Healthcare, who pays?

[SKL]

Funny thing is, I thought 8 hours was a really modest requirement for non-taxpayers. I've not paid anywhere near 20% in taxes since I first graduated from law school. (In those days my tax rate was 45% (not including property tax) because rates were higher then. My gross income was $32K (and my student loan payments were $13K, not that that matters here).)

[SKL]

I think there is an important point here. I think there's a serious difference between catastrophic coverage and coverage for day-to-day health care expenses. Catastrophic coverage may be true insurance (insuring the risk) where as other health care expenses are not, and "coverage" for those is not really "insurance" as much as some sort of "payment mechanism." As I understand it, the two are mixed under the requirements of the ACA. I'd rather see these two functions separated into two different financial products.

 

Generally, the one-size-fits-all approach concerns me.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

Funny thing is, I thought 8 hours was a really modest requirement for non-taxpayers. I've not paid anywhere near 20% in taxes since I first graduated from law school. (In those days my tax rate was 45% (not including property tax) because rates were higher then. My gross income was $32K (and my student loan payments were $13K, not that that matters here).)

 

Everybody pays taxes. Everybody with a job pays federal taxes. People in the lowest income brackets have the highest effective tax bracket. These are facts. I provided proof earlier in this thread. You cannot keep substituting your perception for actual facts.

[WishboneDawn]

Didn't I read that 25% of people in the UK were on the dole?

 

On the dole does not equal abusing the system which was the other poster's area of concern.

[WishboneDawn]

Funny thing is, I thought 8 hours was a really modest requirement for non-taxpayers. I've not paid anywhere near 20% in taxes since I first graduated from law school. (In those days my tax rate was 45% (not including property tax) because rates were higher then. My gross income was $32K (and my student loan payments were $13K, not that that matters here).)

 

It's been established that a great deal of the people who you seem to be referring to as non-taxpayers do in fact pay taxes. Time to either be more specific or drop that term.

 

8 hours IS a modest requirement. So modest I still wonder if it's worth the extra bureaucracy and tax dollars to implement.

[WishboneDawn]

Everybody pays taxes. Everybody with a job pays federal taxes. People in the lowest income brackets have the highest effective tax bracket. These are facts. I provided proof earlier in this thread. You cannot keep substituting your perception for actual facts.

 

:iagree:

 

Some supporting links would be really, really nice.

[Slartibartfast]

On the dole does not equal abusing the system which was the other poster's area of concern.

 

People have unrealistic impressions of the actual situation.

 

Florida recently passed a law requiring that people on welfare submit to a drug test. The Florida governor insisted that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs and apparently many agreed with him. As it turned out only 2.6% of those people failed the drug test. The taxpayers ended up paying MORE for the drug tests than any money saved in welfare. The only people who profited were the drug testing companies, not the tax payer.

 

Perception does not equal fact. People need to spend more time on facts and than hyperbolic hand wringing over all these people laying around watching tv, (taxed) drinking booze, (which is taxed) smoking cigarettes, (taxed) eating, (taxed) and using phones. (taxed)

[Laura Corin]

Didn't I read that 25% of people in the UK were on the dole?

 

Is currently 8%. I really do wonder where people get these numbers from.

 

Laura

[Mrs Mungo]

Is currently 8%. I really do wonder where people get these numbers from.

 

Laura

 

72% of statistics are made up. I just made that up. ;)

[MSNative]

Everybody pays taxes. Everybody with a job pays federal taxes. People in the lowest income brackets have the highest effective tax bracket. These are facts. I provided proof earlier in this thread. You cannot keep substituting your perception for actual facts.

 

I saw your post but my search showed just the opposite. I think this is the problem. Our tax system is so complex and convoluted, it's hard to get a clear picture.

 

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/households-in-all-income-quintiles-have-seen-a-fall-in-effective-federal-tax-rates-since-1979-especially-those-in-the-top-1-income-group/

 

The lowest income category paid 4.3%, the top paid 31.2%.

