|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2017 : 12:12:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mostly because state governors refusing the Medicaid expansion to bridge the gap between the old Medicaid limit and the lowest income covered by the ACA. The silliest part of that refusal is that it represented free money to the states. A state governor who worries about the Federal deficit is abdicating his role. |
So I wet back to look at this. In Texas I found an estimate that 10% of the cost to expand Medicaid would be around $1 billion per year. The annual budget is $114 billion. $1 billion dollars is a lot of money but I am sure that in the Texas budget we can do a trade off for something else. It seems worth it to me to allow another 1 million people access to health insurance. |
But you can't just compare static costs. Every dollar sent out by the Federal government generates something like $1.30 in local economic activity, and most of that activity gets taxed (the doctor who gets paid from state Medicaid funds gets coffee at Starbucks; the barista from Starbucks gets lunch at Denny's; the Denny's cook buys a console at GameStop; etc.). So the nine billion bucks coming from the Feds would generate even more money in Texas tax revenues, so the whole "missing" billion wouldn't need to be offset. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2017 : 15:17:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mostly because state governors refusing the Medicaid expansion to bridge the gap between the old Medicaid limit and the lowest income covered by the ACA. The silliest part of that refusal is that it represented free money to the states. A state governor who worries about the Federal deficit is abdicating his role. |
So I wet back to look at this. In Texas I found an estimate that 10% of the cost to expand Medicaid would be around $1 billion per year. The annual budget is $114 billion. $1 billion dollars is a lot of money but I am sure that in the Texas budget we can do a trade off for something else. It seems worth it to me to allow another 1 million people access to health insurance. |
But you can't just compare static costs. Every dollar sent out by the Federal government generates something like $1.30 in local economic activity, and most of that activity gets taxed (the doctor who gets paid from state Medicaid funds gets coffee at Starbucks; the barista from Starbucks gets lunch at Denny's; the Denny's cook buys a console at GameStop; etc.). So the nine billion bucks coming from the Feds would generate even more money in Texas tax revenues, so the whole "missing" billion wouldn't need to be offset.
|
Sounds too good to be true. Then can't we solve our budget problems by spending unlimited federal money? Yeah, that hasn't worked. Where is this proved out? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2017 : 22:59:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Sounds too good to be true. Then can't we solve our budget problems by spending unlimited federal money? Yeah, that hasn't worked. |
It hasn't worked because nobody has ever tried. Too much Federal spending leads to increased inflation. Sound fiscal policy balances these effects.
| Where is this proved out? |
Where is what proved out? The effects of Federal spending? It's easy math. The Feds, for example, approve an infrastructure bill, handing chunks of money out to the states for rebuilding bridges and roads. Then, construction companies bid for jobs, and some get them. Assuming the state isn't Delaware and the company turns a profit, the profit is taxed by the state, so some percentage of the Fed money comes back to the state through corporate taxation.
The construction company has to pay its workers. Assuming it pays them enough to have to pay income taxes, still more of the Fed money comes back to the state.
The workers will, generally, spend their share of the Fed money at local businesses that often have to pay sales taxes. Most of the sales taxes go to the county or city, but a small percentage gets moved back to the state as well. (Note that this is why some major metropolitan areas have instituted a "commuter tax" so that some money gets stripped from commuters and given to the city, especially commuters from another state.)
The local businesses pay taxes on their profits, too. But now the percentages are getting tiny. We're talking 5% of 2% of 3% of 1% of the total chunk of Fed money given to one state, for an example of made-up numbers. And we get even tinier when we talk about the payroll taxes on the workers of those local businesses. An asphalt layer who buys a dollar coffee at McDonald's is paying something like 1/100th of one hour of one McDonald's employee's wage after costs are taken out of that dollar, so there's not much left to tax, but with lots of workers running around with Fed dollars in their wallets, those teensy percentages can add up.
The important thing to remember is that the same chunk of cash gets taxed multiple times. If the Feds hand out a billion bucks for specific projects, most of it won't wind up simply sitting in a brokerage account for some CEO. It will, instead, move from hand to hand to hand, the state taking a little piece with every transfer.
That's what a "good economy" is: money moving around a lot. And when the economy is good, there's more transactions for the state to tax. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Abigail Evans
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2017 : 15:58:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
I am against a total ban on weaponry, but I am for registration, background checks, training, and all the things necessary to ensure that they are owned and used only by competent people for legitimate purposes.
If a person thinks, as many seem to do, that they need to be armed wherever they go in order to be able to defend themselves, there is something seriously wrong with them, and/or the society they live in.
|
I agree. All guns should be bought only with necessary training and licence! For example, in Canada the legislation is more strict than in the USA. To obtain the license there everyone shall undergo biographic testing which includes data on criminal records, mental health, dependences and cases of domestic violence. My friend had a problem because his gun wasn't locked in a glove compartment in empty car. He lives in Toronto and even had to address the law firm to solve the problem. He is more attentive now. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A Slow Gun Ban
