Creativity Challenge: How can we reduce health care costs in America?

[Renee in NC]

The 39% tax rate was only for the highest incomes who currently pay 35%. I think some, not all, Democrats have proposed keeping the Bush tax for everyone except the highest income tax bracket. This highest income bracket used to pay 70-90% in the 1960s and did quite well. 39% rate is still historically low and nothing compared to the 70-90% rates on that highest income bracket in the 1960s IMO.

 

And the 39% rate is ONLY for the taxable income over $373K, not all of the income.

[TravelingChris]

Renee in FL states "I dare say that if they had come from a more humble background, rife with divorces, abuse, financial stress, etc., they would probably not be where they are today."

 

Well that isn't true in my family nor with many others we know. We are military and we know many other military officer families where both husband and wife came from limited circumstances. Both dh and I were Pell Grant eligible and receiving for the full amount in college. My parents were college educated but my parents were immigrants and never accumalated much money. Then my father died when I was 13 and my mother died when I was 23. My dh's parents had neither finished high school because of economic reasons. His father worked two jobs, milk truck driver and school bus driver, throughout his whole childhood into his adulthood. Neither of us were privileged. We worked hard on our education and rose up in income because we work hard and have certain talents. No, I do not see any reason we should be supporting others. We have a good income but we are not wealthy at all. No, those tax hikes wouldn't be affecting us now but could very well in a few years if the tax cuts aren't extended. How would that affect us? Less money to give away, less money to invest, less money to spend in the economy.

[Renee in NC]

No one is better than anyone else because of their income level. I think what gets people riled up (well me anyway ) is the notion that ALL poor people are downtrodden and deserving of being lifted up by those who have lived their lives trying to play by the rules. Some people are laid low through their own devices, and they should not be sanctified any more than the deserving rich should be villified

 

My beliefs and feelings about the world is that all people are deserving of basic food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. I do think that falls under "general welfare."

 

It isn't about being sanctified, but ALL people are deserving of respect and dignity no matter what their choices/mistakes/weaknesses/failings.

 

I imagine that is where we just can't agree.

[kokotg]

Both dh and I were Pell Grant eligible and receiving for the full amount in college.

No, I do not see any reason we should be supporting others.

 

But you didn't have any problem with other taxpayers helping you go to college so that you could enjoy that kind of economic mobility?

 

Economic mobility was more possible in the past because of government programs that supported it and helped create a strong middle class--stuff like pell grants, stuff like the GI bill. People have trouble getting ahead if they can't afford college. People have trouble getting ahead if they have no insurance and crippling health care costs, too.

[Mejane]

My beliefs and feelings about the world is that all people are deserving of basic food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. I do think that falls under "general welfare."

 

It isn't about being sanctified, but ALL people are deserving of respect and dignity no matter what their choices/mistakes/weaknesses/failings.

 

I imagine that is where we just can't agree.

 

As a former social worker I've seen many people who really were not deserving of respect. They did not respect themselves, other people, or the system that supported them. It pains me to say I don't agree that people deserve respect simply because they're people, but for some people... frankly, it's a stretch.

[Snowfall]

But you didn't have any problem with other taxpayers helping you go to college so that you could enjoy that kind of economic mobility?

 

Economic mobility was more possible in the past because of government programs that supported it and helped create a strong middle class--stuff like pell grants, stuff like the GI bill. People have trouble getting ahead if they can't afford college. People have trouble getting ahead if they have no insurance and crippling health care costs, too.

 

That's what I was thinking. Everyone's always perfectly okay with the taxpayer funded social benefits they get. I was NOT eligible for Pell Grants. Neither will my children be. I do not, however, feel like I or my parents unfairly supported the educational achievements of people who DID/DO/WILL get them. I am happy to financially support the social welfare program that funded part of your education, transientChris, despite never directly benefiting from it myself. I will be equally happy to support a social welfare program that funds health care for everyone. :)

[jld]

That's what I was thinking. Everyone's always perfectly okay with the taxpayer funded social benefits they get. I was NOT eligible for Pell Grants. Neither will my children be. I do not, however, feel like I or my parents unfairly supported the educational achievements of people who DID/DO/WILL get them. I am happy to financially support the social welfare program that funded part of your education, transientChris, despite never directly benefiting from it myself. I will be equally happy to support a social welfare program that funds health care for everyone. :)

 

You are very kind.:)

[Renee in NC]

As a former social worker I've seen many people who really were not deserving of respect. They did not respect themselves, other people, or the system that supported them. It pains me to say I don't agree that people deserve respect simply because they're people, but for some people... frankly, it's a stretch.

 

I feel that way about my neighbor across the street at times, so I totally understand where you are coming from. Sometimes it *is* a stretch! However, it doesn't change my responsibility towards other people or what is expected of me.

 

ETA: I do ask you to think about one thing - how did that person get that way? Wasn't she/he once a baby who was loved by someone? A little girl who liked to dance through the kitchen like mine does? A little boy who wanted to be a firefighter or a police officer? When did they go from innocent child to the way you saw them? Were they born that way or made that way through the life they led?

