<p>Then you’re not talking about anything near 66% taxation. The federal marginal rate from $185-400,000 is 33%, while the NYS state rate from $150-$300,000 is 6.6%. Those rates would only apply to the last $15,000 and $50,000, respectively, of a $200,000 income. If the top 5% starts at $200,000, then again, the 6% surtax would only apply to income above $200,000. Income tax rates are marginal.</p>
<p>You also ignore the fact that under such a system, you and your employer would no longer be paying private health insurance premiums, partially offsetting the increased tax payments.</p>
<p>“You also ignore the fact that under such a system, you and your employer would no longer be paying private health insurance premiums, partially offsetting the increased tax payments.”</p>
<p>Great. So that massive tax increase will cancel out the $180 I pay per month for my health insurance? I feel so much better. Sure, I can count on my company to give me a raise with that health insurance cash. That’s not happening.</p>
<p>You are making a lot of assumptions about income. Remember, the top federal tax rate increased to 39.6. You can make different assumptions based upon what sort of income people make, but there are some states that tax highly even on fairly low incomes. Take Oregon, that taxes 9% on income over $7,752, and on up to 11% max. You can add in things like property taxes and sales tax in most states, and you might be shocked how much it is.</p>
<p>No matter how you try to frame it, an additional 13% tax, even if it is not on every single cent of your money, is a LOT of money. How can anyone actually argue otherwise, unless they are very low income and figure that freebie health insurance is well worth it for them.</p>
<p>And you missed the point that this article made, was that the single payer system was to be redistributive. A way to take money from those who make it, and give it to those who make less. That’s a philosophy, not a plan for improving our health care system.</p>
$180 per month is $2,160. That’s a significant raise for 90% of American families.</p>
<p>
Whose fault is that? If your employer doesn’t pass along their savings to their employees but instead pockets it as profit, your employer apparently doesn’t care about its employees.</p>
<p>
Which applies only to income over $400,000 or $450,000 for married couples. Fewer than 1% of Americans make that much money. Go cry me a river if you’re in the richest 1%.</p>
<p>Polarscribe, this is a waste of time. Somebody who thinks it is fine to force a massive tax upon all Americans, particularly targeted upon a small number, is not worth my time arguing with. I give up.</p>
<p>It is unlikely that you are someone who has a job with high compensation, but there really is no shame in aspiring to eventually be in that position. And when (and if) you are, I suspect that you will not want to hand over the bulk of your pay to the government.</p>
I do not aspire to make $450,000 per year. Like hundreds of millions of Americans - including the overwhelming majority of people on this forum - I am in a career track that will never, ever, ever give me the opportunity to make anywhere near that much money. And I don’t care, because I can make a decent living and have the opportunity to serve the American people and their public lands heritage.</p>
<p>Why do you believe that “high compensation” is the only thing to aspire to, or that the sole measure of a person’s worth to society is the monetary compensation they earn?</p>
<p>Is Justin Bieber more important to the world than an AIDS researcher? If not, why is he paid so much more? Or has our society perhaps entirely decoupled financial compensation and moral value?</p>
<p>Ah, the classic formula: unable to convince anyone that your talking points are true, you dismiss the whole discussion as a waste of your time…yet throw in an insult as you flee from the room.</p>
<p>“I absolutely believe the current system needs massive improvement, but I am not sure that what we got will be better. There will still be tens of millions of people uninsured, the CBO says costs will rise, people are already having their hours cut, and all sorts of unintended things. It is outrageous that the people charged with acting on behalf of the people have been derelict in their duty.”</p>
<p>So, what is your solution? </p>
<p>I also don’t understand your derelict in their duty statement? Can you explain?</p>
<p>I believe she meant that they did not work together to craft a solution to the problem. If that is what she meant I agree with her. Both sides. Although in this day and age not sure if that is possible.</p>
<p>“Somebody who thinks it is fine to force a massive tax upon all Americans, particularly targeted upon a small number, is not worth my time arguing with.”</p>
<p>But you think it is okay for your company to subsidized the cost of your medical insurance, so you don’t have to pay the real cost, no? </p>
