Blogs and Stories
Obama's Crazy Health-Care Plan
AP Photo
Republicans claim Obama's health-care surtax will be an epic job-killing disaster. Are they right? Not exactly—but the truth is even worse.
Barack Obama's success was built in no small part on his ability to connect with the large and growing share of American voters who are college-educated, affluent, and have a fondness for arugula. Though Obama campaigned on raising taxes for families making more than $250,000 and cutting taxes for everyone else, he won a majority of voters in households earning $200,000 or more a year. To tax-loathing Republicans, this was a bit like plump chickens enthusiastically voting for Frank Perdue. So when House Democrats called for a stiff surtax on wealthy households, one thing you couldn't say is that the proposal came without warning.
Don't be shocked if tax avoidance starts reaching Russian levels. Worse still, the superrich are footloose.
Not surprisingly, Republicans have declared war on the surtax, claiming it will be an epic job-killing disaster, and more than a few Democrats have raised the same objection, albeit in slightly less apocalyptic tones. Nancy Pelosi is already backing away from the proposal, no doubt after being cornered in an alleyway by a gang of knife-wielding limousine liberals. The fear is that a surtax will turn America into a nightmare version of Europe, where tax rates are punishingly high and many of the young and ambitious plot to escape them. Are they right? Actually, no. Despite obscenely high tax rates, a number of northern European economies have managed to survive and even thrive. They've pulled this off by tightly linking taxes to benefits. You want free health care? In Europe, you pay for it through a heavy consumption tax called the VAT, or value-added tax. Whenever you buy a haircut or a pair of jeans or a flat-screen television, you're paying for the welfare state. What we've done for the past twenty years, and what a surtax will only sharpen, is move in the opposite direction: we've separated taxes from benefits.
The appeal of the surtax to Democrats should be obvious. Paying for expanding health-care coverage to the 42 million uninsured will be extremely expensive. Over 10 years, it will cost at least a trillion dollars, even if we make absurdly generous assumptions about cost savings. Rather than have struggling single moms foot the bill, the Democratic left figures it makes moral and practical sense to charge highfliers who will have to sacrifice, say, a summer home in Provence rather than fresh fruits and vegetables for their young. Like it or not, though, the superrich really are different from you and me. Republicans rightly emphasize that successful entrepreneurs drive growth and create jobs, etc. But they're also pretty good at dodging taxes through the clever use of mile-wide loopholes. Unscrupulous lawyers and accountants are salivating at the prospect of marginal tax rates approaching 50 percent. Don't be shocked if tax avoidance starts reaching Russian levels. Worse still, the superrich are footloose. While Palm Beach probably won't secede from the Union to become part of the Cayman Islands, we'll almost certainly see a spike in the number of tax exiles.
Then there is the fact that relying on a small slice of the population to pay the bills means revenues will always be unstable. New York City and California became dangerously dependent on a small class of ultrasuccessful citizens, and the end of the boom has led to a painful contraction of revenues.
The proposed surtax would raise roughly $544 billion, which is impressively huge. But it won't come close to paying for universal health care. One of the best revenue-raising ideas, taxing employer-provided health benefits, is a political non-starter: the unions are bitterly opposed and Barack Obama savaged John McCain for proposing the same thing during the campaign. And even that wouldn't get you all the way there. Then there is a whole slew of gimmicks, like a tax on sugary beverages, that would raise modest amounts in comparison. If we were serious about solving the revenue problem, we'd look to, well, Europe. By moving towards European-style consumption taxes, we'd create a more stable revenue base—even in a recession, you still need to buy stuff—and we'd be less vulnerable to the skullduggery of rich tax cheats. As for the noble entrepreneurs who are the foundation of our prosperity, their investments would be treated more favorably than under the current tax code. Everybody wins! Or almost everybody wins.
