70 percent tax on work

[Ursa Majoris]

I know overall my family has received extremely good care there.

My mother had breast cancer cured there, my BIL had prostate cancer cured there and my sister had an immediate life-saving operation there.

 

Stories like these don't fit with the propaganda though, so best not mention them.

[Azazello1313]

Az, would you mind telling us your solution?

 

I believe I have many times, and it seems like when I do everyone here pretty much agrees with me. to wit, end the tax subsidy for employer-based health care, while providing a refundable tax credit equal to the cost of a very basic health plan for anyone with insurance (which will enable the working poor to buy insurance, the very poor still have medicaid). so you have a new tax credit to insure the uninsured, offset by a tax increase on more expensive plans -- but more importantly, you've made individuals players in the economic decisions about the level of insurance they receive, which brings market forces to bear. regulate to require coverage of pre-existing conditions (though allowing fairly stiff penalties for anyone who lets their insurance lapse after an initial holiday period), but also allow portability when you change jobs or become unemployed, and allow competition across state lines. it's a thumbnail sketch, but I think this is a basic framework that would really work.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Azazello1313

[bpwallace49]

Ask Rovers how good it is.

 

EXACTLY

[Riffraff]

I spoke with an expatriot living in Germany and he said that the healthcare system works fine. Never gets a bill, gets treated in a timely manner, and is treated kindly by the physicians. And you can actually take extended time off work without fear of losing your job. Doctors defiinitely give too much bedrest time in Europe, but they do it to try and get the patient healthy. Novel concept.

 

Also, the U.S. is pretty much the only nation in the world that advertises to the general populous with commercials about what "might" be wrong with you. Kind of sad that the market society is peddling drugs in the mainstream.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Riffraff

[TimC]

I spoke with an expatriot living in Germany and he said that the healthcare system works fine. Never gets a bill, gets treated in a timely manner, and is treated kindly by the physicians. And you can actually take extended time off work without fear of losing your job. Doctors defiinitely give too much bedrest time in Europe, but they do it to try and get the patient healthy. Novel concept.

 

Also, the U.S. is pretty much the only nation in the world that advertises to the general populous with commercials about what "might" be wrong with you. Kind of sad that the market society is peddling drugs in the mainstream.

 

Does the doctor explain why he wants to invade the rest of Europe every 25 years or so though and have the world rebuild his country from scratch to be able to afford that free healthcare?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I believe I have many times, and it seems like when I do everyone here pretty much agrees with me. to wit, end the tax subsidy for employer-based health care, while providing a refundable tax credit equal to the cost of a very basic health plan for anyone with insurance (which will enable the working poor to buy insurance, the very poor still have medicaid). so you have a new tax credit to insure the uninsured, offset by a tax increase on more expensive plans -- but more importantly, you've made individuals players in the economic decisions about the level of insurance they receive, which brings market forces to bear. regulate to require coverage of pre-existing conditions (though allowing fairly stiff penalties for anyone who lets their insurance lapse after an initial holiday period), but also allow portability when you change jobs or become unemployed, and allow competition across state lines. it's a thumbnail sketch, but I think this is a basic framework that would really work.

 

I have heard that the concept of allowing competition across state lines might actually result in the opposite of the intended affect as insurance companies will consolidate being freed of state borders and there will be less and less competition and higher prices. Don't know if that argument carries any water however.

[Perchoutofwater]

I have heard that the concept of allowing competition across state lines might actually result in the opposite of the intended affect as insurance companies will consolidate being freed of state borders and there will be less and less competition and higher prices. Don't know if that argument carries any water however.

 

I've heard a lot of things, some of which don't bear repeating.

[Azazello1313]

I have heard that the concept of allowing competition across state lines might actually result in the opposite of the intended affect as insurance companies will consolidate being freed of state borders and there will be less and less competition and higher prices. Don't know if that argument carries any water however.

