Obamacare Tax Frays Middle-Class Vow

[Grim17]

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

 

[liblady]

This sure doesn't sound good...

very disengenuous.

the excise tax is on insurers, not individuals.

 

[Grim17]

very disengenuous.

the excise tax is on insurers, not individuals.

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.

.

 

[liblady]

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.

 

[Grim17]

exactly why we need a public option, competition, as well as regulations on the insurance industry relating to premiums charged.

The government raising taxes on insurance companies isn't competition, it's building a monopoly.

All the people who like their insurance, are going to be screwed.

.

 

[Dav]

exactly why we need a public option

Wait, what?

Government intervention is the reason why we need more government intervention?

 

[Joe1991]

Wait, what?

Government intervention is the reason why we need more government intervention?

No, we need a public option because the Baucus bill doesn't do much.

 

[Harshaw]

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?

 

[Grim17]

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?

A classic demonstration of the economic logic of democrats.

 

[Mach]

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.

 

[other]

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.

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?

 

[Ockham]

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.

Replacing Big Business with Big Government is counter intuitive and just plain... dumb.

 

[presluc]

This sure doesn't sound good...

I think the reason that Obama or America if you will is haveing "TAX FRAYS" is quite simple really.

The people that were paying taxes is no longer paying taxes.

The unskilled American worker.

They used to get paychecks , paychecks usually meant taxes for the government.

Outsourceing has caused less paychecks that means less taxes for defence, education, research and other things the government might need money for.

So the rich get tax cuts the corporations get bailouts more money is needed by the states, and even some middle class jobs have been outsourced and the average American taxpayer is left holding the bag.

America can't just keep printing money.

I see two choices for the future of America either more jobs or more taxes.

 

[Ockham]

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.

 

[presluc]

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.

 

[Ockham]

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.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

For decades businesses have done the hiring with out any government money. None, notta, zilch. How did people get jobs without gov money?

 

[Mach]

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?

I was probably too brief in my response.

1. I agree with the OP idea that what's being proposed now, solves nothing and will likely just burden the middle class disproportionately more. That's what I mean by Sounds right.

2. There is no reason to have government insurance, and I don't even think that alone would solve anything. There is no reason the industry cannot be regulated, and remain entirely private, which is what I'd prefer. Government should set rules. The market participants should play the game (to win, but within the rules). I don't even think all of the issue is around insurance anyway, it's about healthcare overall, how it's paid, how it's structured, modern consumer habits, etc.

 

[Ockham]

For decades businesses have done the hiring with out any government money. None, notta, zilch. How did people get jobs without gov money?

Believe it or not, the private sector --- without help of the Government funding them --- raised capital to create businesses. These businesses usually started out small, and as some of them were successful, they grew into larger and larger corporations. Example: Starbucks. Another Example: Microsoft.

Now, the question becomes --- where did they get the capital? Didn't they have to borrow? Some did - and they borrowed and put up collateral to investors, and to banks - who funded them and their success. Some of that capital had to be used --- directly to your question --- to pay labor.


Did you really want to know or were you being facetious?

 

[Mach]

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.

 

[Ockham]

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.

Agreed -- nationalization is extreme, and a private sector running rampant with no limits is a sure fire disaster waiting to happen.

 

[presluc]

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.

Yeah let's stay focused.

Taxpayer money bailed out AIG and GMC.

How many American workers did they hire?

Losing millions of jobs to cheap labor who don't pay taxes, and then wandering why the ones that have jobs have to pay more taxes?

That's not circular logic that is mathmatics.