The Senate has actually considered using a VAT to pay for coverage expansion. A 5 percent VAT would raise more than enough revenue to pay for the health care plans currently on the table. The problem is that under these proposals, everyone would pay the VAT, but only some—namely the currently uninsured—would directly benefit. The way to solve this problem is to move to a system in which employers get out of the health care business entirely and a VAT finances a system of sliding subsidies for all workers to buy private insurance. Chances are this approach will never see the light of day. It is, alas, the only approach that will actually work.
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
The Plot to Purge GOP Moderates
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
The Collateral Damage to Muslims
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
Is Iraq Slipping Away?
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
The Taliban-Al Qaeda Connection
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
Everything about this article is correct. Disconnecting benefits from payment is not only morally wrong, but economically ruinous. If we want a vast new benefit, great, let's go to sngle payer or universal coverage. But structure the taxes so that we all pay for that benefit we'll receive, not let's tax "those people over there."
I am extremely tired of this let's feel bad for the rich meme that the Republicans are pushing. If you really believe that rich people pay the high percentages that are claimed, then I have an island to sell you.
I have a few friends that are millionaires and let me let you a few secrets:
1. They hire high paid accountants that find every deduction possible that often are enough to not only eliminate most of their taxes, but often pay for their services as well.
2. Most middle and working class people pay the full percentage because they cannot afford these same accountants.
3. Two of my millionaire friends have both shared with me that they paid less taxes than I have (on a 40,000 a year salary) each of the last six years completely legally by hiring really good accountants.
4. One of my millionaire friends received half off an SUV because of a "farm vehicle" loop hole that has been exploited, legally, by many of the people that can afford these accountants.
5. Last year 52 percent of the top 500 corporations paid 0 dollars in taxes.
6. In Bills like the Highway Bill and many others - direct subsidies of 10's of billions of dollars have been paid to Exxon mobile on our dime. Farm bills have given 10's of billions to the top 1 percent of corporate farms. Haliburton has stolen 100's of billions because of no-bid contracts. And Medicare part D was perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to corporations in our history - and the Republicans purposefully put in a clause that we could not negotiate prices, which will steal trillions from us in the long haul.
7. Because of reasons 1-6 the gap between the wealthy and working classes are higher than they have ever been in modern history.
So, in my opinion, the corporate welfare of this twisting of the tax code has been stealing our money and transferring it to the wealthiest for the last 8 years and beyond. When we raise taxes on the wealthy, we are not taking their money to get health care - we are re-capturing a very small portion of the money that they stole from us under the Bush Administration.
Personally, I think that we should figure out the exact figures and tax accordingly to recapture our money interest, but I know that will never happen...
So, yes, if we raise taxes on the wealthy 5 percent (most of which will not pay it), I do not feel bad for them.
It doesnt matter. They dont owe poor people health care. Good for them that they have made their millions. Stop trying to mooch off them because they have sucedded financially and you have not. And you number 5 point is so wrong. Look it up.
Excellent comment, motrbotr.
oh, and your millionaire friends must not actually make that money earning it. Sure, there are loopholes, and a businessman can pass lots of benefits through the company. But if you are earning $500,000 per year there is no way you pay less than a guy only pulling $40,000. If you have a family, $40,000 causes ZERO in ferderal income taxes.
Mot - they have succeeded mostly (not all) because they have wealthy relatives. America is in last in the western world for achieving the American dream - going from the lower class to the upper class in one generation. This is because if you have a relative in an Ivy League School, you are more likely to get into one, if you have relatives that have good jobs you are more likely to get one, and if you have parents that were well educated you are more likely to become well educated.
I watched my parents work 3 jobs each, so they did not have time to help me with homework or other lessons that could help me. I still have done well, but i have watched people with connections move up the social ladders much more easily (my ex-girlfriend got exempted from writing her master's thesis because her father called in some favors and then got her a cushy internship and a half price SUV from his accountant while I worked my butt off on two jobs while finishing my masters).
Why is it fair that her father made more while taking a crap than my parents make in a month? That is not because he was more successful - it is because he had more connections.