 

removing trade barriers increasing prices? seems awfully counterintuitive, but even if correct, the interstate aspect is one of the smaller peices of the puzzle.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

This article sort of refers to the idea of possible consequences of removing borders.

 

Basically, insurance companies will flock to whatever state has the less regulations (which from their viewpoint IS understandable) and this could be harmful to consumers.

 

I'm sure these issues could be addressed with federal regulations because we would be talking about interstate commerce then right?

[Ursa Majoris]

It's not just criticizing Obama, its criticizing policy that will hurt th US. If he would do somthing that made some sense, I would be happy to support him.

 

You will never get me to believe that:

 

You can cover more people and reduce the costs.

The governement will be better at taking care of us than competition.

Government interventions into any market help the market.

That you can bring up the poor by bringing down the rich.

 

Do something that helps everyone, not just democratic voters...

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Obama. In fact, just as with Bush, dissent is patriotic. The issue here though has to do with certain people playing both ends against the middle. In this particular case, if there had been no taxes involved, the beneficiaries would be welfare freeloaders at the expense of the taxpayers. With taxes involved, it's anti-incentive.

 

There's a difference between disagreement with policy and carping at everything based on whatever aspect presents itself.

[gbpfan1231]

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Obama. In fact, just as with Bush, dissent is patriotic. The issue here though has to do with certain people playing both ends against the middle. In this particular case, if there had been no taxes involved, the beneficiaries would be welfare freeloaders at the expense of the taxpayers. With taxes involved, it's anti-incentive.

 

There's a difference between disagreement with policy and carping at everything based on whatever aspect presents itself.

I think you are very wrong. I believe the intent was to point out that someone would be getting taxed at almost 80% for the the work it takes to double your income from the poverty line. The question is/was - is this right? Will people actually try to work that hard to give it all back?

 

I did not see any of you Obama nuthuggers answering that specific issue but I guess I am getting used the fact that nobody will offer up specifics.

[Azazello1313]

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Obama. In fact, just as with Bush, dissent is patriotic. The issue here though has to do with certain people playing both ends against the middle. In this particular case, if there had been no taxes involved, the beneficiaries would be welfare freeloaders at the expense of the taxpayers. With taxes involved, it's anti-incentive.

 

this is just plain silly. as if the only two options are, 1) give away a massive new entitlement to over half the country at exorbiant cost, or 2) only give it to the poor and steeply decrease the subsidy so that income earned between 100% and 200% of the poverty level is effectively taxed at 80%. if your basic framework dictates those are the only two options, then your basic framework is FUBAR, plain and simple.

[Ursa Majoris]

this is just plain silly. as if the only two options are, 1) give away a massive new entitlement to over half the country at exorbiant cost, or 2) only give it to the poor and steeply decrease the subsidy so that income earned between 100% and 200% of the poverty level is effectively taxed at 80%. if your basic framework dictates those are the only two options, then your basic framework is FUBAR, plain and simple.

Like I said, it's just an example. Because of this particular example, all these folks have suddenly become downtrodden poor people struggling to better themselves. Yesterday they were bling-loaded smokers with fancy rims and nineteen kids. Either way it's all Obama's fault.

[gbpfan1231]

Like I said, it's just an example. Because of this particular example, all these folks have suddenly become downtrodden poor people struggling to better themselves. Yesterday they were bling-loaded smokers with fancy rims and nineteen kids. Either way it's all Obama's fault.

Once again not even talking about the issue that was brought up - getting predictable and tiresome.

[westvirginia]

Like I said, it's just an example. Because of this particular example, all these folks have suddenly become downtrodden poor people struggling to better themselves. Yesterday they were bling-loaded smokers with fancy rims and nineteen kids. Either way it's all Obama's fault.

 

You are deliberately being obtuse to avoid defending the indefensible. Those at 200% of the poverty level are not the same folks that yesterday were "ling-loaded smokers with fancy rims and nineteen kids" and you know it. Az's point is more than valid. There are better ways to do this, and even if this was the way it was done the means curve is WAAAAAAAAAY too flippin' steep.