[MSNative]

72% of statistics are made up. I just made that up. ;)

 

We really need to get that like button for posts. :)

[Jennifer3141]

I knew someone was going to complain about me imposing my choices on others. Well, guess what. In a country with social services funded by the taxpayers, everyone else's choices have been imposed on the taxpayers. Choices to procreate, to be a stay-at-home parent, to smoke, to drive drunk, to take recreational drugs, to go to the doctor for every sniffle, to beat their kids, to eat poorly, to watch tv all day, etc., all get imposed on me to the extent the government pays any of the costs of these choices. If working 8 hours for the government makes you an indentured servant, what the heck do you think I feel like when I have to hand over most of my earnings to the government?

 

Oh, and as a professional, I am mandated by the goverment to do lots of things in addition to pay money. For example, I am required to attend substance abuse classes even though I have always been a teetotaler. I'm required to do a fair amount of other education too, taking off work and paying out of my pocket to do so. Does that make me an indentured servant? Some states require lawyers to perform "pro bono" (free) work - does that make them indentured servants? (So far my state hasn't implemented this requirement "yet.") Some people can even be conscripted to serve in the armed forces. Of course it goes without saying that my employer gets to tell me where I'm going to be and what I'm going to do for a large chunk of my time.

 

I think if you want to opt out of government services and tax benefits, that's fine and dandy, but how can you say you're entitled to take and not contribute? How is contributing time qualitatively different from contributing money? Believe me, if I had a choice, I'd much rather work 8 hours per week for the government than pay the taxes I pay.

 

 

SKL, if I trusted you, I'd love to turn our tax returns over to you for comparision. No one in this country is in a higher tax bracket than we are. I'm not bragging. It's a simple fact. We are exactly right smack in the middle of the highest tax bracket in the US on last year's return.

 

You're mad you have to pay to take substance abuse classes? Oh boo hoo.

 

We pay for a state medical license. We pay for board renewals and retesting. We pay for a federal prescription license. We pay a fee to the hospital for the "priviledge" of being able to work there. We pay for a state prescription license. We pay sales tax, property taxes, federal taxes, state taxes, blah blah blah blah blah.

 

It costs us just under $2000 a year for my husband to legally practice medicine in our state. That's just the state/federal legal requirements. And I'll keep my mouth shut on malpractice.

 

And we'd GLADLY pay more taxes if I knew that that single mother across the street could take her child into the ER if he got run over by the UPS man. I'd pay more if I didn't have to listen to my DH's patients BEG for more time on a $200 medical bill. We'd pay more if we knew that if one if our children got sick and needed $500,000 worth of treatment (And how cool is it that I live someplace where we have the technology to save my child's life for $500,000??? They aren't having this debate in the SUDAN, for instance!) that they would be able to get it and I'd still be able to pay the electric bill. All at the same time!

 

Because in my world, we value humanity. You value fetuses. And that's great. Fetuses are marvelous. I once was one. But once that fetus is out, you're all about "personal responsibility." If that fetus pops out and gets cancer two weeks later, you think the fetus on Medicaid is soaking the system. Fetuses are cute, I guess. A 40 year old man battling cancer? Not so cute. Unless he is YOUR husband. Then you want your church to save him. So you'd best find a really well off church and pray that no one else cuter in your church gets sick at the same time. Becasue if I'm sitting in a pulpit and I've got to choose between donating money to a sick baby or to your husband, I'm going for the cute factor. I hope your spouse is good looking!

[Mrs Mungo]

I saw your post but my search showed just the opposite. I think this is the problem. Our tax system is so complex and convoluted, it's hard to get a clear picture.

 

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/households-in-all-income-quintiles-have-seen-a-fall-in-effective-federal-tax-rates-since-1979-especially-those-in-the-top-1-income-group/

 

The lowest income category paid 4.3%, the top paid 31.2%.

 

It depends upon how they figure it. That particular chart doesn't include SS or Medicare taxes. It does not include state, local or sales taxes. That makes a pretty big difference in the lower tax brackets. The chart I provided is total tax burden.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[SKL]

It's been established that a great deal of the people who you seem to be referring to as non-taxpayers do in fact pay taxes. Time to either be more specific or drop that term.