That is the American way, but it should not be. It should be true democracy - not like African countries where you have to know someone or bribe someone to get ahead.
Whether you believe me or not I cannot help, but what is public record is that 52 out of the top 100 corporations in the US paid 0 dollars in taxes last year. Why should they get off free when people like my parents are suffering?
In that case I'd also like a refund for the many years I paid school taxes, since
I have no children and don't see any justification for the senseless ripoff. Why
should I care whether anyone is educated or not? And don't get me started on
the condition of the roads. I don't care about any of it, I just want to grab as much as I can and screw every other American. They deserve what they get if they're too pathetic to help themselves.
That is really a sick and demented attitude. My parents have worked two-three jobs their whole life and cannot even afford their health care because our politicians have tilted the scale towards the wealthy.
Personally, my faith prevents me from sharing your greedy attitude; however, I have many atheist friends that would consider these thoughts atrocious as well.
I hope you have a very satisfied life - but I do not believe that you will.
And you deserve what you get when you die alone with none caring or even noticing you are gone (unless to celebrate your departure) because you were too selfish and narcissistic to care about anyone but yourself. Enjoy your Ayn Rand novels - alone.
I think the people who have replied to jdx60009 are irony-challenged. He is making fun of unenlightened self interest.
Salam makes his argument without providing any numbers. The proposed 1% surcharge on incomes of $350,000 raises taxes by $3,500. A three percent surcharge on $1,000,000 incomes raises taxes $30,000. Are rich people really going to leave the country to avoid this? I don't think so. Republican scare tactics only work if you don't do the math.
On the other hand, I am not so sure that high income people avoid taxes by hiring accountants. Secretary of the Treasury Geithner uses the same tax software that I and millions of other use. If you have a salary, no matter how high, tax accounting is pretty straightforward. If you do own a business or farm, then things are more complicated. If the rich are just going to avoid this tax, why does a smart man like the President think he can raise revenue this way, and why are the Republicans so upset?
Chuckv - If you are wealthy - you should hire an accountant - it will pay for itself many times over (then consider donating to a worthy cause). Honestly, i have seen tax documents from multiple millionaire friends who pay less than I do in taxes legally - it was really sickening, especially when i watch my parents suffer from not being able to get health coverage they need.
sorry Keats, but I dont believe you. First off, no one beleive that multiple millionaires are showing you their tax returns.
Now, if you are friends with Teddy Kennedy, I do believe that he pays no taxes, because everything they have is in a trust.
If you earn money, you pay taxes.
If you are retired, and have managed to place everything in trusts and buy municiple bonds, then yes, you can avoid paying taxes. But then again, they paid taxes when they earned it.
The surtax isn't anywhere near sufficient to make a dent in the enormous costs involved. For affordable universal health insurance to happen the Medicare fee schedule would have to be made mandatory.
The US is the richest country in the world, and it's rich people pay 35 percent in income taxes, compared with 45 percent under Clinton and 90 percent under that Republican favorite Dwight Eisenhower.
The Republicans gave the rich a free ride for eight years while the middle class got stuck with the bills. It's time for all those rich people to pay up. If they don't like it, they can move somewhere else, but I doubt they'll be able to make out so well.
You are very ignorant about economics.
I have a firend that was fired from his job. He went out and started a business in the same industry. 7 years later, he has 30 employees, averaging $50,000 in salary. He made about $1 Million last year, and paid the IRS over $350,000.
So he should pay more so you can mooch more free stuff from the government?
How about you moochers move somewhere else? Go to Canada or Cuba. See how well you make out.
You certainly dont want the rich to leave, then who will pay you moochers?
Obviously your friend does not have a good accountant - I have seen two different peoples tax documents that made over a million and paid less in taxes than I did.
The writer is on the ball. The House surtax may please the Left who love the idea of getting something for nothing, but it is more likely to increase unemployment by discouraging risk-taking and hard work and getting a good education . It was bad enough Obama giving a "tax break" to people who have never paid tax - better to have been honest and called it what it is another "welfare" benefit.