[yo mama]

this is just plain silly. as if the only two options are, 1) give away a massive new entitlement to over half the country at exorbiant cost, or 2) only give it to the poor and steeply decrease the subsidy so that income earned between 100% and 200% of the poverty level is effectively taxed at 80%. if your basic framework dictates those are the only two options, then your basic framework is FUBAR, plain and simple.

Your numbers are so F'd up that I can't take you seriously. First it was 70%. Now its 80%? And your article's tax math was about as straight forward as my small intestines. The fact of the matter is that the bulk to the taxation you're carping about (to borrow from Ursa) are income and payroll taxes that had to be paid anyways. Commingling those figures into the analysis only serves to exaggerate the tax impact attributed to the cost of providing health coverage.

 

Either you think the government should provide health care to the poor, or you don't. If you don't, then just say that. If you do, then someone has to pay for it. In attacking the Baucus plan you've abandoned core principles of fiscal conservatism (that benefits should be paid for with current tax revenues) and personal responsibility (that people should pay for their own benefits, to the extent they are able) in favor of a hypothetical "work motivation" gripe that is premised on purposefully exaggerated tax figures. You're relying on a dishonest article, and you used to be able to sniff that kind of stuff out Az. Lately you've become wildly obsessed with proving Obama wrong no matter how ridiculous the attack, and you've lost a lot of credibility my eyes because of it.

[Azazello1313]

Your numbers are so F'd up that I can't take you seriously. First it was 70%. Now its 80%? And your article's tax math was about as straight forward as my small intestines. The fact of the matter is that the bulk to the taxation you're carping about (to borrow from Ursa) are income and payroll taxes that had to be paid anyways. Commingling those figures into the analysis only serves to exaggerate the tax impact attributed to the cost of providing health coverage.

 

Either you think the government should provide health care to the poor, or you don't. If you don't, then just say that. If you do, then someone has to pay for it. In attacking the Baucus plan you've abandoned core principles of fiscal conservatism (that benefits should be paid for with current tax revenues) and personal responsibility (that people should pay for their own benefits, to the extent they are able) in favor of a hypothetical "work motivation" gripe that is premised on purposefully exaggerated tax figures. You're relying on a dishonest article, and you used to be able to sniff that kind of stuff out Az. Lately you've become wildly obsessed with proving Obama wrong no matter how ridiculous the attack, and you've lost a lot of credibility my eyes because of it.

 

wow when did you become all irrational and womanly like atomic? ok let's take this piece by piece.

 

First it was 70%. Now its 80%? And your article's tax math was about as straight forward as my small intestines.

 

the article I linked to roughly calculated 70%, then the paragraph I quoted saying it would really be closer to 80% was from harvard economist greg mankiw, here it is again for you: "Indeed, Jim seems to understate matters, as he includes only the employee half of the payroll tax. Including both the employee and employer halves, as economic theory says is appropriate, appears to give a marginal tax rate closer to 80 percent. And, of course, many states impose income and sales taxes as well, and these would further raise the overall marginal tax rate." if you have a basis for challenging that, go for it.

 

The fact of the matter is that the bulk to the taxation you're carping about (to borrow from Ursa) are income and payroll taxes that had to be paid anyways. Commingling those figures into the analysis only serves to exaggerate the tax impact attributed to the cost of providing health coverage.

 

well sure, obviously the income earned between 100% and 200% of the poverty level is effectively taxed at some rate under current law. I don't know what that rate is (feel free to enlighten me). I am certain it is WAAYY less than 70-80%. the steeply sliding subsidies in the baucus plan are what get it to that ridiculous level. how exactly is it dishonest to point that out?

 

Either you think the government should provide health care to the poor, or you don't. If you don't, then just say that. If you do, then someone has to pay for it.

 

oh mother-of-all-pathetic-strawmen.

 

In attacking the Baucus plan you've abandoned core principles of fiscal conservatism

 

[cre8tiff]

 

 

 

Talk about an uneven matchup. Yo Mama vrs. Az in a battle of brains is like Andre the Giant vrs. Tiny Tim in a cage match.