Edited November 8, 2010 by Renee in FL

[jld]

The 39% tax rate was only for the highest incomes who currently pay 35%. I think some, not all, Democrats have proposed keeping the Bush tax for everyone except the highest income tax bracket. This highest income bracket used to pay 70-90% in the 1960s and did quite well. 39% rate is still historically low and nothing compared to the 70-90% rates on that highest income bracket in the 1960s IMO.

 

I really think it would be a good idea to reinstate these tax rates on the highest income bracket. They can afford it, and probably wouldn't even miss it. They already have everything they need and probably could reasonably want. And their contribution would allow the children of less fortunate people to go to bed with full stomachs, a good educational experience waiting for them the next day or later in life, and quality health care available if needed. The top income bracket could feel very good, very patriotic, about what they've made possible. :)

 

In addition, this extra tax revenue would be an excellent start on paying down the national debt.

[MSNative]

I really think it would be a good idea to reinstate these tax rates on the highest income bracket. They can afford it, and probably wouldn't even miss it. They already have everything they need and probably could reasonably want. And their contribution would allow the children of less fortunate people to go to bed with full stomachs, a good educational experience waiting for them the next day or later in life, and quality health care available if needed. The top income bracket could feel very good, very patriotic, about what they've made possible. :)

 

In addition, this extra tax revenue would be an excellent start on paying down the national debt.

 

Nope, they'd leave. That's what happened in the UK they tried to get the rich to pay more. The top income bracket already pays an enormous amount of the taxes in this country. The top 1% pays 25% of the taxes. That is a huge amount to ask one percent of the country to pay. 47% of American households pay 0% - nada. Does that really sound fair? Would you think it was fair if the bank decided that you would pay 25% of the mortgages for your neighborhood, while half your neighbors got to live mortgage free? It's easy to be generous with other people's money. Doesn't make it right or constitutional.

 

FYI - the top 1% already do give a lot outside of taxes. Already, the Top 50 donors, over the course of their lifetimes, have thrown a dizzying $65 billion at charitable causes. - Business Week

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I really think it would be a good idea to reinstate these tax rates on the highest income bracket. They can afford it, and probably wouldn't even miss it. They already have everything they need and probably could reasonably want. And their contribution would allow the children of less fortunate people to go to bed with full stomachs, a good educational experience waiting for them the next day or later in life, and quality health care available if needed. The top income bracket could feel very good, very patriotic, about what they've made possible. :)

 

In addition, this extra tax revenue would be an excellent start on paying down the national debt.

 

:iagree: And honestly, if it helped our country I would not mind if all of the Bush tax cuts were gone. Our economy did pretty well without them before. Also, as soon as we went to war, I think the tax cuts should have been rescinded IMHO to help pay for the war. In previous wars measures were taken to help pay for them instead of bankrupting the country IMHO.

[Mejane]

ETA: I do ask you to think about one thing - how did that person get that way?

 

 

 

 

I have a lot of compassion for people who had hard childhoods, but I've also seen so many turn their lives around that it's difficult for me to validate that as an excuse to make bad choices for the rest of one's life.

 

My mom and her sibs were abused by their alcoholic father. He beat and raped their mother in their presence. Mom abhorred when people used their past to justify having a crappy life. She never drank and she never touched us. I guess she was just a strong person. I know some people don't have that inner strength.

 

I think we do people a disservice by making excuses for them and not expecting them to improve their lives. With support and assistance, most people can rise above their circumstances.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Nope, they'd leave. That's what happened in the UK they tried to get the rich to pay more. The top income bracket already pays an enormous amount of the taxes in this country. The top 1% pays 25% of the taxes. That is a huge amount to ask one percent of the country to pay. 47% of American households pay 0% - nada. Does that really sound fair? Would you think it was fair if the bank decided that you would pay 25% of the mortgages for your neighborhood, while half your neighbors got to live mortgage free? It's easy to be generous with other people's money. Doesn't make it right or constitutional.

 

FYI - the top 1% already do give a lot outside of taxes. Already, the Top 50 donors, over the course of their lifetimes, have thrown a dizzying $65 billion at charitable causes. - Business Week

 

I think it is fair for the wealthy to pay more and I am not convinced they would leave since they did not leave in the 1960s when the income taxes were significantly higher IMO.

 

I think it is fair since the top 20% of the population controls 84% of the wealth in this country and it is much worse now than it was previously IMO. The middle class is is being worn down as well.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/how-americans-spread-the-wealth/1125343

 

As far as those not paying taxes, IMHO it is sad that there are so many impoverished people in are country and that middle class is going the way of the do-do bird:(. Of course, IMHO if there are some who should not qualify for zero taxes, then reform it I say:)

Edited November 8, 2010 by priscilla

[Murphy101]

:iagree: And honestly, if it helped our country I would not mind if all of the Bush tax cuts were gone. Our economy did pretty well without them before. Also, as soon as we went to war, I think the tax cuts should have been rescinded IMHO to help pay for the war. In previous wars measures were taken to help pay for them instead of bankrupting the country IMHO.