<p>I think most people do not understand that we are all already paying for the unisured. RIght now if you walk into an ER, and have no insurance, you are not denied care. They HAVE to see you. If there is an immediate life threatening issue, it has to be met even an tremendous cost, and the bill is forced on all tax payers. Who the heck does anyone here think is paying for those who can’t and/or won’t pay right now? Yeah, there are many who suffer and don’t get medical care because of the fear of the expense, but there are a significant number who do go for some care and simply don’t pay. I’m paying my son’s bill right now that he schloffed off to the tax payers when he mistakenly told the ER hand specialist, and all the imaging stations that had to check out the injury that he had no insurance. That he had it puts him on the hook for what was not covered by that insurance which is what i am now paying. If he truly did not have it, the state/federal government/hospitals has to soak up the cost, the whole tab, and I doubt they would have caught on that he had the insurance. He lives with a bunch of “starving artist” types who avail themselves of “free” medical care as they need as they are not covered. Do you really think this is free? </p>
<p>By having some sort of forced insurance premium, as we now have a forced retirement contribution through social security, everyone HAS to have coverage. If you don’t have it , you were covered by the state/ or fed government and you have just been caught as delinquent on your past premium when you avail yourself of services and your name is not on the current on premium list, and it comes off of your federal tab, in time. It’s just a better and more effective way of collecting the premiums these dead beats and those who simply can’t afford insurance owe. </p>
<p>That there are no good options is a problem too. Right now the cost of insurance is ridiculously high. If you lose a job, and get the COBRA papers with the payment schedules, there is no mystery why some people won’t pay them. They may simply not have the money. My DH’s colleague’s bill this year for his private insurance for his family, none of them high risk is over $30K and that’s with a high deductible. My one son’s insurance premium which is subsidized somewhat by his firm is not a small amount either, and I am aghast at what I am facing in payments for my son now off of our plan and he is prime health insurance material with no risk factor, and young. </p>
<p>This is a crazy year for the AHA, as all the pieces are not yet in palce, and I am truly worried as to how it all shakes out, but the “non system” it is trying to replace is not a good one either. Those who think it’s just fine, well, you are like that frog that is being slowly boiled to death. You don’t want the alternative that may save you which is being plunged in some icy cold water right now as a reality check, because,yes, it is going to be very painful to you. That warm water cooking you slowly feels mighty good, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>I agree, by the way, that having health care and ones job an insane coupling as one has nothing to do with the other. My SIL who is European is appalled. At least she and her kids are always covered with Tricare through my brother’s veteran beneifits though she does sign on for the much better options through her jobs and it becomes the last ditch payment options the way the integration works. But when she was unceremoniously fired some years ago, it was all they had, and she had a husband who was dxed with pancreatic cancer that previous year Think getting much coverage for that was going to be easy? Not to mention the cost.</p>
<p>tom, I usually agree with you, as you want to solve whatever problem we’re talking about in an unbiased, non-inflammatory way. And I usually agree with stevesma too.</p>
<p>You are right, there are no adults in DC left anymore. They just want to stick to their ideology and keep power, not solve the problem. They merely want to win.</p>
<p>“The not easy part is getting the 4 of us to agree on something.”</p>
<p>Again, I disagree. The non easy part was just not having all 4 people in the room. Two went in but the other two just stomped their feet and refused to enter. </p>
<p>There was nothing stopping one side from negotiating except their refusal to do so.</p>
<p>“emily it is easy for me and you and it is easy for busdriver and SteveMa.”</p>
<p>Where is busdrivers and SteveMa solution? I’ve heard no ideas from them on what they would do to solve the problem.</p>
<p>“Ah, the classic formula: unable to convince anyone that your talking points are true, you dismiss the whole discussion as a waste of your time…yet throw in an insult as you flee from the room.”</p>
<p>I didn’t realize that was a classic formula, I’ll have to remember that (and use it on my husband).</p>
<p>But what I finally did realize was that the person I was addressing enjoys inflammatory arguments, and is not really here for a discussion. I should have remembered the name and not bothered.</p>