What's going on in washington?

A single payer system would spread the risk across the country.
There would be no difference in rates/deductibles between Maine and Cal.
The problem is congress would decide what's included or excluded in the system.
Since those folks can't agree on what day of the week it is that would turn out to be a mess.

Taxes....I'll wait and see what the repubs come up with.
I suspect it will favor the upper income folks.

it puts even more people on Medicaid, which is NOT a program you pay for out of your wallet....instead you would pay for it out of your Federal taxes, which would be a whole NEW tax on people since the Federal Government would be funding it and controlling it completely, just as they tried to do with Obamacare (which failed miserably but DELIBERATELY planned that way). And as long as middle income people would now be 'eligible' for it, just as they are now, thanks to Obamacare when the requirements were lowered, they not only receive the benefit they don't pay for now, but they also qualified for other benefits they wouldn't normally be qualified for, such as food stamps and housing now. Medicaid is supposed to be for disabled people who can't qualify for Social Security Disability, some elderly who go beyond their Medicare coverage, and children....it was NEVER intended for healthy, work eligible individuals, but as long as they are allowed to stay on Medicaid with the 'newer' requirements, they have NO incentive to get OUT of the programs. It's just another 'give away' to keep people dependent on government.

Of course the tax cuts will help the upper income folks and businesses....that's what it's SUPPOSED to do in order to get those businesses to start hiring again and expand their businesses and give raises again. That, in effect, will then add income to the middle class because jobs will again be available to them and they'll have money in their pockets again with their OWN tax cuts....obviously, the cuts won't be as great for them as the companies will get, but that's the whole purpose. Have you noticed what has happened in Seattle with the liberal increase in pay scale to $15/hr that they all wanted so desperately? Companies not only laid people off or outright fired them permanently but they have also cut their hours to save money. There was a new Washington (State) report that came out yesterday proving what Conservatives/Republicans have been saying all along would happen. Democrats/Liberals just can't admit to another failure of policy......Those people who got those forced increases are now taking home on average $125/month less than before but have higher expenses due to Obamacare. Oh, goodie.....chalk up another one for liberals who get what they demand. And I haven't seen any of the MSMedia reporting on this huge hit.

I'm not talking about medicaid, scrap that.
Medicare for all.
That spreads the risk across the country.
Yes some people would get the program for free, congress can decide the income limit.
Yes for those getting the program for free it would be paid for by the feds and the states.

Taxes.
I own a factory.
I make widgets.
I can sell 2 widgets per month.
If I get a tax break I'll say thank you, but I'm not going to hire more workers to make 3 widgets per month what am I going to do with the extra widget.
If I could sell 3 widgets per month I would not need a tax break to gear up and do that.

Put the money in the hands of the consumer and when there is a demand for 3 widgets per month I'll make them.

when you apply it to 'solar panels' and 'wind farms' as a REPLACEMENT for what we have available right now.........CONSUMER DEMAND, of which is there ISN'T any right now and hasn't been for over fifty years of 'innovation' in that direction.

"Put the money in the hands of the consumer and when there is a demand for 3 widgets per month I'll make them."

Thank you.........even if I totally disagree with your argument for Medicare. However, I DO believe that every able bodied person should work and pay into the system....at a higher percentage per paycheck than they do now, including Social Security....and take away the CAP that they have already in place for payment into SS. Pay for your entire working career no matter how much money you earn and both systems would be sustainable.

I never understood why someone making 50k a year paid SS on the entire amount and someone making 250k a year paid SS on half the amount.

But I'm not a pol and not privy to that stuff.

Yes, you can't make social programs so beneficial that it is better to stay home and do nothing than to get a job.

There's a cap on the amount subject to earnings and a cap on the maximum benefit. That benefit isn't, however, directly proportional to what one pays in and actually pays into the system. That benefit is proportionally less. Those with higher earnings can also pay 3X more for their Medicare part B but don't get better coverage than those who pay the minimum. As I understand it, SS was intended to be supplemental income rather than one's only income source. At best, it can provide subsistence living. SS and Medicare do no favors for higher earners. What they pay versus the benefits they receive subsidize the benefits received by others.

