointed out earlier, emissions from continuous sources have effectively
“infinite” lifetimes.
For example,If a given source has an emitting capacity of 1,000 tons per week, and as they are being washed out, they are also being replaced, so that its atmospheric loading remains constant at 1,000 tons per week, or 52,000 tons per year..
Thus, the atmospheric loading is the total of the emissions being emitted from all of the sources, as I had maintained.,
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
I figured on Medicare at $13k and Medicare for all at $7.8k which gives 2.38 trillion, or it could be 12k and 7.2k which gives 2.16 trillion. 5%/10% applied to 16 trillion gives most of this just from the payroll tax,
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by aaron
If anything, sinks should accelerate. N and P in soil is constrained by CO2. More CO2 allows plants to feed N and P fixing organisms.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Burl Henry
Robert I. Ellison:
With respect to your Dec.15 1:42 am post:
You need to read my earlier Dec. 12, 12:05 pm post to Niclews, since it also applies directly to you.
Especially “For your analysis to have any credibility, you need to include the warming effects of reduced SO2 aerosol emissions,in the atmosphere”..
This warming is a fact which you ignore, and your earlier Dec. 14 4:07 mention that “The simplest and cheapest way–using existing technology–to reduce warming is to reduce both black carbon and sulfate emissions” is, with respect to sulfate emissions, exactly what should NOT be done to reduce warming. Only increasing them will reduce warming.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Robert I. Ellison
A bit of a stretch for someone who requires proof – provided to no response – of greenhouse gas forcing I know.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886161
Here’s a study that looks at sulfate reduction in China and the US in terms of SW clear sky power flux at TOA.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
I tried to check CERES clear sky data this morning but they are down for maintenance.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Robert I. Ellison
Again – obviously a bit of a stretch.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Robert I. Ellison
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
“An ancient case of the plague could rewrite history [link]”
Your chances of getting the plague is 1 in 3M (or, virtually no chance if you live in the US– your chances of being hit by lightening are a lot higher (1 in 700K), or dying of the flu (1 in 6K). You have a 1 in 645 chance of dying in a car crash.
But, what’s the likelihood you’ll die of human-caused global warming? That’s the job of global warming alarmists… to make you fear it with zero evidence of it ever really ever having killed a single person.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