 

Ahem. Conflict. "war" used to require approval of congress, just so measures could be better appropriated for such situations. But that is another issue.;)

 

I think people wouldn't mind paying taxes or more taxes if the govt was far, far, far more transparent about where the money would go and if for the most part people had felt they could count on those funds being returned in various ways later in life (whether it be the health care they want, in house hospice for elderly, maternity leave, affordable quality colleges and so forth).

 

Right now, the biggest hurdle our govt has is regaining the public trust.

 

People tend to hang onto their money tight around folks they don't trust.

[Mejane]

Actually, you are not a social worker anymore? You said you WERE one before being a SAHM.

 

I see. Somehow *I* am the one that is holier than thou for not agreeing with someone saying that they feel they have the right or the moral ground to judge people as not worthy of basic humane care? Wow. That's real... Illogical.:001_huh:

 

As for how necessary social workers are, govt programs and the poor gave you a job, so that road travels both ways.

 

Once a social worker, always a social worker. As far as the poor or needy 'giving' me a job, like cancer researchers, social workers are some of the only people who daily wish their jobs would be made obsolete.

 

Again, you're not reading my posts carefully. I never said people don't deserve services. I said some people don't deserve respect.

[Mama Geek]

Of course. This is true no matter of their income is $20,000 or $100,000. We can point to people at both ends of the extreme.

 

Most people who receive gov't assistance are not lazy, uneducated, poor decision makers, either - I bet you wouldn't know if people received assistance because in general they aren't broadcasting it to the world. I would dare say that many of them are very responsible with the money they *do* have.

 

At the same time, I do realize that most people who are wealthier work hard, have a great deal of education, and are by nature financially conservative and responsible with their money. I don't begrudge them that. I do take issue with the idea that somehow they are *better* simply by virtue of their income. Aside from the occasional rags to riches stories, I would dare say most people in the higher income brackets did not have to fight their way there, either.

 

I for one came from a single parent home (my parents divorced when I was 13.) My father was not any help financially. We had enough money to have food on the table, clothes on our backs, and a roof over our head but just barely. I have come a long way from that. I am not in the top tax bracket, but I have been in the next one down from it. My dh and I fought for it every step of the way.

[kokotg]

47% of American households pay 0% - nada. Does that really sound fair? Would you think it was fair if the bank decided that you would pay 25% of the mortgages for your neighborhood, while half your neighbors got to live mortgage free?

 

That's oversimplifying. You're talking only about federal income taxes. That 47% does pay medicare and medicaid, sales tax, property tax, state and local income taxes, and social security...social security is actually a regressive tax; i.e. lower income people pay a higher percentage of their earnings for it than higher income people.

 

People on all sides of the debate like to talk about taxes in terms of "fairness" but really I think the actual decision making process has less to do with what is fair and more to do with what makes the economy work the best. A progressive tax structure isn't about sticking it to the rich, it's about ensuring a strong middle class so that people have the income to BUY the stuff businesses are selling. It's the same reason Henry Ford paid his workers more and sold his cars cheaper; it wasn't because he was a nice guy (he wasn't)...it was because then there were more people who could afford his cars. There are disagreements and arguments about where to strike a balance of course, but ultimately I don't think the policy makers who are setting tax structure are nearly as sentimental about the whole thing as us regular folks who pay them tend to be. I'm no economist, of course (though if I were a US economist the odds are quite high that I would favor a progressive tax structure ;)), but that's how I see it.

[Ester Maria]

I think it is fair for the wealthy to pay more and I am not convinced they would leave since they did not leave in the 1960s when the income taxes were significantly higher IMO.

If you have only $1000 and I have only $100, by paying 15% tax on that money, you're already paying more than me, and the principle of the wealthy contributing more is already respected. In fact, not only you're paying more, but your tax is larger than my initial sum before taxation.

 

However, if we were to make a model of such extreme progressive taxation with an attempt of "punishing" you for being rich (because that's what it comes down to) up to the point of requiring a third or a half of your money only for the taxes, in my opinion that crosses the line that lies between "the wealthy contributing more" and "the wealthy being ripped off for being wealthy". I agree that the wealthier should contribute more (making a fixed sum would be unfair, and perhaps we can add a few percents along the line as we go up, but without going extremely progressive) - but this is stealing.

[Murphy101]

Once a social worker, always a social worker. As far as the poor or needy 'giving' me a job, like cancer researchers, social workers are some of the only people who daily wish their jobs would be made obsolete.

 

Again, you're not reading my posts carefully. I never said people don't deserve services. I said some people don't deserve respect.

 

if you'd go back and reread my posts, you'd see that. I doubt you will, though, as it seems more important to you to judge me. (shrug)

 

Nope. I'm more than willing to believe I misunderstood you. You were writing in response to Renee. Who was equating respect in term of basic human dignity, as in deserving of food, clothing and shelter.

 

You never wrote that you were speaking on different terms. In fact, in previous posts, you listed examples of people you thought should be given a kind of less than care, unwed mothers of multiple children and the obese and smokers. (who by the way DO usually pay much higher premiums, for that matter so do women who want maternity coverage)

 

So if I misunderstood and you are somehow more benevolent than your words suggest, I'm mighty glad to hear it.:)

 

My beliefs and feelings about the world is that all people are deserving of basic food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. I do think that falls under "general welfare."

