> In a nutshell the Buffet rule is making sure that the ultra-rich are taxed at no less than the same rate as a middle income family, namely 30%.
For different kinds of income, you’re ignoring the fact that this would tax capital gains at the rate of earned income. It’s not about wealth but the source of the income.
> In total the changes proposed in [1] would bring a net increase in revenue on taxation of individuals north of $50 bn per year
Yes, but they would not bring an appreciable amount of revenue in for the government, so why bother? Especially since you’d be decreasing the marginal profitability of investments, which would make certain investments unattractive and thereby reduce investment.
> And no, the US does not have actual socialized healthcare.
Yes we do, source, I live here and I have healthcare. You’re required to have coverage and the cost depends on your income level. Below a certain income its covered, above a certain income you need to contribute. I.e. socialism.
> When you have parents sitting with a sick child in their car in the parking lot outside the hospital, waiting as long ad possible before they go to in, in case the kid gets better so they can avoid racking up a huge hospital bill, you've screwed something up real bad.
Yeah socialism has a loooooot of problems.
> This doesn't happen ever in any country in Europe, period.
No they just tell the travellers to keep travelling and they deny medical care because the little sod isn’t worth it to them. You do understand that socialized medicine refuses care to people who aren’t deemed to be “worth it”, don’t you?
> I don't understand at all the reference to imaginary zeroes here. My point is that government subsidised paid parental leave is a measure that significantly increases the quality of life of low- and middle-income families in the critical period of time when their children are very small. It's a no-brainer even financially, the ROI from increased productivity in the workforce over the span of a decade is strongly positive.
If the ROI is positive then businesses will do it of their own accord. Mandates are only required for interventions with a negative r.o.i.
> If you let a woman take parental leave and take care of her babies for a couple of years total in her 30s, versus working her to the bone in that period, I guarantee you she will have a net increase in her productive labor output during her lifespan.
She may not be working for the same firm during that time. You need to assure that the person who paid for her time off is the recipient of the increased productivity else you’re just playing 3 card monty.
