Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts

[dalegg 143]

So, what do we make of this?

Obama Considers Delaying Tax Increase

"U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is considering delaying his proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in light of the economic downturn, two aides said on Sunday.

Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it "looks more likely than not" that President Obama will delay any tax increase until after 2010, when the Bush cuts for those making more than $250,000 are due to expire.

Mr. Daley was reacting to a report in Sunday's New York Times that said Mr. Obama was considering putting off the tax increases to give his ambitious economic stimulus proposals a chance to work, quoting several people familiar with the discussions. On Saturday, Mr. Obama announced that he had instructed his advisers to prepare a two-year stimulus package with the goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs."

So, is Obama saying that higher taxes even for the rich counter a plan to stimulate the economy?

I don't know. I'd be interested to hear his explanation of why it would be best to wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire. I still believe that history and statistics show that our economy has been strongest when our tax policy was progressive.

Next thing you know he's gonna come out and say that raising companies' expenses by increasing the minimum wage and forcing universal healthcare taxes on them might result in more layoffs.

How do figure that?

Because lately he's been saying a lot of things that sound just like what McCain was saying.

Whatever employers are currently paying to provide healthcare for their employees would no longer exist if we switch to a single payer system.

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Also, all the evidence has shown that when minimum wage increases, so does consumer spending. As long as our economy is consumer driven - the more money in people's pockets, the stronger the economy.

Lets just sit back and see. I'll bet it doesn't happen.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Well, from everything I've read - we currently spend more money on healthcare per American than any other nation, and the proponents of universal healthcare have said that we could cut that money by almost a half.

Secondly, medical bills from what I've read are the number one reason why many Americans are forced into bankruptcy, so a universal healthcare system would elminate such problems.

[Pooky 3,792]

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Well, from everything I've read - we currently spend more money on healthcare per American than any other nation, and the proponents of universal healthcare have said that we could cut that money by almost a half.

Secondly, medical bills from what I've read are the number one reason why many Americans are forced into bankruptcy, so a universal healthcare system would elminate such problems.

In the UK, National Insurance Contributions (the part of your salary that goes toward the NHS) is as follows:

Class 1 contributions are paid by employees and their employers. They are deducted from their gross wages by the employer, with no action required by the employee. The employers also match these contributions (with the one exception below). There are three milestone figures which determine the rate of NICs to be paid: Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) , Earnings threshold (ET) and Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). In this context "earnings" refers to an employee's wage or salary.

* Below the LEL, no NICs are paid because no benefits can accrue on earnings below this limit.

* On salaries above the LEL and below the ET, NICs are not paid, but are credited by the government as if they were. This effectively assists the working poor who do get benefits.

* On salaries between the ET and the UEL (equivalent to £5,225 to £34,840 per annum), NICs are collected at the rate of 23.8% (11% paid by the employee and 12.8% by the employer).[5]

* On the portion above the UEL, the total rate drops to 13.8% (1% paid by employees and 12.8% by the employer)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance (because the Government site was really hard to follow this late on a Sunday.

Now this is for a system that is passable, at best, and where those who can afford it, take out private health insurance on top of the NIC. I can't be certain, but I think this level of cost is fairly typical throughout Europe. Judge for yourself whether this is more, or less onerous than what you are paying for health insurance now.

I am in favour of a system like this, with one, big proviso. The NHS model hasn't changed that much since its inception in 1946. Any system that is designed today would need to be structured for today's healthcare climate. And it needs to have no profit or quota criteria. Healthcare should be about the care first, not the money.

Can the USA achieve something like this? I don't know.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Pooky

[britty 1]

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Well, from everything I've read - we currently spend more money on healthcare per American than any other nation, and the proponents of universal healthcare have said that we could cut that money by almost a half.

Secondly, medical bills from what I've read are the number one reason why many Americans are forced into bankruptcy, so a universal healthcare system would elminate such problems.

In the UK, National Insurance Contributions (the part of your salary that goes toward the NHS) is as follows:

Class 1 contributions are paid by employees and their employers. They are deducted from their gross wages by the employer, with no action required by the employee. The employers also match these contributions (with the one exception below). There are three milestone figures which determine the rate of NICs to be paid: Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) , Earnings threshold (ET) and Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). In this context "earnings" refers to an employee's wage or salary.

* Below the LEL, no NICs are paid because no benefits can accrue on earnings below this limit.

* On salaries above the LEL and below the ET, NICs are not paid, but are credited by the government as if they were. This effectively assists the working poor who do get benefits.

* On salaries between the ET and the UEL (equivalent to £5,225 to £34,840 per annum), NICs are collected at the rate of 23.8% (11% paid by the employee and 12.8% by the employer).[5]

* On the portion above the UEL, the total rate drops to 13.8% (1% paid by employees and 12.8% by the employer)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance (because the Government site was really hard to follow this late on a Sunday.