 

It isn't about being sanctified, but ALL people are deserving of respect and dignity no matter what their choices/mistakes/weaknesses/failings.

 

As a former social worker I've seen many people who really were not deserving of respect. They did not respect themselves, other people, or the system that supported them. It pains me to say I don't agree that people deserve respect simply because they're people, but for some people... frankly, it's a stretch.

[Mejane]

 

In fact, in previous posts, you listed examples of people you thought should be given a kind of less than care, unwed mothers of multiple children and the obese and smokers. (who by the way DO usually pay much higher premiums, for that matter so do women who want maternity coverage)

 

So if I misunderstood and you are somehow more benevolent than your words suggest, I'm mighty glad to hear it.:)

 

 

umm no, that was not me. Point to jane.

 

I think my posts to Renee are clearly about respect. I say nothing about denying basic human services to anyone.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Mejane

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

If you have only $1000 and I have only $100, by paying 15% tax on that money, you're already paying more than me, and the principle of the wealthy contributing more is already respected. In fact, not only you're paying more, but your tax is larger than my initial sum before taxation.

 

However, if we were to make a model of such extreme progressive taxation with an attempt of "punishing" you for being rich (because that's what it comes down to) up to the point of requiring a third or a half of your money only for the taxes, in my opinion that crosses the line that lies between "the wealthy contributing more" and "the wealthy being ripped off for being wealthy". I agree that the wealthier should contribute more (making a fixed sum would be unfair, and perhaps we can add a few percents along the line as we go up, but without going extremely progressive) - but this is stealing.

 

Yes but going from 35% back to 39% income tax for the highest incomes is not outrageous or unfair or punishing or extreme since it is only returning to a 4% higher tax which is still very low compared to the income tax rates in the 1960s which were boom times.

[kokotg]

As an example, the same people who decry the unfairness of a progressive income tax are generally big proponents of lowering the capital gains tax, even though long term capital gains taxes are lower than the tax on earned income. To me it seems less fair to pay a higher percentage of the income you earn by working in taxes than the income you earn by....having money to start with. The argument in favor of lower capital gains taxes isn't that it's more fair; it's that it's better for the economy because it encourages investment. Again, disclaimer, that's my very lay-person understanding of it. DH and I sold a house in Boston at exactly the right time a few years ago and made a whole bunch of money. We made this money because we got lucky with our timing, not because we had worked for it. But we didn't owe a cent of taxes on it. It doesn't seem fair to me that, had I earned the same money by getting an extra job and working 80 hours a week, I would have paid 25 or 36% of it in taxes, but I paid nothing because I sat in a house for 3 years. But that's how our tax structure is set up.

[Haiku]

ETA: I do ask you to think about one thing - how did that person get that way? Wasn't she/he once a baby who was loved by someone? A little girl who liked to dance through the kitchen like mine does? A little boy who wanted to be a firefighter or a police officer? When did they go from innocent child to the way you saw them? Were they born that way or made that way through the life they led?

 

I used to work at a summer camp for kids who generally come from low socioeconimic strata. I got to know these kids pretty well over the years, and many of these kids had huge behavior issues at home and school, got in trouble with the law, used drugs or alcohol, got into fights, and generally caused all kinds of mayhem. But when they came to camp, an environment dedicated to loving them, warts and all, we got to see them as they truly were: kids who wanted love, kids who had love to give, kids who just wanted to be happy and have fun.

 

I'm sure some/many of these kids grew up to be the kind of people the earlier poster has no respect for. I find it heartbreaking that someone would look at another person and deem them worthless. :(

 

Tara

[MSNative]

That's oversimplifying. You're talking only about federal income taxes. That 47% does pay medicare and medicaid, sales tax, property tax, state and local income taxes, and social security...social security is actually a regressive tax; i.e. lower income people pay a higher percentage of their earnings for it than higher income people.

 

People on all sides of the debate like to talk about taxes in terms of "fairness" but really I think the actual decision making process has less to do with what is fair and more to do with what makes the economy work the best. A progressive tax structure isn't about sticking it to the rich, it's about ensuring a strong middle class so that people have the income to BUY the stuff businesses are selling. It's the same reason Henry Ford paid his workers more and sold his cars cheaper; it wasn't because he was a nice guy (he wasn't)...it was because then there were more people who could afford his cars. There are disagreements and arguments about where to strike a balance of course, but ultimately I don't think the policy makers who are setting tax structure are nearly as sentimental about the whole thing as us regular folks who pay them tend to be. I'm no economist, of course (though if I were a US economist the odds are quite high that I would favor a progressive tax structure ;)), but that's how I see it.

 

Don't forget about tax credits though.

 

"The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

And I disagree that a progressive tax rate is not about sticking it to the rich. It is. As was previously mentioned, if we all pay 20%, then the rich are paying far more dollar sum than the middle class. I am a trained economist - not that it matters, but since you mentioned it I had to bring it up. ;) Progressive taxes hit small business hardest which does not expand the middle class.

