Health care reform has failed, it's time to go back to tax reform

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Masterjaden


RE: www.wsj.com...

If the top 20% of income earners pay 84% of all Federal Taxes, who will make up for the loss of revenue when those top 20% aren't paying any more than the Middle Class?

Will the people who earn less than $12,000 be required to START paying taxes? Get ready... a whopping 65% of working Americans make less than $12,000 a year, according to: www.usatoday.com... . A flat-tax imposed upon their meager income MIGHT compensate for the loss of revenue from the top 20%, since there are so many Americans in this income range.

65% of the 138 million working americans is 89.7 million people. 12,000/year is 1,076,400,000,000 or just over 1 trillion dollars. Just how much are you trying to make up? A 10% tax is only 100 billion which comes to about 2% of federal spending. Putting aside any issues of morality, or that they need money to support themselves... there simply isn't usable amounts of money in that demographic to tax.

The poor aren't some massive untapped revenue stream. You could tax that entire 65% of working people, 100% of their income and you would still only cover 20% of federal spending. Leaving the other 35% to cover the remaining 80%.

OK. That's why I posed my post as a question vs. a statement. I guess there's no way Single-Payer healthcare could be squeezed out of that turnip.

originally posted by: carewemust
OK. That's why I posed my post as a question vs. a statement. I guess there's no way Single-Payer healthcare could be squeezed out of that turnip.

Single payer is doable, but that's not where the funding for it would come from. It would basically come from redirecting current Medicare/Medicaid dollars, as well as parts of what people are paying in health insurance premiums (it wouldn't require the full thing)

Interestingly, when looking at percent of GDP spent on health care in every other country on earth, it's very likely that if we went to single payer, not only would we lower costs (including government spending), but we would likely also be able to leverage those cost savings into a tax cut.

I don't think Congress is prepared to end the insurance industry and deal with causing the unemployment of millions of people in order to bring in single payer though.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't think Congress is prepared to end the insurance industry and deal with causing the unemployment of millions of people in order to bring in single payer though.

A lot of countries have voluntary supplemental insurance on top of their single payer healthcare systems, so there's no way to accurately tell what the employment situation would look like. Plus if every citizen had quality healthcare, I'd assume there would be an increase in jobs in the healthcare system because of the dramatic increase in patients.

It could be like when the asbestos industry collapsed. Some people lost there jobs, but it also opened up many other employment opportunities. Of course, we could also soften the blow if we beefed up our social safety net instead of constantly slashing it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


Good post! The health insurance sector has approx. 517,000 employees. Only Bernie Sanders plan would send all of them to new jobs...probably the government, for most.

The executives would have it hard though. Even the lower-level guys/gals make over $200,000.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

If they modeled it after Medicare, there is a huge market for supplemental policies.
Medicare doesn't cover everything....and dental, vision and hearing are not included.

You could make a plan similar to Medicare, have it cover 70%....it could be affordable, with small deductibles by unACA standards....and those who are interested....likely the 40+ crowd...could go and pick up an very reasonable supplemental policy from Humana or Blue Cross....or whoever.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Single payer is doable, but that's not where the funding for it would come from. It would basically come from redirecting current Medicare/Medicaid dollars, as well as parts of what people are paying in health insurance premiums (it wouldn't require the full thing)

WHOA!!!!
Do you really think seniors are going to quietly stand by and have their healthcare dismantled?
To have their premiums possibly raised?

Model Medicare.....don't steal more from it!!

a reply to: Edumakated

Sounds fair, I'll even start paying politicians to write tax code in my favor that takes money out of your pocket and puts it into mine. Business is business after all, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me pick-pocketing you since you're so gung-ho about my company making profit.

a reply to: Aazadan

The whole world is run by corporations,I think they should do away with them,back to the day when we had mom and pop stores,the wealth was spread out more,they should tax corporations at a steep rate,keep them and dirty money out of our economy,but the polititians are the owners of these corporations,take some house cleaning

a reply to: carewemust

I wouldn't worry about the executives too much because I'm guessing that there would be more opportunities for them in other industries. I'd imagine that non-healthcare related businesses would see profit increases if enough of their current healthcare & health insurance related costs were transferred to the single payer system, which would give them more funds to hire some of the now-jobless healthcare executives. Hmm, that sentence is too long & looks weird.

Basically I'm trying to say that all companies have healthcare related costs right now, including FICA spending, health insurance plans for employees, etc. But depending on how the single payer system is set up, companies will no longer have to pay a lot of those costs, which would theoretically increase their profit margins. And with this increase in funds and decrease in liabilities, I'd imagine that companies would have more money to expand. That expansion would include the hiring of new workers, possibly including the former healthcare employees.