Now this is for a system that is passable, at best, and where those who can afford it, take out private health insurance on top of the NIC. I can't be certain, but I think this level of cost is fairly typical throughout Europe. Judge for yourself whether this is more, or less onerous than what you are paying for health insurance now.

I am in favour of a system like this, with one, big proviso. The NHS model hasn't changed that much since its inception in 1946. Any system that is designed today would need to be structured for today's healthcare climate. And it needs to have no profit or quota criteria. Healthcare should be about the care first, not the money.

Can the USA achieve something like this? I don't know.

then who is going to pay for it ?? magic elves ??

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Well, from everything I've read - we currently spend more money on healthcare per American than any other nation, and the proponents of universal healthcare have said that we could cut that money by almost a half.

Secondly, medical bills from what I've read are the number one reason why many Americans are forced into bankruptcy, so a universal healthcare system would elminate such problems.

In the UK, National Insurance Contributions (the part of your salary that goes toward the NHS) is as follows:

Class 1 contributions are paid by employees and their employers. They are deducted from their gross wages by the employer, with no action required by the employee. The employers also match these contributions (with the one exception below). There are three milestone figures which determine the rate of NICs to be paid: Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) , Earnings threshold (ET) and Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). In this context "earnings" refers to an employee's wage or salary.

* Below the LEL, no NICs are paid because no benefits can accrue on earnings below this limit.

* On salaries above the LEL and below the ET, NICs are not paid, but are credited by the government as if they were. This effectively assists the working poor who do get benefits.

* On salaries between the ET and the UEL (equivalent to £5,225 to £34,840 per annum), NICs are collected at the rate of 23.8% (11% paid by the employee and 12.8% by the employer).[5]

* On the portion above the UEL, the total rate drops to 13.8% (1% paid by employees and 12.8% by the employer)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance (because the Government site was really hard to follow this late on a Sunday.

Now this is for a system that is passable, at best, and where those who can afford it, take out private health insurance on top of the NIC. I can't be certain, but I think this level of cost is fairly typical throughout Europe. Judge for yourself whether this is more, or less onerous than what you are paying for health insurance now.

I am in favour of a system like this, with one, big proviso. The NHS model hasn't changed that much since its inception in 1946. Any system that is designed today would need to be structured for today's healthcare climate. And it needs to have no profit or quota criteria. Healthcare should be about the care first, not the money.

Can the USA achieve something like this? I don't know.

then who is going to pay for it ?? magic elves ??

The same magic elves who are paying for it today. Only these elves would get to save some seeing that we currently pay the most per capita for the least in coverage and service in return. That old scare book ain't working. The dysfunctional rip-off that is labeled "health care system" around here has been exposed. There isn't a sane person left that believes that this farce should be continued.

[mawilson 2,133]

Inflation is the killer, plus taxes on it as well, that has got to be considered into the equation.

Nick - didn't you get the memo?

The biggest threat today is deflation, not inflation.

The US Consumer Price Index just had the biggest drop on record since 1947!

[dalegg 143]

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Well, from everything I've read - we currently spend more money on healthcare per American than any other nation, and the proponents of universal healthcare have said that we could cut that money by almost a half.

Secondly, medical bills from what I've read are the number one reason why many Americans are forced into bankruptcy, so a universal healthcare system would elminate such problems.

In the UK, National Insurance Contributions (the part of your salary that goes toward the NHS) is as follows:

Class 1 contributions are paid by employees and their employers. They are deducted from their gross wages by the employer, with no action required by the employee. The employers also match these contributions (with the one exception below). There are three milestone figures which determine the rate of NICs to be paid: Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) , Earnings threshold (ET) and Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). In this context "earnings" refers to an employee's wage or salary.

* Below the LEL, no NICs are paid because no benefits can accrue on earnings below this limit.

* On salaries above the LEL and below the ET, NICs are not paid, but are credited by the government as if they were. This effectively assists the working poor who do get benefits.

* On salaries between the ET and the UEL (equivalent to £5,225 to £34,840 per annum), NICs are collected at the rate of 23.8% (11% paid by the employee and 12.8% by the employer).[5]

* On the portion above the UEL, the total rate drops to 13.8% (1% paid by employees and 12.8% by the employer)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance (because the Government site was really hard to follow this late on a Sunday.

Now this is for a system that is passable, at best, and where those who can afford it, take out private health insurance on top of the NIC. I can't be certain, but I think this level of cost is fairly typical throughout Europe. Judge for yourself whether this is more, or less onerous than what you are paying for health insurance now.

I am in favour of a system like this, with one, big proviso. The NHS model hasn't changed that much since its inception in 1946. Any system that is designed today would need to be structured for today's healthcare climate. And it needs to have no profit or quota criteria. Healthcare should be about the care first, not the money.

Can the USA achieve something like this? I don't know.

then who is going to pay for it ?? magic elves ??