 

 

As an example, the same people who decry the unfairness of a progressive income tax are generally big proponents of lowering the capital gains tax, even though long term capital gains taxes are lower than the tax on earned income. To me it seems less fair to pay a higher percentage of the income you earn by working in taxes than the income you earn by....having money to start with. The argument in favor of lower capital gains taxes isn't that it's more fair; it's that it's better for the economy because it encourages investment. Again, disclaimer, that's my very lay-person understanding of it. DH and I sold a house in Boston at exactly the right time a few years ago and made a whole bunch of money. We made this money because we got lucky with our timing, not because we had worked for it. But we didn't owe a cent of taxes on it. It doesn't seem fair to me that, had I earned the same money by getting an extra job and working 80 hours a week, I would have paid 25 or 36% of it in taxes, but I paid nothing because I sat in a house for 3 years. But that's how our tax structure is set up.

 

True - in a sense. You were lucky because you sold at a good time. Many did not. What happened was that you assumed risk and it turned out lucky. Many people did not. If people do not have the chance of getting rewarded for risk, they won't take it. The higher the tax on capital gains, the less investment there will be. Less investment = less economic growth = fewer jobs...

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

And I disagree that a progressive tax rate is not about sticking it to the rich. It is. As was previously mentioned, if we all pay 20%, then the rich are paying far more dollar sum than the middle class. I am a trained economist - not that it matters, but since you mentioned it I had to bring it up. ;) Progressive taxes hit small business hardest which does not expand the middle class.

 

True - in a sense. You were lucky because you sold at a good time. Many did not. What happened was that you assumed risk and it turned out lucky. Many people did not. If people do not have the chance of getting rewarded for risk, they won't take it. The higher the tax on capital gains, the less investment there will be. Less investment = less economic growth = fewer jobs...

 

IMHO we have had the lowest income tax rates for about 10 years now plus much lower capital gains taxes and where are the jobs and the trickle down? Honestly, IMHO I think it has been mostly a trickle up this past decade.

[kokotg]

D

 

And I disagree that a progressive tax rate is not about sticking it to the rich. It is. As was previously mentioned, if we all pay 20%, then the rich are paying far more dollar sum than the middle class.

 

I'm not making an argument as to whether a progressive tax structure DOES stick it to the rich, though, I'm just saying that's not the purpose of it. And Teddy Roosevelt agrees with me ;)

 

People can and do argue about whether a progressive tax structure does what it is supposed to do or not, of course.

 

 

True - in a sense. You were lucky because you sold at a good time. Many did not. What happened was that you assumed risk and it turned out lucky. Many people did not. If people do not have the chance of getting rewarded for risk, they won't take it. The higher the tax on capital gains, the less investment there will be. Less investment = less economic growth = fewer jobs...

 

But that's my point; you're making an economic argument in favor of lower taxes on investments, not one based on fairness. To me, it seems much fairer to reward hard work with lower taxes than a propensity for risk taking or, in my case, dumb luck. I bought the house because I needed a house to live in; I sold it because I wanted to move. If I were to ask you, divorced from this conversation, which was a more noble attribute and more worthy of reward: being a hard worker or enjoying gambling, what would you say?

 

My point is that conservative economists and liberal economists are, generally speaking, all arguing about what works best for the economy, not making moral judgments about fairness and right and wrong. They disagree on what works best, but that's where the argument really lies--not in what's more "fair"

Edited November 8, 2010 by kokotg

[kokotg]

To be clear (and I worry I'm not being, because I'm on my second glass of wine), I'm not arguing the economics either way (right now), I'm arguing about the rhetoric (because I'm a trained literary critic ;))--that I find it disingenuous (on both sides).

Edited November 8, 2010 by kokotg

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

To be clear (and I worry I'm not being, because I'm on my second glass of wine), I'm not arguing the economics either way (right now), I'm arguing about the rhetoric (because I'm a trained literary critic ;))--that I find it disingenuous (on both sides).

 

Well I am the genuine thing;):D

[kokotg]

Well I am the genuine thing;):D

 

Oh! See?--unclear! I meant the rhetoric from politicians--not here!

[MSNative]

I'm not making an argument as to whether a progressive tax structure DOES stick it to the rich, though, I'm just saying that's not the purpose of it. And Teddy Roosevelt agrees with me ;)

 

People can and do argue about whether a progressive tax structure does what it is supposed to do or not, of course.

 

But that's my point; you're making an economic argument in favor of lower taxes on investments, not one based on fairness. To me, it seems much fairer to reward hard work with lower taxes than a propensity for risk taking or, in my case, dumb luck. I bought the house because I needed a house to live in; I sold it because I wanted to move. If I were to ask you, divorced from this conversation, which was a more noble attribute and more worthy of reward: being a hard worker or enjoying gambling, what would you say?

 

You call it gambling, I call it investing. You invested in real estate, paid property taxes, took ultimate responsibility for it. Plus, unless you took that money and reinvested it in another home in another community, you would be taxed on those gains. Guess what? I did the same thing you did and lost money on our house sale? Does that mean you owe me some of the money you made? Absolutely not.