America wasn't built on the politics of envy but on the reality of enterprise.
Agree. The middle class in this country are undeserving scum. Why should they see doctors? These Democrats live in upside down world with no clue about what it means to be deserving. Bootstraps people, and your undeserving kids too, make them grab their little bootstraps.
I would have to agree that a VAT would make the most sense in the long term. It is a long term solution to a long term problem, To me, the biggest advantage of a VAT is that it simply can't be avoided. To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing us move away from payroll taxes and go to a flat sales tax system where the poorest folks simply get a refund check at the end of the year for sales tax they've paid. It would be fairer, much simpler from a tax code point of view and undodgable. But I'm not an economist so I can't say that I know all the downsides it might have as well.
The major downside would be tax avoidance through black markets. Tony Soprano would love the VAT tax. It will push more people to making purchases from the back of his truck... VAT tax free.
With a simple change in the tax code the 45 million uninsured would have coverage. Doctors and dentists, etc., would be entitled to deduct $50,000 in charitable work off their income tax, and after all their deductions an additional $25,000 off the bottom line - the check they write for Uncle Sam.
The proposes "charity" is medical service - accessibility to those people without insurance. Without proof of insurance, or cash in the hand, a doctor or dentist won't see you.
Every doctor and dentist would participate - they would work the additional clients into their office hours - maybe add a half day on wednesdays when many of these professionals take the day off.
People with insurance would start to drop their policies - some - because they could get to see a doctor without insurance and because they don't have a "policy" they don't have to pay.
Let the chips fall where they may. People with insurance at the job would not be dropping their policy. But insurance companies would start to lower their premiums!
How about we give all the doctors in the country 150 grand a year tax free in exchange for treating all comers in a 42 hour week. How much would that cost the taxpayer. Insurance policies would be issued to cover only potential surgery. Doing a surgery would be extra $$$ for the doctor. (Simply a thought).
The initial tax deduction for "charity" would provide access to the 47 million uninsured. The long term solution is supply v. demand. So with free med education for all doctors, dentists, and related personal the cost would go down! Our goal should be the graduation of 100 thousand doctors a year, not 16 thousand as we are graduating today.
michaelslevinson.com is where i get my ideas.
A second reason I do not feel bad for the wealthy is because of my parents. Both of my parents worked 2 jobs and sometimes 3 their whole lives. Because of this, my dad's cartilage in his back is almost gone and my mom has muscle problems and has had 6 strokes. Even though they paid into the system their entire lives and have health care through their employer, they cannot afford copays for medicine, visits, or a desperately needed surgery.
My mom was told that if she did not get a surgery she needed that her life would not go much beyond 5-10 years and she is only 53. We could not afford the surgery and it is now too late.
Also, she is in chronic pain because the pills that would help her cost 100 dollars per pill, which they cannot afford. She is in bed 2 weeks a month in excruciating pain.
The worst part - if she would have had access to the surgery and medicine, she could still be working and paying taxes. Instead, now she is on disability.
So, by not providing good health care there are millions who would be productive parts of the work force, but instead are forced to be on disability.
So, pardon me if I feel 5 percent on the wealthy is a small price to pay to prevent people like my mom, who worked hard and paid into the system their whole lives from being able to pay for their health.
Our system is immoral and people are dying because of it.
Is this what we can look forward to ?
Canadian style LOTTERY healthcare ?
" In the latest jarring illustration of the country's doctor shortage, a family physician in Northern Ontario has used a lottery to determine which patients would be ejected from his overloaded practice.
Dr. Ken Runciman says he reluctantly eliminated about 100 patients in two separate draws to avoid having to provide assembly-line service or extend already onerous work hours, and admits the move has divided the close-knit community of Powassan.