The same magic elves who are paying for it today. Only these elves would get to save some seeing that we currently pay the most per capita for the least in coverage and service in return. That old scare book ain't working. The dysfunctional rip-off that is labeled "health care system" around here has been exposed. There isn't a sane person left that believes that this farce should be continued.

This is the part of the whole plan that I just can't wrap my head around. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with my current HMO and they way they work, but I don't understand how the same pool of money is now going to be used to continue providing medical coverage for the existing customers AND take on the expense of the other 15% of Americans that are uninsured, and have it come our running better. I guess its not impossible, but its just a little hard to believe its going to happen.

[mawilson 2,133]

Mr. Daley was reacting to a report in Sunday’s New York Times that said Mr. Obama was considering putting off the tax increases to give his ambitious economic stimulus proposals a chance to work, quoting several people familiar with the discussions. On Saturday, Mr. Obama announced that he had instructed his advisers to prepare a two-year stimulus package with the goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs."

So, is Obama saying that higher taxes even for the rich counter a plan to stimulate the economy?

Any tax increase is bad for the economy.

To argue otherwise is to ignore common sense and is completely idiotic.

Hellooooo?? Money coming out of your pocket and going into government waste.

[dalegg 143]

Mr. Daley was reacting to a report in Sunday’s New York Times that said Mr. Obama was considering putting off the tax increases to give his ambitious economic stimulus proposals a chance to work, quoting several people familiar with the discussions. On Saturday, Mr. Obama announced that he had instructed his advisers to prepare a two-year stimulus package with the goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs."

So, is Obama saying that higher taxes even for the rich counter a plan to stimulate the economy?

Any tax increase is bad for the economy.

To argue otherwise is to ignore common sense and is completely idiotic.

Hellooooo?? Money coming out of your pocket and going into government waste.

Yes, but that is only true if you believe that 3 is less than 20.

[britty 1]

And what of the employers that aren't currently paying anything for healthcare (which is what I thought the whole problem was in the first place)? Wouldn't a healthcare payroll tax of even 5 cents be an increase in their expenses?

Well, from everything I've read - we currently spend more money on healthcare per American than any other nation, and the proponents of universal healthcare have said that we could cut that money by almost a half.

Secondly, medical bills from what I've read are the number one reason why many Americans are forced into bankruptcy, so a universal healthcare system would elminate such problems.

In the UK, National Insurance Contributions (the part of your salary that goes toward the NHS) is as follows:

Class 1 contributions are paid by employees and their employers. They are deducted from their gross wages by the employer, with no action required by the employee. The employers also match these contributions (with the one exception below). There are three milestone figures which determine the rate of NICs to be paid: Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) , Earnings threshold (ET) and Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). In this context "earnings" refers to an employee's wage or salary.

* Below the LEL, no NICs are paid because no benefits can accrue on earnings below this limit.

* On salaries above the LEL and below the ET, NICs are not paid, but are credited by the government as if they were. This effectively assists the working poor who do get benefits.

* On salaries between the ET and the UEL (equivalent to £5,225 to £34,840 per annum), NICs are collected at the rate of 23.8% (11% paid by the employee and 12.8% by the employer).[5]

* On the portion above the UEL, the total rate drops to 13.8% (1% paid by employees and 12.8% by the employer)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance (because the Government site was really hard to follow this late on a Sunday.

Now this is for a system that is passable, at best, and where those who can afford it, take out private health insurance on top of the NIC. I can't be certain, but I think this level of cost is fairly typical throughout Europe. Judge for yourself whether this is more, or less onerous than what you are paying for health insurance now.

I am in favour of a system like this, with one, big proviso. The NHS model hasn't changed that much since its inception in 1946. Any system that is designed today would need to be structured for today's healthcare climate. And it needs to have no profit or quota criteria. Healthcare should be about the care first, not the money.

Can the USA achieve something like this? I don't know.

then who is going to pay for it ?? magic elves ??

The same magic elves who are paying for it today. Only these elves would get to save some seeing that we currently pay the most per capita for the least in coverage and service in return. That old scare book ain't working. The dysfunctional rip-off that is labeled "health care system" around here has been exposed. There isn't a sane person left that believes that this farce should be continued.

we pay the most for the least?? That is just silly and you know it. Anyway, without profit motive, there will be no new cancer drugs, or new surgical techniques, and anyone with anything less urgent than a critical trauma will be put on an endless waiting list. Where is the incentive for doctors and surgeons in a healthcare world that is driven by care and not cash? My doctor clearly earns 7 figures and he bloody deserves it. To the extent that there are inefficiencies in the US healthcare system, they were put there by needless regulation dreamed up by politicians and written by unelected bureaucrats. Do you honestly think the government gives a cr*p about your healthcare and whether you are adequately provided for? Of course they don't. Take a wander down to the DMV tomorrow and feel the love ....