 

Do you consider investing gambling? I don't. I spend time researching each of my funds, cds, advisors, etc. Plus, that money is going to companies that use it to encourage economic growth (or make bad choices and I'll lose money on those stocks. No guarantees.) I don't put it on the same par at all with going to Vegas and putting it all on red. BTW, how did you earn the money to pay for that house? By working hard. It didn't just fall into your lap and get paid for by the mortgage fairy.

 

Ask yourself, would you invest in stocks if you didn't have a chance of making a return on your investment? Would you buy a home if you knew you had no chance of making any money on it? Probably not. That interest (or capital gains) is a payment for your time and your risk and your opportunity cost - all of which are valuable economic assets.

 

"To me, it seems much fairer to reward hard work with lower taxes" I couldn't agree more. That's why I don't think a progressive tax structure is fair. I totally agree with you that hard work is more noble than gambling. I also think that when people work hard and save hard, they shouldn't be expected to be piggy banks for everyone else.

[MSNative]

To be clear (and I worry I'm not being, because I'm on my second glass of wine), I'm not arguing the economics either way (right now), I'm arguing about the rhetoric (because I'm a trained literary critic ;))--that I find it disingenuous (on both sides).

 

 

See I knew we had something in common. I'm on my second glass of wine, too! You know, we'd be so much hipper if we were having this debate in a cool winery. WTM Board field trip!!! ;)

[kokotg]

See I knew we had something in common. I'm on my second glass of wine, too! You know, we'd be so much hipper if we were having this debate in a cool winery. WTM Board field trip!!! ;)

 

We also both have three boys, I see. I imagine the war stories about life with three boys could unite us more than disagreements about economics could divide us ;)

[MSNative]

We also both have three boys, I see. I imagine the war stories about life with three boys could unite us more than disagreements about economics could divide us ;)

 

LOL! Raising my -second and final or Monday will be really bad- glass to you, fellow mother of three boys. :cheers2: Drat, we need a wine toasting emoticon.

[jld]

:iagree: And honestly, if it helped our country I would not mind if all of the Bush tax cuts were gone. Our economy did pretty well without them before. Also, as soon as we went to war, I think the tax cuts should have been rescinded IMHO to help pay for the war. In previous wars measures were taken to help pay for them instead of bankrupting the country IMHO.

 

I totally agree, and if the Repubs won't drop the tax cuts for the top 2%, then they should all be cancelled. It would be sad, though, for the people in the lower brackets to lose that money. It's needed in these times.

 

I also think there should have been a War Tax that we paid every time we bought something from the beginning of the wars until they're truly wound down. That would have made us think harder about getting into them in the first place, and would make us think even now about how long we want to stay in them, and to what extent.

 

Families are really hurting right now. I heard that one out of every 7 American adults is on food stamps, and one of every four children. Man, I had no idea! And people are losing their homes, and jobs, and probably wondering what kind of future they'll ever be able to put together now. These are rough times. The wealthy could step up and pay higher taxes and everyone would be grateful. They're the only ones who can afford it, anyway; the poor certainly don't have the money, and the middle class is just hanging on. Our country isn't going to look the same if there isn't some relief, real relief.

 

You know, I didn't know when this conversation started that some people might be okay with just letting people die if they couldn't pay for health care, or that people would put a tax cut in front of a quality life for themselves and others. But I'm getting a different picture of my fellow Americans now, probably a more accurate picture than I had before. I really thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, for showing who you are and where you stand.

[MotherGoose]

I really think it would be a good idea to reinstate these tax rates on the highest income bracket. They can afford it, and probably wouldn't even miss it. They already have everything they need and probably could reasonably want. And their contribution would allow the children of less fortunate people to go to bed with full stomachs, a good educational experience waiting for them the next day or later in life, and quality health care available if needed. The top income bracket could feel very good, very patriotic, about what they've made possible. :)

 

In addition, this extra tax revenue would be an excellent start on paying down the national debt.

 

I have a real problem with anyone deciding that someone else has "everything they need and could reasonably want" and therefore they have the right to take money from them, with a gun, and give it to someone else. Is there no respect for private ownership of anything? Especially when, in many cases, the money is going to fund ridiculous pet projects of lawmakers, government waste, fraud, and yes, to give money to people who could be working. Not to say some don't truly need help, but I think the mindset in this country should turn back to accepting charity being shameful and something to be avoided as much as possible, instead of people feeling it's their right to take this money from "the rich" because "they don't need it." I'm seeing a lot of class/wealth envy here. Don't think that helps anyone, but it's surely what our government wants to promote.

[MSNative]

 

You know, I didn't know when this conversation started that some people might be okay with just letting people die if they couldn't pay for health care, or that people would put a tax cut in front of a quality life for themselves and others. But I'm getting a different picture of my fellow Americans now, probably a more accurate picture than I had before. I really thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, for showing who you are and where you stand.

 

I didn't read anyone who said they'd be ok with people dying. I've read people mention medicare and other ways of fixing health care. Just because some of us don't think the gov't should be in charge of our medical care doesn't mean that we think people should die on the streets.