 

8 hours IS a modest requirement. So modest I still wonder if it's worth the extra bureaucracy and tax dollars to implement.

 

I agree that a more specific term could be helpful. I don't agree with looking at overall taxes when all the services don't come out of the same budget. For it to be meaningful, everyone (or almost everyone) should be contributing to whatever buckets the common services are coming out of. Obviously that's an idealistic view given the way our country is currently structured.

 

I agree that most people pay "some" taxes, but that isn't exactly my point. My point is that the distribution is too skewed. I realize that there is also a distribution of income, but a flat tax would reflect that better than a progressive tax.

 

Bottom line, I don't think a society is healthy when there is no meaningful connection between inputs and outputs when it comes to the "common good," or when one group can vote to control another group.

 

Many times in US history, the concept of a vote being representative of the people affected has come up. The Boston Tea Party, the woman's suffrage movement, black suffrage, decreasing the voting age from 21 to 18, and probably others that don't come immediately to mind. Supposedly it's part of our national mindset - no taxation without representation. When the majority of taxes are paid by the minority of voters, something isn't right.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I saw your post but my search showed just the opposite. I think this is the problem. Our tax system is so complex and convoluted, it's hard to get a clear picture.

 

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/households-in-all-income-quintiles-have-seen-a-fall-in-effective-federal-tax-rates-since-1979-especially-those-in-the-top-1-income-group/

 

The lowest income category paid 4.3%, the top paid 31.2%.

 

Again, that is only looking at federal income tax, which is only one piece of the puzzle.

[SKL]

Is currently 8%. I really do wonder where people get these numbers from.

 

Laura

 

Maybe the 25% was just young adults.

[BinahYeteirah]

I saw your post but my search showed just the opposite. I think this is the problem. Our tax system is so complex and convoluted, it's hard to get a clear picture.

 

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/households-in-all-income-quintiles-have-seen-a-fall-in-effective-federal-tax-rates-since-1979-especially-those-in-the-top-1-income-group/

 

The lowest income category paid 4.3%, the top paid 31.2%.

 

Your link only includes federal taxes.

[Laura Corin]

Maybe the 25% was just young adults.

 

It's a function of the economic situation. I don't think you can prove anything else from it.

 

When I was taking computing classes recently, I had contact with a lot of young people who were looking for jobs. They were attending job clubs, getting help to make the best applications they could, doing volunteer work to build up their experience..... the jobs were very thin on the ground.

 

FWIW, it took me six months to find a job. My husband has been looking for over a year. Please don't tell me that we are deliberately avoiding work.

 

Laura

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree that most people pay "some" taxes, but that isn't exactly my point. My point is that the distribution is too skewed. I realize that there is also a distribution of income, but a flat tax would reflect that better than a progressive tax.

 

And why is it skewed? So that Wal-Mart can pay a pittance while raking in billions in profit. It is all a form of *corporate welfare* through redistribution. A fair wage law would go a long way toward helping with this issue.

 

Many times in US history, the concept of a vote being representative of the people affected has come up. The Boston Tea Party, the woman's suffrage movement, black suffrage, decreasing the voting age from 21 to 18, and probably others that don't come immediately to mind. Supposedly it's part of our national mindset - no taxation without representation. When the majority of taxes are paid by the minority of voters, something isn't right.

 

Let me get this straight. The top group receives the majority of the income. They pay the most in taxes. This is somehow unfair? Unfair enough to compare it with being lynched for the color of your skin?

[SKL]

Because in my world, we value humanity. You value fetuses. And that's great. Fetuses are marvelous. I once was one. But once that fetus is out, you're all about "personal responsibility." If that fetus pops out and gets cancer two weeks later, you think the fetus on Medicaid is soaking the system. Fetuses are cute, I guess. A 40 year old man battling cancer? Not so cute. Unless he is YOUR husband. Then you want your church to save him. So you'd best find a really well off church and pray that no one else cuter in your church gets sick at the same time. Becasue if I'm sitting in a pulpit and I've got to choose between donating money to a sick baby or to your husband, I'm going for the cute factor. I hope your spouse is good looking!