Of course, there are a lot of assumptions with that scenario but all of this is just speculation anyway.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

If they modeled it after Medicare, there is a huge market for supplemental policies.
Medicare doesn't cover everything....and dental, vision and hearing are not included.

You could make a plan similar to Medicare, have it cover 70%....it could be affordable, with small deductibles by unACA standards....and those who are interested....likely the 40+ crowd...could go and pick up an very reasonable supplemental policy from Humana or Blue Cross....or whoever.

Yeah, it just depends on what plan they would decide to go with.

WHOA!!!! Do you really think seniors are going to quietly stand by and have their healthcare dismantled? To have their premiums possibly raised?

Model Medicare.....don't steal more from it!!

I think the idea here is that the single payer program would replace all of the other healthcare programs, so programs like Medicare, Medicaid, & possibly the healthcare portion of the VA would be merged into it. I could be wrong though.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not to worry, nothing will get through this Congress.........ever.

Republicans are positive the problem with healthcare is a marketing one. How do we sell them in 3 words or less on less healthcare for more money... maybe we need to put freedom in the title... hmm... just have to find that dumb angle that sounds patriotic yet offers no benefit. Right to Unhealthy Death Bill? Nahh Freedom from Life... life Freedom Bill. American Patriot Health Bill... Yes. If we call it American Patriot Health Bill the dumb republicans will surely go for it. Problem solved. America saved. And by America I mean only the rich.

Thoughts in bullet points, no particular order:

- any "tax reform" that doesn't include abolishing the IRS and the annual PITA known as "tax returns" does not hold any interest to me
- before bashing based on a website called "Think Progress", i'd rather see an actual unbiased economist give their views. Or see the actual proposal from DJT
- Increasing the tax rate while doubling the standard deduction looks like a win for the average family.
- while its a win for the average family, it will literally kill the non-child having millenial who has a degree but no job due to the lack of employment opportunities
- 2 point increases to the poor....4 point decreases for the wealthy. And im stuck in the middle hoping I can walk when they are done.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't know, I think the IRS is a pretty good agency myself. Sure, people don't like paying taxes... but I find it hard to argue that we shouldn't have a federal office that's capable of enforcing tax law. If you can't enforce taxes, then you can never collect, and while we disagree over the method of taxation, I think we can agree that taxes need to be enforced.

My main concern with anything Trumps proposing right now, is that it's basically trying to recreate a Reagan style base broadening, which was tax increases for most, while lowering the top marginal rates, and claiming it was a tax decrease. Wealth inequality is such right now, that the average family just doesn't have any significant amount of taxable assets. It's going to require a large increase at the bottom in order to pay for even a small decrease at the top.

Actually numbers should be coming soon, so we can always wait for those... but I'm skeptical of this, when the initial scoring is it costing us 500 billion/year in revenue. 500 billion is a lot of money to try and make up elsewhere, and I would rather not see it just go into the deficit.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I hope it would be different plans.
Because Medicare is NOT free. And it should not cost anywhere near what an employed person making $60,000 pays.
Same with the poor and working poor on Medicaid.




a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I saw the tax info/worksheet for federal taxes in Canada....made me want to move to Canada ASAP.
Much simpler, and I was happy to see that at my income level, my taxes would be modest...and we would both have healthcare.
The IRS is definitely a huge part of the problem in this country.

a reply to: Aazadan

Taxes should be collected at the point of transaction. If this were to happen, the IRS would be a staff of maybe 1000 people max, with little to not public facing function.

Less bureaucracy, less touching the public, less friction. Its a win in my view.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Edumakated

For sure. Corporations are paying way too much and are suffering horrendously because of it (only 2,000% executive profit growth instead of 10,000%). Let the Lower/Middle class fat-cats finally pay their fair share!

Corporations don't pay taxes...

The tax is just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Sooner or later, corporations will choose to locate to more tax favorable countries. Capital is fluid and will always seek to reduce expenses.

This is just straight up untrue. It's just a conservative talking point. If you feel otherwise, explain why it is easier to get a corporate job in high tax New York City but near impossible in low tax Wisconsin? But hey, here are some studies on it too.
Studies: Rich Don't Flee High-Tax States. No company in its right mind would leave this country for a lower tax rate in Somalia. Plus tax rates are higher in Europe than they are here.

Though, if you think about it you are being hypocritical. At first you say that corporations don't pay taxes then suggest that these same corporations that aren't paying taxes will flee high tax areas. Why? If they aren't paying them like you suggest then there is no need for them to leave.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Taxes should be collected at the point of transaction. If this were to happen, the IRS would be a staff of maybe 1000 people max, with little to not public facing function.

