- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,480
- Reaction score
- 17,287
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This sure doesn't sound good...
Obamacare Tax Frays Middle-Class Vow
By Kevin A. Hassett
Bloomberg.com
Monday, October 12, 2009
The U.S. Senate's version of Obamacare finally is emerging into broad daylight, and the more people see of it, the less popular it should be.
For all the rhetoric, the plan is quite easy to sketch, thanks in part to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
So here goes: Under the health-care plan advanced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, lower- and middle-class people who have insurance today are going to be taxed and squeezed in order to cover people who don't.
The money to finance the new entitlement comes from two main sources, tax increases and Medicare cuts. Medicare cuts are mostly borne by elderly folks with modest means. That undoubtedly explains why seniors are so concerned.
SNIP
The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.
Add those up, and you see that about 87 percent of the revenue in the original Baucus proposal to finance Obamacare would come from individuals with incomes of less than $200,000.
Link
very disengenuous.This sure doesn't sound good...
very disengenuous.
the excise tax is on insurers, not individuals.
exactly why we need a public option, competition, as well as regulations on the insurance industry relating to premiums charged.Who do you think pays it?
Insurance companies, like all other companies, pass any added government taxes on to the consumer by increasing their prices. That tax will be added to an individuals insurance premiums.
.
exactly why we need a public option, competition, as well as regulations on the insurance industry relating to premiums charged.
exactly why we need a public option, competition, as well as regulations on the insurance industry relating to premiums charged.
So, we "need" a public option, because excise taxes make private insurance more expensive?
So, the public option doesn't unfairly compete, while the government simply raises taxes on the private insurers, thus making them even more expensive than the public option?
Sounds about right.
Health care is different than other forms of consumer-ism. The more industry and conservatives push for a free-for all, no regulation, and "all choice left to consumer", the worse off we'll be.
Until we stop letting big business and consumers do a significant portion of life-saving and life-prolonging medical diagnosis, it will not be fixed.
Sounds about right.
Health care is different than other forms of consumer-ism. The more industry and conservatives push for a free-for all, no regulation, and "all choice left to consumer", the worse off we'll be.
Until we stop letting big business and consumers do a significant portion of life-saving and life-prolonging medical diagnosis, it will not be fixed.
This sure doesn't sound good...
America can't just keep printing money.
I see two choices for the future of America either more jobs or more taxes.
As both the Bush and Obama administration have proven - more jobs must be bought at taxpayers expense - i.e., TARP & TALF. The "stimulus" was paid for by taxes to create temporary jobs. Which means your choice is a false choice. More jobs are paid for by taxes.
Funny I thought corporations did the hiring and outsourceing not taxpayers.
FYI most taxpayers are American workers.
Let's go with your point --- since most taxpayers are American workers, and a lot of those American workers work for Corporations, did they hire themselves using their own money provided to them by the government? I like circular logic as much as the next guy - but let's stay focused. At the end of the day, it's our money being used to hire us, the American people, and that money has to then be repaid via taxes, since Government doesn't make money.
Well, at least you're one liberal who admits that you want the government to step in and usurp control over peoples' lives from them. I'll give you credit for that.
Gotta ask, how would you feel if, some time in the future, GW Bush was appointed the healthcare czar? Or Sarah Palin?
For decades businesses have done the hiring with out any government money. None, notta, zilch. How did people get jobs without gov money?
Replacing Big Business with Big Government is counter intuitive and just plain... dumb.
I agree that's not a good solution either.
But you don't need to nationalize an industry to limit the power of big business.
Business generates profit. They will put radiation in your food if it's profitable. We, via government and private efforts, set rules that limit what's OK, and not OK (i.e. radiation in food is not good) for business to do. The difference between that and other types of market regulation are just nuance.
Let's go with your point --- since most taxpayers are American workers, and a lot of those American workers work for Corporations, did they hire themselves using their own money provided to them by the government? I like circular logic as much as the next guy - but let's stay focused. At the end of the day, it's our money being used to hire us, the American people, and that money has to then be repaid via taxes, since Government doesn't make money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?