If I'm making 300/400k a year it won't take me very long to structure my income so that I'm not paying SS or medicare taxes on the majority of it.

All income should be subject to SS and medicare taxes.
It's just one of the reasons why we have an army of tax lawyers.

you're already paying on less than 1/2 of it. You don't need to structure anything. I greatly disagree that all income should be subject to full assessment for SS and Medicare. It's already subject to a progressive income tax on all of it. SS and Medicare are specifically purposed assessments with capped benefits. Keep in mind that employers contribute about 1/2 of the total paid into the system but get no benefit from doing so. If you look at this closely, it's actually a hidden tax on employee income. How do you want to deal with these employer paid taxes?
I'd fully agree that our tax system is full of inequities and misleads us as to how much we pay and who pays into it. This needs fixing and needs it badly, IMO.

the difference between SS withholding and SS benefits. I believe the cap for withholding should be lifted permanently so you continue to pay into the system no matter how much you earn in wages.

https://www.thebalance.com/annual-maximum-social-security-tax-updated-398473

However there are some very well paid people who are being paid in a form that is not wages.

This is where the tax lawyers come in and instruct these people how to structure their income so as to bypass SS and medicare taxes.

Which is why I said all income should be taxable, that gets rid of that loop hole.
Yes there could be some exemptions such as bank interest or interest on state or federal debt.

"bartering". That is, I'm a mechanic and you're a painter. I'll fix your car if you'll paint my house. No money exchange need occur. There are laws regarding this already. And, yes, such loopholes create jobs for lawyers so why not simplify the tax laws and reduce or eliminate the need to find creative ways to circumvent them? It's the complicated legal system that does little more than create non-productive employment opportunities...that is, government created jobs which politicians tout as proving their own successes. More smoke and mirrors.

I have a job that pays 50k per year in wages all subject to all taxes.

I'm also given an option to buy 500k shares of company stock at a reduced price.

At the end of a year, assuming the stock price has not fallen below my option price I exercise the option, buy/sell.

I've now added what might be a large amount to my income not subject to SS or medicare taxes.

still subjected to the same tax rules as regular income. You can have capital gains or loses. No...you don't pay SS or Medicare on these but it's no different from anyone else who buys and sells stocks on their own. There are also other employment benefits that can be taxed as "imputed" income that are not subject to SS or Medicare. One example is company paid life insurance. Such things aren't salary or wages but incentives to acquire employees. I can think of no logical reason for requiring that additional tax levies be placed on such benefits.

9 out of 10 years I exercise the option.
This bumps my income 8-10x.
I do not pay SS or medicare tax on the option.
I think it also qualifies as long term capital gains...25% tax rate.
I have no risk of capital loss, I just don't exercise the option.
What a great way to get paid.

If the company paid me 8-10x more in wages but no stock option I would be paying the maximum tax rate on everything.

This is what I was referring to by structuring your income.

No...I do not suggest calling company paid life insurance income.

would you still allow the same cap for maximum benefit? I'd hope not. Anyone who disciplines themselves to save and invest in the own retirement would be loser if their withholding wasn't capped but their maximum benefit was capped as it is now. I thought saving for one's own retirement years rather than rely on government was a good thing. I'd not want to destroy the incentive to do so.

keep in mind that most people collect far more as it stands than they ever paid into it. When it was first set up, the work force was much larger and people didn't live as long, and since the benefits weren't transferrable to family members, it all worked out since only widows and orphans were collecting from the system as a replacement income from the husband/father passing away, and widows could only collect their portion until they remarried or their youngest child turned 16. Social Security was solvent under those guidelines.

With people living much longer today and not enough people in the workforce to pay into the system now, the caps are a hindrance to the program itself since government decided to expand eligibility (including the disability program that's ripping it apart). In 2007, millions lost their jobs and collected unemployment benefits, which normally only goes for 26 weeks. However, in 2009 BO increased the time to 99 weeks and then extended it an additional 99 weeks. Once that time period ended, because of the relaxed eligibility requirements for SS Disability benefits, tens of thousands of those unemployed people, immediately applied for and were granted SS Disability benefits by claiming 'mental stress' and they now permanently collecting until they die or Trump does what Reagan did and throw everyone off to be re-evaluated, which I encourage him to do via his HHS director. Reagan saved that department's economy trillions of dollars over an 8 yr period of time and that continued until BO.

In $$$, probably yes but in value for their money...maybe no so. Remember that most people pay into the system for 40 or more years when those first dollars would buy much more than they will today. As for removing the cap on the payable benefits, I'd say that would be a necessity if cap on wages earned was also removed but what I don't know is what affect that would have on employer sponsored 401K plans or individual IRAs which are, in reality, private investment dollars. I can't imagine how diverting money from this channel to government control is a better plan.

Anyone who forms an opinion about what's going on in this country based on Fox news or Cnbc has a biased opinion.

You must keep reading from different sources and different views on the same issue.

I don't mind moving money from one pocket to another if I end up with the same amount of money after the move.
If I end up with less money and I find the reason is because it went to the wealthy folks I'm a little miffed.

It's amazing how many ways a story can be told in order to elicit the desired result of the teller. I'm reminded of a local incident that actually happened. It had to do with a surprise locker inspection by the police in a High School. Students were made to open their lockers so they could be checked for contraband. One TV news outlet noted that most parents supported the action. Another stated that many parents were outraged and featured video of a couple of folks expressing their anger. Both statements are, technically, true but only one gives an accurate perspective of the majority opinion.

As for the "rich versus poor" conversation, I'm not in favor of policies that penalize wealth gained through actual effort. If the government wants to use these folks as cash cows, they should incentivize more people to work to their potentials rather than penalize them for their stronger work ethic. Keep in mind that their wealth is mostly on paper but the actual money in that paper is largely in other people's pockets.

The one is govt owned and the other is primarily a business site. IMO that makes them as close to neutral as we can get these days.
I added Al Jazeera to my home page because I saw it has a large staff, good writing and of course excellent coverage. But in following this Qatar business I learned that their English and Arabic sites are different and separate. The Arabic is the one alleged to be pro-terrorist. I'm not qualified to judge that, but I don't like the dichotomy, so I dropped it. Too bad; it had great fratures.

including those leaning both directions. However, to the "right" there's only one that isn't brainless prattle, IMO. The "left" viewpoint is expressed (subtly or otherwise) on the majority of news outlets I'd call "legitimate". I prefer to give attention to a well thought out argument than something that sounds more like oral have diarrhea and most news outlets I frequent do have persons who can express themselves well. What I really get tired of is connecting everything to politics. There are real issues to be addressed. But, when we insist on politicizing them, I think we lose focus finding real solutions. The value of an idea isn't dictated by the party label of the person who expresses it, IMO.

on a problem just because it's there. That's one reason why my govt is better.

“The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor.”

I have a friend with a wife that has a pre-existing problem .
Before Obamacare rolled out he and his wife had a $1500 deductible through his works insurance.
After his company laid off folks during the 2008 debacle, and he was forced to use Obamacare, their deductible is $26,000 and now he works only to pay that deductible.
I think they would like to have a choice in insurance companies
At this point I am happy I have my VA healthcare even though it's flawed .

Two SSI snd one partial disability. Turns out we're so poor we don't have to sign up for anything! I'm non-combat disabled so I'm at the botton of the triage list, but I get adequate care for my $8 copay.

The only problem I have with the thing is the distance you have to travel to use it.
Making a 40 mile round trip just to get an x-ray when I can get the x-ray less than a mile from my home is annoying.

I can't complain about the cost, so far everything has been free.