Yet it was not the first time such methods have been employed to determine medical service. A new family practice in Newfoundland held a lottery last month to pick its caseload from among thousands of applicants. An Edmonton doctor selected names randomly earlier this year to pare 500 people from his heavy caseload. And in Ontario, regulators have heard reports of a number of other physicians also using draws to choose, or remove, patients. "
We already have a lottery system here. 50 million people do not have health care, 50 million are underinsured, many cannot afford copays or deductibles, and 1 out of 2 African American babies die in their first year because of lack of health care ~ our lottery system is much worse!
Canada is a horrible example of government health care - they are ranked 36th in the world and we are ranked 37. So even though their health care is not great, it is still better than ours.
Besides, at least in Canada you do not go bankrupt from getting a disease or getting hit by a car.
I have never known a co-pay for a surgery to be paid up-front. Unless it is the $50 to see the specialist. And if they cannot afford that, it is truly a sad situation.
If the only pill that can help her pain is $100 per pill, what makes you think the government will approve that for her?
And what about the surgery all together? They may have looked at her and said, eh, you are 53, this surgery is only for those in their 40's or younger.
If you want the healthcare that everyone can afford, turn the clock back 60 years. You pay for a visit, and the doc really could not do much for you except tell you what you had and how soon it would kill you.
Now, with innovation, those things that killed us or maimed us, are treatable. But they cost money.
Unfortunately you have to pay alot, to get the best. And of course everyone WANTS the best. What next areas of life will it be a "right" to get the best? Even if you cannot afford it?
The fee was 10,000 dollars because the specialist was considered "out of network"... And we tried to borrow - anything we could and could not raise the money.
"Unfortunately you have to pay alot, to get the best. And of course everyone WANTS the best. What next areas of life will it be a "right" to get the best? Even if you cannot afford it?"
-- That is the problem - we don't have the best. We pay 10 times more than any other western country and have the 37th best health care. Why do we pay 10 times when we get the 37th best? Answer: So Ceo's and administration at these companies can make millions.
Also, as far as pills - Bush's Medicare part D specifically had in the Bill that we could not negotiate prices with the drug companies - therefore we have to pay whatever they ask (in my opinion the biggest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world)...
Pills are cheaper in almost any other country. When i needed allergy pills and did not have insurance - it was 100 bucks a month here per month and in Canada 9.99 for a month.
We have to fight these companies - people are dying because of the bottom line!
I'm not trying to be callous andmy heart goes out to your family, but how is this the fault of people who work hard in school, work hard to build businesses, employ lots of people and still pay a high tax rate? Remember, when you don't feel sorry for rich people for making a lot of money, you then don't care about the people they employ losing their jobs due to this "redistribution." If we feel sorry for every single cause, we will collapse!
My problem is not those that work hard and do the right thing - my problem is tax avoidance and subsidies. We give billions to Exxon and Haliburton (subsidies not just tax breaks) and yet cannot afford to help the poor. I am tired of Corporate welfare that costs more than all other social assistance put together (between tax breaks and subsidies) and hearing people whine about those that have put into the system their whole lives and cannot even get health care now like my parents.
How can we Americans trust the government to do the right thing with regard to healtcare? They've just given the banksters billions to play with, and now the fat cats are even fatter, and the working man has been laid off. George Patton
It has to be better than the corporations who kill 100's of thousands each year by murder by spreadsheet. My mom's life is shortened because of corporate - bottom line based health care and for a decade of my life my health suffered as well.
At least the government has lower administrative costs - 3 percent vs. 35 percent in corporate health insurance, so there is a ton less waste and greed.
Any health care system based on greed is going to kill people for a bottom line. At least with the government we can throw the bums out once in awhile. When Blue Cross shortened my moms life because of denied benefits we had no recourse.
Please give source to the numbers you reference. And not an opinion piece, either.
"Administrative costs and profits consume anywhere from 5% to 40% of premiums, according to the report, with a higher percentage among small-employer and individual groups.
On the other hand, Medicare administrative costs account for 2% to 5% of premiums."