 

Jennifer, you don't know me and obviously haven't read all I've written. I'm so sick of repeating myself but I'll do it again just for you. I FAVOR INSURANCE FOR CATASTROPHIC EVENTS. I favor making it affordable and accessable to EVERYONE. I favor reducing costs so we as a country can afford this. Now stop being nasty. You sound like a crazy person in the above-quoted paragraph. Note to self: don't let any doctor named Jennifer operate on me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree that a more specific term could be helpful. I don't agree with looking at overall taxes when all the services don't come out of the same budget. For it to be meaningful, everyone (or almost everyone) should be contributing to whatever buckets the common services are coming out of. Obviously that's an idealistic view given the way our country is currently structured.

 

I agree that most people pay "some" taxes, but that isn't exactly my point. My point is that the distribution is too skewed. I realize that there is also a distribution of income, but a flat tax would reflect that better than a progressive tax.

 

Bottom line, I don't think a society is healthy when there is no meaningful connection between inputs and outputs when it comes to the "common good," or when one group can vote to control another group.

 

Many times in US history, the concept of a vote being representative of the people affected has come up. The Boston Tea Party, the woman's suffrage movement, black suffrage, decreasing the voting age from 21 to 18, and probably others that don't come immediately to mind. Supposedly it's part of our national mindset - no taxation without representation. When the majority of taxes are paid by the minority of voters, something isn't right.

 

Agreed. However, what isn't "right" is likely the largest wealth and income gap this nation has seen in a long, long time.

 

I will admit that I do find this talking point about this mass of non-producing voters running the country quite humorous. When I look at the amount of money flowing into our political system, where that money is coming from, and the amount of money fed back into corporations via subsidies and tax breaks...yeah, I just can't buy the idea that the unwashed masses are running the country and forcing the wealthy to labor on their behalf.

[jennynd]

People have unrealistic impressions of the actual situation.

 

Florida recently passed a law requiring that people on welfare submit to a drug test. The Florida governor insisted that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs and apparently many agreed with him. As it turned out only 2.6% of those people failed the drug test. The taxpayers ended up paying MORE for the drug tests than any money saved in welfare. The only people who profited were the drug testing companies, not the tax payer.

 

Perception does not equal fact. People need to spend more time on facts and than hyperbolic hand wringing over all these people laying around watching tv, (taxed) drinking booze, (which is taxed) smoking cigarettes, (taxed) eating, (taxed) and using phones. (taxed)

well, u can't really test alcohol, can't u?

somehow the few people I know who are taking welfare are all drug/alcohol addicted. And taking drug/ alcohol when they pregnant. And you can imaging what the kids look/behave like. I will much much prefer to spend the extra money for the gov to do the test rather than fund that 2.6% dug addicted.

 

and don't they get iPhone for free too? I remember there was a thread about it. not against cell phone use, but why not a 29 dollars phone like I have?? iphone??

[Mrs Mungo]

Maybe the 25% was just young adults.

 

Link? Providing actual information goes a long way toward credibility.

 

Agreed. However, what isn't "right" is likely the largest wealth and income gap this nation has seen in a long, long time.

 

I will admit that I do find this talking point about this mass of non-producing voters running the country quite humorous. When I look at the amount of money flowing into our political system, where that money is coming from, and the amount of money fed back into corporations via subsidies and tax breaks...yeah, I just can't buy the idea that the unwashed masses are running the country and forcing the wealthy to labor on their behalf.

 

:iagree: 1000%.

[Slartibartfast]

Jennifer, you don't know me and obviously haven't read all I've written. I'm so sick of repeating myself but I'll do it again just for you. I FAVOR INSURANCE FOR CATASTROPHIC EVENTS. I favor making it affordable and accessable to EVERYONE. I favor reducing costs so we as a country can afford this. Now stop being nasty. You sound like a crazy person in the above-quoted paragraph. Note to self: don't let any doctor named Jennifer operate on me.

 

:blink: