Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that

[coins4commies]

I know people that are making millions per year and save nothing after buying a lot of fancy cars and bling.

I don't think I'd call someone "super wealthy" who was making 1, 2 or 3 million USD per year.

"Super wealthy" would really be an issue of looking at assets rather than yearly income. But for sure, someone with net assets > 100M most people would agree would be "super wealthy." Or even 50M, or 25M. Maybe.

So are you advocating for a direct wealth tax? because under the current tax system, income is the main thing being taxed and income tax purposes was the context of the argument.  Over time, high income should lead to high wealth and that is indeed the correlation.  This could be a cunning way of moving the goalposts though.

[1715253098]

1715253098

[Spendulus]

I know people that are making millions per year and save nothing after buying a lot of fancy cars and bling.

I don't think I'd call someone "super wealthy" who was making 1, 2 or 3 million USD per year.

"Super wealthy" would really be an issue of looking at assets rather than yearly income. But for sure, someone with net assets > 100M most people would agree would be "super wealthy." Or even 50M, or 25M. Maybe.

So are you advocating for a direct wealth tax? because under the current tax system, income is the main thing being taxed and income tax purposes was the context of the argument.  Over time, high income should lead to high wealth and that is indeed the correlation.  This could be a cunning way of moving the goalposts though.

Not at all, I'm just noting that "Super Wealthy" refers to assets, not income.

And no, high income doesn't "should lead to high wealth."

And I'm not advocating for stealing from anyone, that's strictly you, the commie, that is taking from anyone you can slap a label on to justify the taking.

[coins4commies]

I'm just confused what you think the best method for taxing the super wealthy would if taxing the super high income doesn't work and you oppose taxing wealth directly.  If you can't turn high income into high wealth then you are just terribly irresponsible with money or sick enough to benefit from outlawing private health insurance. 

[Spendulus]

I'm just confused what you think the best method for taxing the super wealthy would if taxing the super high income doesn't work and you oppose taxing wealth directly.  If you can't turn high income into high wealth then you are just terribly irresponsible ...

It doesn't work that way, a lot of people have became better off by sound investments, with quite low incomes.

Given that you don't even comprehend basic income strata in the USA, I'm hesitant to discuss taxation policy.

[TheCoinGrabber]

If public health insurance is good enough, people should not find any reason to use private plans. Private insurance exists because there is a market for it. People who feel that what the government provides is inadequate should be free to spend their money for a product they want.

[bones261]

If public health insurance is good enough, people should not find any reason to use private plans. Private insurance exists because there is a market for it. People who feel that what the government provides is inadequate should be free to spend their money for a product they want.

There should never be a monopoly on any product. This includes health insurance. In some ways a government monopoly is even worse than a private corporation monopoly.