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/15131
Keatsian first post is excellent, his second very poignant. I should have proof read my own comment.
On the issue of taxes: we should have a simple ten percent no deductions tax which all are required to pay.
This would put tons of dollars into the pockets of the 535 Members of Congress as all the tax codicils would be gone and all of the giants who don't pay a thin dime would have to pony up. The forces of Money & Power would comb the congress and stuff their gullets with ducats.
Not only is our system immoral with people dying from it - we are becoming a second rate nation, declining fast. We lead the world in corrupt government and watered down democracy.
Dump the 535. The 535 must be gone!
michaelslevinson dot commie (michael stephen levinson himself) sent me an email. I paraphrase: When an FBI assassin murdered the woman standing in the doorway at Ruby Ridge, a guy named Tim McVeigh started thinking he wanted to get even.
When the congress investigated the congressional panel asked Jamie Gorlick how did FBI come to have an agent who pulled the trigger on command. She said they had now altered certain internal stuff. Her bureaucratic response was hazy.
FBI had been giving exams to agents, with multiple choice questions so they could winnow out the agents who would have refused to pull the trigger. When they went to Ruby Ridge they went there to assassinate.
The Cheney program was kept from the congress. Cheney wanted to develop a team of CIA (Cash-In-Advance) assassins. Once the group was developed what would have kept Cheney (whether still in office or not) from passing along an order.
What would have kept someone in the intelligence apparatus from 'ordering' the group to take out someone within our borders. In the foreign countries what are the CIA assassins told about their targets?
Obama wants to keep this stuff covered up. He is not a leader. I apologize for my digression. It's a "Lev" email.
Check out Figure two on this page for one of the most comprehensive graphs on why the rich need to pay for health care:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=69
The wealthy have gotten a free ride for the past 30 years and it is time for it to end!
okay, I read the link. It talks about the income differences over the last 30 years.... how is this a "free ride"? I mean, if the rich earned and extra $60,000, they paid an extra $21,000 in federal taxes. How is this a free ride again?
And you can stop with your millionaire friends excuse, because this data came from income claimed through the IRS, so taxes were levied on that additional income.
Good thing those rich 1% all paid and extra $21,000 per year so the freebies can get bigger from the government.
The income disparities show that Reaganism has created the biggest gap between the rich and the poor in history and that incentives have all gone to the wealthy.
Where do you think the billions we gave Exxon is subsidies comes from? The hundreds of billions we gave to haliburton? Etc. etc. It came off the backs of people like my parents.
Let's wait until health care costs bankrupt us to make any real concessions for the public good like taxing "overly generous" employer-based health plans. Actually, since China will then outright own us, maybe they will just fold us into their health care system, and imprison anyone who complains about it.
so basically the republican's argument against healthcare is that the upper middle class will lose some money.
what a selfish, ridiculous, sad argument.
We all want universal care. Keatsian and others. My mother and father, too, worked all their lives, but it doesn't mean I jump at any scheme. Why not address the real substantive arguments in the writer's piece? He favors VAT, which is the European solution - and they have more widely accessible healthcare than we do. Another sensible and much more equitable way to pay it is to count the employer-paid benefits to all on payrolls as a tax benefit for the millions who enjoy it. - which it is. Bingo no need for deficit financing, no need for the punitive tax on a tiny few.
Instituting the VAT in the way the author describes would eliminate one of the few areas that corporations take responsibility. With 52 out of the top 100 corporation not paying any taxes last year, why do we need to let them out of paying health care as well? That would only exacerbate the problem.
This user is no longer registered.
Keatsian is misguided by his envy.The 1 percent of the population who make 27 pc of total income,actually pay 40per cent of the nation's income tax revenues and now Rangel (who has his own problems with ethics) wants another 5 pc tax hike. Why stop there? Why not be wholly like the Stalinist Russia? This present plan is far inferior to the Healthy American legisaltion proposed by Democratic Senator Roy Wyden, Read it and see on his website. The writer of thisBeast column is also on sounder ground. We must have universal health plan but the devil is in the details. Alas, many people buy into the demagoguery of follks like Keatsian
That is a ridiculous Republican talking point and manipulation of statistics. Just because the wealthy pay more dollars, does not mean they pay an equal share.