[MotherGoose]

I would also think that the definition of a quality life varies from person to person, and includes many things that, in our grandparent's generation were merely wants, but are now considered "needs." I don't want to pay for that.

[Sara R]

There aren't any easy answers.

 

Two things that have increased cost a lot that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread:

 

(1) Costs have gone up not only because of lawsuits and insurance exec salaries, but also because care is better. Compare standard US medical care now to the way things were in the 1970s. All of those scanning machines and new drugs cost a lot of money to research and develop and purchase. Add to that the tremendous increase in health care for the elderly at the end of life.

 

(2) If no one can be turned away from the emergency room for lack of ability to pay, that means that everyone else is subsidizing those costs. I suspect this is the main reason why an scan at ER can cost thousands of dollars. If 25% (let's say) of people can't pay, it stands to reason that the costs of everyone else will quickly become astronomical.

 

But how do you solve either of these problems? Are you going to be satisfied with 70s era medical care for you or your family, if it means affordable medicine? Should we go back to the old days of requiring proof of payment before getting treated in the emergency room?

[QueenCat]

 

Are you going to be satisfied with 70s era medical care for you or your family, if it means affordable medicine? Should we go back to the old days of requiring proof of payment before getting treated in the emergency room?

 

No. I do not want 70s era care. I'm glad we have greater means to test and diagnosis. My son would be either dead or severely disabled if he had been born in the early 70s versus the early 90s.

[Sara R]

And the other hard truth is

 

(3) The US government can't afford to pay for health care for everyone either. It's horrible that health care expenses cause personal bankruptcies, but probably we all can agree that government bankruptcy would be even worse. Just a couple of weeks ago I read that the Federal Reserve is buying even more Treasury bonds. That means money printing, folks. This can't end well.

 

 

There aren't any easy answers.

 

Two things that have increased cost a lot that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread:

 

(1) Costs have gone up not only because of lawsuits and insurance exec salaries, but also because care is better. Compare standard US medical care now to the way things were in the 1970s. All of those scanning machines and new drugs cost a lot of money to research and develop and purchase. Add to that the tremendous increase in health care for the elderly at the end of life.

 

(2) If no one can be turned away from the emergency room for lack of ability to pay, that means that everyone else is subsidizing those costs. I suspect this is the main reason why an scan at ER can cost thousands of dollars. If 25% (let's say) of people can't pay, it stands to reason that the costs of everyone else will quickly become astronomical.

 

But how do you solve either of these problems? Are you going to be satisfied with 70s era medical care for you or your family, if it means affordable medicine? Should we go back to the old days of requiring proof of payment before getting treated in the emergency room?

[kalanamak]

I was a social worker before a SAHM. Free birth control is pretty widely available, at least for people on Medicaid. After seeing people who literally, have 5 kids by 5 daddies, are unemployed, on welfare, etc etc I think that if a person has a baby and accepts government assistance, she should be made to be on some semipermanent birth control--IUD, Depo--something besides the pill--until she demonstrates a financial ability to live without welfare and support another child. This is HORRIBLY politically incorrect, I know,

 

 

I'm incorrect right with you. A teenage can make a mistake. BC can fail, but when you start racking up the numbers, all in foster care, mom still using, I consider it child abuse. I see the young adults who come out of these environments, and their history is like a horror story. Ugh. And some of the guys, ugh. Three babies in a year! Time to pay support, go to jail or take a couple snips. Sprinkling the world with kids you have no intention of parenting....child abuse.

[asta]

Ahem. Conflict. "war" used to require approval of congress, just so measures could be better appropriated for such situations. But that is another issue.;)

 

 

It still does.

 

And these latest conflicts were approved by congress.

[asta]

If you have only $1000 and I have only $100, by paying 15% tax on that money, you're already paying more than me, and the principle of the wealthy contributing more is already respected. In fact, not only you're paying more, but your tax is larger than my initial sum before taxation.

 

However, if we were to make a model of such extreme progressive taxation with an attempt of "punishing" you for being rich (because that's what it comes down to) up to the point of requiring a third or a half of your money only for the taxes, in my opinion that crosses the line that lies between "the wealthy contributing more" and "the wealthy being ripped off for being wealthy". I agree that the wealthier should contribute more (making a fixed sum would be unfair, and perhaps we can add a few percents along the line as we go up, but without going extremely progressive) - but this is stealing.

:iagree:

 

And, btw, how did this thread morph from "How can we reduce health care costs in America" to "trust fund babies are evil and must pay for the poor?".

 

Does anyone even realize that what is being discussed here isn't even capitalism? It's something called "State Socialism":

Edited November 8, 2010 by asta

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree:

 

And, btw, how did this thread morph from "How can we reduce health care costs in America" to "trust fund babies are evil and must pay for the poor?".

