How about some more controvery: taxes?

[danielle]

I found it very interesting yesterday to watch a person who was almost certainly of Medicare age railing against the government and how she was against having her taxes raised to pay for health care. Apparently only for other people.

 

So, I have a request for responses. I learned while watching the conventions this week that it's suddenly become verboten to discuss how other countries do things (heaven forbid anyone might actually know more or come up with a better solution than we have). But anyway, when we were in the Netherlands, we were told that the average Dutch person pays about 22% of their income in taxes. Say we pay 17% (no, I don't remember where I got that figure).

 

For that extra 5%, the Dutch get excellent national health care--they're among the longest lived people in the West and the health care has a co-pay to keep costs down. They have old age pensions such that, as we were told, no granny has to live with their family, and there is a lot of elder housing. Students get not only free college, but also a living stipend. There is a lot of vocational/trade training available.

 

Say you make $100,000/year (easy to calculate). Say you're paying $17,000 a year now in taxes. Under "Dutch" taxes, you'd be paying $22,000 ($5,000 more), but you wouldn't have to worry about educating your kids, long term health care, disability or short term health care.

 

My family pays just over $1,000/month for health insurance (self employed). In order to pay the $200,000 cost for college that the calculators predict, we should be saving $12,000 per year (not!) We also pay $5,000 for long term care insurance and $3,000 for disability insurance, neither of which we'd need under "Dutch" taxes.

 

By my calculations (just using these two areas), we'd be better off by $16,000, which would be available for saving, investment or maybe even spending, which would all help the economy.

 

I'd be willing to invest $5,000 to get $16,000 worth of benefits. Even more if I knew that maternal and pre-natal health would improve, parents could take time off to be with their newborns, every kid that deserved it could get an education suited to them, and elderly people would be well cared for, with independence and dignity.

 

It's not the taxes that bother me, it's what we (don't) get for them. Thoughts?

Danielle

[Parrothead]

 

It's not the taxes that bother me, it's what we (don't) get for them. Thoughts?

Danielle

And there is the problem in a nutshell. IMNSHO The federal and state governments don't know how to responsibly spend the money they have.

[Rosy]

I'd need to see more information about the figures you posted, but I do agree that the level of service we're getting should be much higher for the amount of money we pay in taxes.

 

Here's an example that will probably get me kicked off the board here ;) --we pay $90+ a year in taxes to fund our local library (not to mention close to that much in late fees!!). Would I pay that much $8/mo. for access to the library? Absolutely! I'd happily pay much more than that. But the fact that EVERY taxpayer in my city is paying the same amount (based on property taxes, our house is around the average price for this city), and probably less than 5% are using it, means that either the cost of bureaucracy is ridiculously high or some money is being misspent somewhere.

[Tracey in TX]

Other countries do have better health care. They pay dearly for it. Natives of Norway pay 50% in taxes, whereas ex-pats pay almost 75% in taxes (we have three friends who lived there). They don't have to pay for health insurance or college education. They're given approx $500/mo per child. Even with these perks, I would rather pay our particular tax bracket and pay as we go. We personally couldn't afford to live with 50% or greater being given to the federal government!

And many of us in the USA already pay 25% (up to 33%, I think) in taxes. When is it enough? The democrats plan on raising taxes for those present tax brackets.

Back to the point: we do need to be armed with knowledge. Health care should be manageable, but something else has to give. We can't win a war, educate everyone, offer national healthcare, and the barrage of special interests everyone feels necessary. Our national budget needs to be treated like our household budgets. Prioritize and pay for those items with our tax dollars. Let the rest be put on hold until we can afford it.

[Jane in NC]

Other countries do have better health care. They pay dearly for it. Natives of Norway pay 50% in taxes, whereas ex-pats pay almost 75% in taxes (we have three friends who lived there). They don't have to pay for health insurance or college education. They're given approx $500/mo per child. Even with these perks, I would rather pay our particular tax bracket and pay as we go. We personally couldn't afford to live with 50% or greater being given to the federal government!

And many of us in the USA already pay 25% (up to 33%, I think) in taxes. When is it enough? The democrats plan on raising taxes for those present tax brackets.

 

Could you point me to some websites to back up your case on Norway? I see that the Heritage Foundation says that the top tax bracket is 50%--how many people are in the top bracket? Also, people in the top bracket of the US do not pay 35% on all of their income--it is a marginal rate. Are Norwegian tax rates marginal as well?

 

We see a lot of numbers bantered about during this political season. I think it would behoove us all to question them.

 

The Democratic plan is not raising taxes across the board. Could you clarify your statement on their plan?

 

I agree with your assessment that priorities are needed. But how do we establish those priorities?

 

Best,

Jane

[Tracey in TX]

Could you point me to some websites to back up your case on Norway? I see that the Heritage Foundation says that the top tax bracket is 50%--how many people are in the top bracket? Also, people in the top bracket of the US do not pay 35% on all of their income--it is a marginal rate. Are Norwegian tax rates marginal as well?

 

We see a lot of numbers bantered about during this political season. I think it would behoove us all to question them.

 

The Democratic plan is not raising taxes across the board. Could you clarify your statement on their plan?

 

I agree with your assessment that priorities are needed. But how do we establish those priorities?

 

Best,

Jane

I will ask my friends to point me toward the info and pass it onto you. Hopefully I will get information tomorrow. You are correct in the top tax brackets. After a certain amount, only the additional money is taxed at that rate.

Obama said that he would "lower taxes for 95% of all Americans" (his acceptance speech) and read somewhere that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of Americans. That concerns me.

I appreciate your questions!

Tracey

[Jane in NC]

as we move into this political season.

 

I often see comments that so-in-so slashed taxes, but I would really prefer to see more specifics. Some states have income taxes; some don't. Some states have higher income tax rates but lower property tax rates. Some states charge excise taxes out that wazoo and have high sales taxes. Does anyone know of a site which tries to equate the various states' tax and user fee burdens?

 

One of the things that I read is that Palin as governor reduced property taxes but increased the sales tax, broadening the tax to food. I cannot back up this statement but I wonder, if it is true, how the two taxes (property to sales) equate. Any ideas on how one can figure this out?

 

Jane

[sdWTMer]

I think that we should have a flat tax.

[Jane in NC]

I think that we should have a flat tax.

 

Do you favor a flat tax on all income or do you still allow for deductions like mortgages? I think that it is the latter that always seems to get in the way of the concept flying.

 

Jane