The way they calculate that is like saying that a person making a million a year that pays 10,000 dollars in taxes pays double the person making 40,000 a year that pays 5,000. While technically true, it is very misleading. The person making 40,000 is paying 20 percent of their salary, while the person making a million is paying .01 percent of their salary.
That is one of the most dishonest Republican talking points ever invented to trick the poor into paying huge percents of their income to taxes and allowing the wealthy every possible loophole to get out of it.
Under Eisenhower the wealthy payed 90 percent income tax, now it is 30, most of which they do not pay.
This graph shows the results of Reaganism (See Figure 2):
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=69
The gap between the rich and poor has grown exponentially to the point that the poor are dying on the backs of the rich - and some of us, like me with my family, see the effects up close and personal.
1 out of 2 African American babies die in their first year of life in America because African Americans have less access to health care - this is something we should all be ashamed of.
Obviously Math was not a strong subject for you. Look at Johnnorth post. The top 1% earn 27% of total income. They pay 40% of total income taxes.
There is no manipulation of statistics there.
And a person earning $1 million in Earned Income does not pay only $10,000 in taxes. They pay $320,361. (married filling jointly)
The person earning $40,000 pays $2360 (married filling jointly, no kids or other deductions)
The $1,000,000 earner brings in 25x more income. But they pay 135x more in taxes. Some free ride.
You just cannot forgive achievers for achieving.
Theo, my numbers were hypothetical to prove a point about manipulating stats. However, the numbers you cite are hypothetical as well because that assumes that they dont hire accountants that find them every loophole and deduction on the earth. I commend the wealthy that do pay their fair share, but the vastg majority do not. Same with corporations. Only 52 of the top 100 corporations paid any taxes last year - that is a free ride and does not even include the corporations that we subsidize like Exxon Mobil and Haliburton.
there are no loopholes when it is income. You even lose you personal deductios with income that high.
One more point - I am not misguided by envy - I am guided by justice and watching my parents suffer. My mom is in pain to the point she is in bed two weeks a month and will have a shorter life because she cannot afford care - while we are giving huge subsidies to Exxon Mobil. That is just plain wrong
everyone posting on salam's take should go back and review "cbo chief: no savings in dem plan" and all of the postings from yesterday. there's a lot more to this issue than who pays.
The CBO chief admits that the reason it says there is no savings is because there is no way of counting the proposed measures. Example - there are many parts of the plan focused on prevention - the CBO's estimated savings on these prevention parts = not calculable. There are parts of the plan that focus on creating competition, negotiating, and many, many other measures - the CBO calculation = not calculable. So all the talking points about the CBO are mute - they admit that it is not that there will not be savings, just that they cannot calculate what they will be.
wasn't concerned about exact accounting. what was interesting was the different ways of attacking this problem.
Just think, there would be no deficit if Bush/Cheney had not given Musharraf of Pakistan hundreds of billions to squander,Karzai another few hundred billion to bribe his cronies, and the greastest financial drain Iraq. Bremer might as well dumped billions out of a C-130 aircraft, (opps he did), and the other billions Al-Malaki has rat holed. Chalabi got a few billion too, so all tolled we could pay for every American to have a decent health care system, had that trillon in war mongering, and the trillions in tax cuts for billionaires to ship to Switzerland, been used to help Americans.
You do remember Americans don't you? They live in the United States, not the middle East and Asia.
And i am not talking about giving all those trillions away free to pay for healthcare, just to help bring the cost in line so what is left of the middle class can live like the Yuppies who destroyed our financial system did. Seems to me the Greatest Generation created the most Spoiled Generation, and boy have they messed things up.
Keatsian writes "Even though they paid into the system their entire lives and have health care through their employer, they cannot afford copays for medicine, visits, or a desperately needed surgery. "
Before I believe Keatsian I'd like the specifics of his parents' coverage.....
If you cannot afford the rising premiums for totally private health care, you'll probably be in favor of a public option in the healthcare legislation.
Where theres a will, theres a way.
Want to pay for universal healthcare?
Bring our troops home from the empire killer, Afghanistan.
The whole argument over the cost of the plan, the incalculable saving from prevention, a potential VAT solution, etc are all irrelevant in the context of where our tax dollars actually go.
Call me crazy, but I would much rather pay a bit of my neighbor's health care than pay for our military to kill people on the other side of the globe.
The only impediments are greedy special interests. The military-industrial complex, big pharma and the insurance giants would see their gravy train drying up.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Keatsian is typical of debaters who cant deal with the issue. He simply says my argument is a Republican one. Ron Wyden is not a Republican, Max Baucus is not a Republican..and they have a far better grasp than Keatsian who seems less moved by the health plan than some kind of class war. Those two Senators understand the impact of direct taxes on employment. Small businesses I know will simply have to lay off people to meet the tax hikes. So Keastian desire to wage class war ends up hurting the unemplyed - whse numbers will grow. If the Rangels have their way, watch national unemployment rise to 11,12, 13 per cent, with higher percentages in regions. Small businesses create most of the new jobs, Keastian.
It is class warfare - my mom's life is shortened because of the selfishness of those that have benefited the most from our system - my health is bad because i did not have health care for 10 years - African american babies are 50 percent likely to die in their first year of life because of no access to health care - people are dying - so this is a war already.
This article says nothing about the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010. The projected overall loss of government revenue from these tax cuts was over $1 trillion. Whatever the cost, this has to happen; and I'm growing jaded by politicians pointing to Europe - a system that WORKS - and telling us how bureaucratic and inefficient they are. If anyone has done their homework on this issue, you can see from dozens of accounts that they're clearly leading the world in providing healthcare for their citizens. And without the public OPTION (read: option), there is no disincentive to the insurance companies not to continue to raise premiums, which are in step with medical advances - but out of step with the rising cost of living.
I'm curious--at which point did all of you forget the founding principle of this nation: freedom. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for that--and I don't just mean the blood shed by our men and women in uniform. Speaking of that, how many of you have actually served in the US military? If you have, you remember what being a number within a socialized healthcare system is like. If you have not, you would have to imagine a doctor visit being something akin to going to the DMV on a Monday morning.
I empathize very much with the unfortunate in this country, but giving out money and benefits is not the answer. What is going to encourage these people to work harder, then? And don't tell me there is an excuse to fail, because in this country nobody has to do anything--not even fail. My parents were dirt poor with a few too many children. They worked hard, sacrificed, and now they pay out close to 1/2 their income to those who are too lazy/incompetent to do the same. People will only work hard in the face of adversity--it's ingrained in our genes, let nature play out.
If the government stopped stealing money from the "rich" in this country, they would have the opportunity to donate it at their will. Some of you may be skeptical and say they don't donate as it is. But, honestly, what's left to donate after you're punished for all your success? Give people their money back. The only thing you are entitled to is an education and defense (both from people outside of or located within this country).
What ever happened to survival of the fittest? Natural Selection? You Darwinist lefties want to continue to propagate the weak and destroy the strong. Can you see how this is going to bring down our civilization? In 50 years we'll be the Unites States of the People's Rebublic of China. Coddle and feel sorry for everything that won't take the time to take care of itself and we're runied....oh wait, that's what we're doing?
Take care of yourself and you won't need anyone to take care of you. Live a healthy lifestyle and you'll live a long time. Don't, and you've asked for what you receive.
I have a story.....please read.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.
--------------------------------------------
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK,
we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering,
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. Comments???
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.