 

Edited October 8, 2009 by cre8tiff

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Your numbers are so F'd up that I can't take you seriously. First it was 70%. Now its 80%? And your article's tax math was about as straight forward as my small intestines. The fact of the matter is that the bulk to the taxation you're carping about (to borrow from Ursa) are income and payroll taxes that had to be paid anyways. Commingling those figures into the analysis only serves to exaggerate the tax impact attributed to the cost of providing health coverage.

 

Either you think the government should provide health care to the poor, or you don't. If you don't, then just say that. If you do, then someone has to pay for it. In attacking the Baucus plan you've abandoned core principles of fiscal conservatism (that benefits should be paid for with current tax revenues) and personal responsibility (that people should pay for their own benefits, to the extent they are able) in favor of a hypothetical "work motivation" gripe that is premised on purposefully exaggerated tax figures. You're relying on a dishonest article, and you used to be able to sniff that kind of stuff out Az. Lately you've become wildly obsessed with proving Obama wrong no matter how ridiculous the attack, and you've lost a lot of credibility my eyes because of it.

 

C'mon Az, you can do better. I was leaning toward your reasoning until I read yo mama's response.

 

 

Don't give up.

[yo mama]

Az, if you don't understand the tax impact of just the health care coverage then you shouldn't be throwing around scary sounding percentages. If you have a problem with expecting people to pay an increasing share of the benefits they consume as their ability to pay increases then you should consider switching parties.

 

You're carping (love that word) because the family of four won't take much more home in the way of after tax dollars if their gross goes from $24,000 to $48,000. But in our assumption this family has kids, just like you and me. Talk to any family of four living on $24,000 gross, with no health insurance for their kids, and ask them if they'd prefer $16,500 worth of health insurance or a lesser amount of pretax cash and see what they choose. The rational actor, and the responsible parent, will pick the insurance for their kids. If you are sincerely concerned with the well being of families earning between $24,000 to $48,000 you'd support the Baucus plan relative to the status quo. But from where I'm sitting you're willing to throw those families under the bus just to spit in the face of the administration's otherwise fiscally rational proposal.

Edited October 8, 2009 by yo mama

[bpwallace49]

Game . . . set . . . . and match to yo mama.

[westvirginia]

Az, if you don't understand the tax impact of just the health care coverage then you shouldn't be throwing around scary sounding percentages. If you have a problem with expecting people to pay an increasing share of the benefits they consume as their ability to pay increases then you should consider switching parties.

 

You're carping (love that word) because the family of four won't take much more home in the way of after tax dollars if their gross goes from $24,000 to $48,000. But in our assumption this family has kids, just like you and me. Talk to any family of four living on $24,000 gross, with no health insurance for their kids, and ask them if they'd prefer $16,500 worth of health insurance or a lesser amount of pretax cash and see what they choose. The rational actor, and the responsible parent, will pick the insurance for their kids. If you are sincerely concerned with the well being of families earning between $24,000 to $48,000 you'd support the Baucus plan relative to the status quo. But from where I'm sitting you're willing to throw those families under the bus just to spit in the face of the administration's otherwise fiscally rational proposal.

 

Anybody stupid enough to have two kids with combined income of $24K is gonna take the cash every time. Just sayin'...

[Azazello1313]

Talk to any family of four living on $24,000 gross, with no health insurance for their kids, and ask them if they'd prefer $16,500 worth of health insurance or a lesser amount of pretax cash and see what they choose. The rational actor, and the responsible parent, will pick the insurance for their kids. If you are sincerely concerned with the well being of families earning between $24,000 to $48,000 you'd support the Baucus plan relative to the status quo. But from where I'm sitting you're willing to throw those families under the bus just to spit in the face of the administration's otherwise fiscally rational proposal.