 

Does anyone even realize that what is being discussed here isn't even capitalism? It's something called "State Socialism":

 

Who said trust fund babies are evil? I would love to make my ds a trust fund baby while at the same time instilling hard work and frugality values;)

 

 

As for the accusations of class envy being thrown around, that is a false argument IMHO. I see progressive taxes as simply a matter of fairness and stems my value beliefs and most certainly not from envy. I saw progressive taxes that were even higher in the 1960s and I remember clearly that our economy was much better back then as well. I think some people try to throw that class envy argument around as a way to stop discussions of fairness. I know my dh and I will not mind paying higher taxes as long as they are fair and reasonable which I think they were before President Bush's tax cuts.

 

And no it is not state socialism IMHO. America has had programs for the social good such as social security and medicare for decades along side of capitalism with no problems at all. We did take not take a slippery slope into communism at all and I do not know anyone who would want that at all. There may be a handful of kooks in country who want that but I know of no one on the national or local scene who does want communism or socialism. I do think it is safe to say that many Americans do like social security, medicare, roads, the military. etc. which have benefited are society.

Edited November 8, 2010 by priscilla

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have a real problem with anyone deciding that someone else has "everything they need and could reasonably want" and therefore they have the right to take money from them, with a gun, and give it to someone else. Is there no respect for private ownership of anything? Especially when, in many cases, the money is going to fund ridiculous pet projects of lawmakers, government waste, fraud, and yes, to give money to people who could be working. Not to say some don't truly need help, but I think the mindset in this country should turn back to accepting charity being shameful and something to be avoided as much as possible, instead of people feeling it's their right to take this money from "the rich" because "they don't need it." I'm seeing a lot of class/wealth envy here. Don't think that helps anyone, but it's surely what our government wants to promote.

 

Actually it would not be someone else so to speak, it would be our elected representatives who are authorized to pass legislation. If you do not like it then vote. I do vote every time.

[MotherGoose]

I vote every time too and that gives me the right to complain :) Before I could agree to anything but a tax CUT, I would want the entire system audited and overhauled. An impossible dream, I know, and that's why I'll never agree to a tax increase. And I think this discussion devolved into a discussion of taxes because many people think that the solution to any problem is to throw more money at it which, naturally, will come from tax increases. Throwing more money at the public schools will not fix them, and neither will throwing more money at the health care system.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I vote every time too and that gives me the right to complain :) Before I could agree to anything but a tax CUT, I would want the entire system audited and overhauled. An impossible dream, I know, and that's why I'll never agree to a tax increase. And I think this discussion devolved into a discussion of taxes because many people think that the solution to any problem is to throw more money at it which, naturally, will come from tax increases. Throwing more money at the public schools will not fix them, and neither will throwing more money at the health care system.

 

I agree that any waste should be eliminated but I also know many people who work at all levels of the government (city, county, state, and federal) who work very, very hard and are honest people. I do think social security and medicare are successes. I have also seen a lot of waste in private industry as well. And I agree that just throwing money at things will not necessarily fix but we already are paying out the nose for health care and the system is not working at all IMHO. I agree that throwing more money at the schools will not always help unless said school is terribly underfunded which I think does happen in some cases due to the funding inequalities with schools. I do agree that many schools are getting way too much money though and could probably do much better with less. Honestly I get more mad with local taxes since I feel the folks making the local taxes just do what they want with no regard for the voters IMHO. I feel more represented at the federal level IMO.

Edited November 8, 2010 by priscilla

[MotherGoose]

I think the bottom line in this discussion, for me anyway, is that our country's finances cannot tolerate any spending increases. If I ran my family's finances the way the country's are run (and I have stopped comparing the country to a business because I have learned that many businesses run their finances the same way the government does) I'd be in bankruptcy, and have lots of sleepless nights. China owns us, and what happens if one day they decide to stop loaning us money? In my family, we don't spend money on things, no matter how worthwhile, by borrowing money (except for a small mortgage we plan to pay off in 10 years). So if someone needed medical care that was out of the norm, then we'd have to cut expenses to pay for it. I have a friend who could afford to go on her dh health insurance if she cut off the cable to pay for it. She chose the cable, and is one of the first to talk about wanting the gov't to pay for her health care. Some people cannot afford cable and health care, and mature people choose the health care, or at least don't whine when they choose the cable and can't afford the health care.

 

I just think our spending is out of control and is absolutely unsustainable. So for me, the whole health care discussion boils down to the unaffordability of any spending increases, period. We absolutely cannot continue to spend money like this, and need to pay off the debt. The first way to begin paying off the debt is to stop the bleeding, or spending increases.

[Laura Corin]

Several people have discussed France's model for healthcare as a good option, but isn't France now in the position that they can't pay for all the benefits that the people want and are having to cut back? Isn't that why there is lots of rioting going on in that country now? I am of the impression it is not working for them.

 

 

Laura

[Sara R]

Both of those benefits cost tax money. They are related problems. France's riots were caused by increasing the retirement age. America's current situation is that we already have our budget spiraling out of control based on Social Security and Medicare. Medicare, health coverage for only the elderly, is 7 times the problem of Social Security (or at least it was as of about 2007; maybe the proportions are different now). As it is we are looking at the budget covering ONLY social security, medicare, and interest on the debt by--2020, I think? There is no way we can afford a massive new entitlement, especially if Medicare for the elderly only is such a huge part of the problem.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Sara R