Less bureaucracy, less touching the public, less friction. Its a win in my view.

Sales taxes can't fund the government though, because the more money you make, the less you buy as a percentage of income that gets taxed. So you end up with a situation where there's essentially an upper cap on the amount of taxes you can collect from each person. That results in drastically lower revenues.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I hope it would be different plans.
Because Medicare is NOT free. And it should not cost anywhere near what an employed person making $60,000 pays.
Same with the poor and working poor on Medicaid.

Yeah, I know it isn't free. I've been paying into it for at least 15 years w/FICA taxes & I seriously doubt I'll live long enough to use it. Who says that socialism can't work in America? lol (wait, is me dying an early death really something to laugh about?)

I think the overall goal for a basic single payer plan is that everyone is enrolled at birth, like getting a social security number and birth certificate. Everyone automatically qualifies for the "bare basics plan" (an improved form of Medicaid), but people who want more can buy the supplemental healthcare plans. Citizens who enter the military qualify for the "soldier plan" (an improved form of the VA's health services), elders are given the "elderly plan" (an improved form of Medicare), etc.

Of course, the biggest problem would be transitioning to a system like that. That's waaaay too many moving parts, so there would be screw ups everywhere. But I think that in the long run, a centralized system like this would work.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Edumakated

For sure. Corporations are paying way too much and are suffering horrendously because of it (only 2,000% executive profit growth instead of 10,000%). Let the Lower/Middle class fat-cats finally pay their fair share!

Corporations don't pay taxes...

The tax is just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Sooner or later, corporations will choose to locate to more tax favorable countries. Capital is fluid and will always seek to reduce expenses.

This is just straight up untrue. It's just a conservative talking point. If you feel otherwise, explain why it is easier to get a corporate job in high tax New York City but near impossible in low tax Wisconsin? But hey, here are some studies on it too.
Studies: Rich Don't Flee High-Tax States. No company in its right mind would leave this country for a lower tax rate in Somalia. Plus tax rates are higher in Europe than they are here.

Though, if you think about it you are being hypocritical. At first you say that corporations don't pay taxes then suggest that these same corporations that aren't paying taxes will flee high tax areas. Why? If they aren't paying them like you suggest then there is no need for them to leave.

You don't think people flee high taxes? What kind of sherm are you smoking?

Ask Connecticut which has been losing a lot of the wealthiest to Florida over income taxes...

Connecticut Feels Effect of Super Rich Drop in Tax Payments

Connecticut's coffers are feeling the pinch of the state's super-rich no longer paying what they used to in personal income taxes. New figures released last week show tax revenue from the state's top 100 highest-paying taxpayers declined 45 percent from 2015 to 2016. The drop adds up to a $200 million revenue loss for the state

Sullivan acknowledged part of revenue decline can also be attributed to "a handful" of wealthy individuals who moved to more tax-friendly states — an issue frequently raised by legislative Republicans, who argue Connecticut's tax policies encourage the state's super-rich to move out. In contrast with some of his fellow Democrats, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has urged the General Assembly to steer clear of legislation that targets the state's wealthiest taxpayers, including a proposed 19.5 percent tax on hedge funds. The "mere discussion of it in our state, year after year," he said, is harmful to Connecticut's commerce and reputation

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Edumakated

For sure. Corporations are paying way too much and are suffering horrendously because of it (only 2,000% executive profit growth instead of 10,000%). Let the Lower/Middle class fat-cats finally pay their fair share!

Corporations don't pay taxes...

The tax is just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Sooner or later, corporations will choose to locate to more tax favorable countries. Capital is fluid and will always seek to reduce expenses.

This is just straight up untrue. It's just a conservative talking point. If you feel otherwise, explain why it is easier to get a corporate job in high tax New York City but near impossible in low tax Wisconsin? But hey, here are some studies on it too.
Studies: Rich Don't Flee High-Tax States. No company in its right mind would leave this country for a lower tax rate in Somalia. Plus tax rates are higher in Europe than they are here.

Though, if you think about it you are being hypocritical. At first you say that corporations don't pay taxes then suggest that these same corporations that aren't paying taxes will flee high tax areas. Why? If they aren't paying them like you suggest then there is no need for them to leave.

Go look at your cell phone bill, airline ticket, or any number of invoices and you will often see surcharges for various taxes itemized. Businesses absolutely pass all taxes on to consumers in one form or another. Does it translate dollar for dollar? No, but it most certainly is taken into account.

At some point, taxes get too high and a company decides they can lower their cost of operations by moving. Regardless if the consumer is paying it directly or not, when you have competitors in lower tax areas, it means they can price more aggressively.