 

it's a GREAT deal for the family of four with income of $24k with no ambition to move any higher. it's a crappy deal for the family of four who earns $24K but wants to improve their station, because let's say they want to double their income by, say -- getting another job, working more hours, getting a promotion, sending another family member into the workplace, or some combination thereof -- a hugh portion of the fruit of that labor goes straight to the government. why on earth would anyone take a second job to get their family out of poverty when that $8 an hour job nets them $1.50 an hour in extra after-tax income? and how the f*ck is it that none of you on the left seem to see this as any sort of problem whatsover? hey, we're helping the poor, 'nuff said.

 

and by the way, I think perhaps you can stop blasting me for not providing the intricacies of that 70-80%, because it's all explicitly spelled out in that original "dishonest" article I linked to. here it is for you again:

 

According to CBO, family coverage in 2016 is likely to cost about $14,400 under the so-called “silver option” in the health-care reform plan sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. In the Baucus plan, a family of four at the poverty line (about $24,000 in 2016) would have pay to about $1,400 toward coverage, with the federal government paying the other $13,000 on their behalf. In addition, the government would also provide $3,500 to reduce the family’s deductible and co-payment costs for health services. Thus, the new entitlement provided by the Baucus bill would be worth a whopping $16,500 for a family at the poverty line.

 

As incomes rise, however, the Baucus bill cuts the value of the entitlement. A family with an income at twice the poverty line, or $48,000 in 2016, would get $9,072 in federal assistance for coverage — still a substantial sum. But it’s $7,400 less than the family would get if they earned half as much. The Baucus plan thus imposes an implicit marginal tax rate of about 30 percent ($7,400/$24,000) on wages earned by families in this income range.

 

And that would come on top of the high implicit taxes already built into current law. Low-wage families with children also get the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC boosts incomes for those with the very lowest wages, but it is also phased-out as incomes rise. Past a certain threshold (about $21,400 in 2016), the EITC is reduced by $0.21 for every additional $1 earned. Throw in the individual income tax rate (15 percent) and payroll taxes (7.65 percent), and the effective, implicit tax rate for workers between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty line would quickly approach 70 percent — not even counting food stamps and housing vouchers.

 

so the baucus plan phase-out takes 30 cents of every dollar, the EITC phase-out takes 21 cents, federal income tax takes 15 cents, and payroll taxes take 8 cents. that doesn't even count food stamp phaseouts, housing vouchers, and other federal assistance that a family at 200% of the poverty level in income either can't qualify for or qualifies at some phased out amount.

 

it would appear that getting out of poverty into the middle class is already steeply taxed at close to 50%, but the baucus bill will make a bad situation in that regard seriously worse -- adding an additional 30%. that is grotesque. it is a poverty trap, that does nothing but perpetuate an ugly dependency. and you're here defending it, while accusing ME of being knee-jerk. wow.

[Perchoutofwater]

it would appear that getting out of poverty into the middle class is already steeply taxed at close to 50%, but the baucus bill will make a bad situation in that regard seriously worse -- adding an additional 30%. that is grotesque. it is a poverty trap, that does nothing but perpetuate an ugly dependency. and you're here defending it, while accusing ME of being knee-jerk. wow.

 

They are not interested in a hand up, they'd rather give handouts with their feet firmly planted on their voters heads to insure the cycle continues.

[Avernus]

I have had the pleasure of being in hospitals/emergency care centers in England and Ireland. The waiting rooms weren't much different than those I have seen here, and the doctors were just as knowledgeable and seemed genuinely interested in my best interests. Even though they were going to be able to get me in fairly quickly for an outpatient surgery (I declined, as it would require a 2-3 week bedrest stay, and potentially longer before I could fly back to the states, and it was not life threatening, so just decided to deal with pain and get back to the US to handle the issue), I do know there can be long waits for non-life threatening surgeries, etc.

 

I know overall my family has received extremely good care there.

 

true, but we're talking about a different class of people between where you were in Europe and where we are in the States.....

 

and I mean on both parts - the doctor and the patient.....