tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post2460422609955144990..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Laffer’s Wedge Model of Falling EmploymentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-88535608582262074172010-11-17T16:54:32.538-05:002010-11-17T16:54:32.538-05:00I haven't researched an answer so I'll onl...I haven't researched an answer so I'll only note that I think that GHI had also morphed into a for profit health insurer after years of being a highly regarded not for profit health insurer. The reason/excuse, as I recall the press reporting, was that as a for profit health insurer GHI (and it's new partner HIP) would be better able to raise money through borrowing. It didn't make any sense to me then nor still.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-24595748689445661372010-11-16T10:35:35.779-05:002010-11-16T10:35:35.779-05:00I can provide links from the IRS to back up my poi...I can provide links from the IRS to back up my points, if anyone is interested.<br />There ain't no free lunch, but there are better places to eat.<br />Don LevitDon Levithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497731736648561272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-39816703041575533462010-11-16T10:33:24.328-05:002010-11-16T10:33:24.328-05:00Trucker:
You are correct about true non-profits.
B...Trucker:<br />You are correct about true non-profits.<br />Blue Cross lost its tax exempt status in 1986, for it had evolved into its for-profit competitors.<br />In 1986, 501(m) was added to the Internal Revenue Code stripping Blue Cross (and similar insurers) of their tax-exempt privileges.<br />Why have any tax advantages if you are unable to distinguish your self from your for-profit competitors.<br />Since 1986, not one insurer, to my knowledgem, has taken adsvantage of 501(m) to truly set themselves apart from the pack.<br />Not one insurer has offered medical products which could be a win-win for the long term, for both insurer and insured.<br />Don LevitDon Levithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497731736648561272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-47114388303719727392010-11-14T21:31:59.487-05:002010-11-14T21:31:59.487-05:00The primary portion of the wedge is wage taxes and...The primary portion of the wedge is wage taxes and health care expenses. The removal/reduction of health care expenses from the payroll would seem to be a reduction in the wedge. So why is Medicare Buy In not happening. I am not referring to tax subsidized Medicare. I am talking about _ALLOWING_ people (and maybe even employers) to do business with the Medicare insurance provider just like they buy medical insurance from any other insurance company.<br /><br />We all know why this will not be allowed. It is because the private insurance providers could never compete with a TRUE non profit insurance provider that did not provide Leer Jets to its management. The morons could still buy insurance from the private hijackers if they wanted, but why are the rest of us being forced to do so?<br /><br />What happens to Medicare Buy In is that the moonbats jump on it and want to make it into a single payer tax supported system and the Republicans are smart enough to go along with them long enough to get them hooked, Then it is all government taking our freedoms away and the taxes will kill the world. But the moonbats never learn. They fall for it every time. There ain't no free lunch.TheTruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346127768102862741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-42123623154929309252010-11-14T16:37:57.963-05:002010-11-14T16:37:57.963-05:00It's the Goldilocks theory of economics, yorks...It's the Goldilocks theory of economics, yorksranterUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01925858630822311395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-37168212430237867452010-11-14T14:14:19.080-05:002010-11-14T14:14:19.080-05:00Employment is low because the incentives for worke...<i>Employment is low because the incentives for workers to work are too small, and the incentives not to work too high. Workers' net wages are down, so the supply of labor is limited. Meanwhile, demand for labor is also down since employers consider the costs of employing new workers—wages, health care and more—to be greater today than the benefits.</i><br /><br />So he thinks wages are both too low and too high at once.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-55777426920976086522010-11-13T12:50:17.633-05:002010-11-13T12:50:17.633-05:00And, unless I'm mistaken, the implication of L...And, unless I'm mistaken, the implication of Laffer's highest priority job-creating measure is that it is the WEALTHY who make up the bulk of those voluntarily unemployed workers. Who knew the 9.6% unemployment rate was all those rich folks going Galt?Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-5285592231795013632010-11-13T04:15:16.126-05:002010-11-13T04:15:16.126-05:00The trouble with Laffer, supply side economics, th...The trouble with Laffer, supply side economics, the Austrian school, etc. is that they aren't burdened with the scientific method of proving their theories. David Stockman explained it best in his famous Atlantic Monthly article, that supply side economics is a "trojan horse to bring down the top rate" of taxation on the wealthy.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484734853970057903noreply@blogger.com