View Full Version : (07.10.09) "House Democrats Plan to Tax the Wealthy to Pay for Health Care Reform" (NYT)
Laura Cereta
07-11-2009, 10:27 AM
To pay for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, House Democrats will propose a surtax on individuals earning $280,000 and up and couples earning more than $350,000, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said on Friday.
In all, the proposal is projected to generate roughly $550 billion over 10 years, which would cover about half of the estimated cost of the $1-trillion-plus health care legislation. The balance of the cost is expected to be covered by lower government spending on Medicare and other savings in the health care system.
But it remains unclear if the Senate would approve such an across-the-board income tax on the wealthy. Although some Democrats said they would gladly vote to tax the rich to pay for an improved health care system, most if not all Republicans and some centrist Democrats seem to be opposed.
The Ways and Means chairman, Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, said the surcharge would begin at 1 percent and would step up for individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $500,000, and step up yet again for individuals earning $800,000 and up, and couples earning more than $1 million.
Lawmakers were also planning to insert language that would increase the surtax in 2013 if expected cost-savings in the health care system do not materialize.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/2059911/nytlogo379x64.gif (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/house-democrats-plan-to-tax-the-wealthy-to-pay-for-health-care-reform/)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/house-democrats-plan-to-tax-the-wealthy-to-pay-for-health-care-reform/
The wealthy only become wealthy because they live in a society which supports wealth acquisition. Therefore, I have no problem with them being required to give back a tiny tiny tiny portion of the money that society has, in effect, given them. And those wealthy people who are not selfish & greedy, and who understand that they became wealthy courtesy of society, would probably feel the same way.
Tybee
07-11-2009, 11:51 AM
Some are saying that it's going to be way more than 1 Trillion. More when the Government is in it? You bet. So it will be more then a tiny portion.
Some are saying that it's going to be way more than 1 Trillion. More when the Government is in it? You bet. So it will be more then a tiny portion.
It will be relatively "tiny" for each individual person. There are millions of wealthy Americans.
cinnamongirl
07-11-2009, 01:13 PM
The wealthy only become wealthy because they live in a society which supports wealth acquisition. Therefore, I have no problem with them being required to give back a tiny tiny tiny portion of the money that society has, in effect, given them. And those wealthy people who are not selfish & greedy, and who understand that they became wealthy courtesy of society, would probably feel the same way.
Agreed. I've never understood why the desires of the rich should be valued over the needs of society at large.
Agreed. I've never understood why the desires of the rich should be valued over the needs of society at large.
Especially when rich people could never have become rich without society helping them to become rich. Wealth is not created by an individual acting in isolation. Wealth can only be generated in a societal context which allows the generation of wealth by individuals/groups/organizations. As such, the wealthy should give some of that back to the people they got it from.
Laura Cereta
07-11-2009, 01:18 PM
Agreed. I've never understood why the desires of the rich should be valued over the needs of society at large.
Well, they shouldn't be totally but there has to be a balance. We don't want to take away people's incentives for hard work and innovation. That will make economic growth stagnant and will not meet the needs of society as a whole either.
Well, they shouldn't be totally but there has to be a balance. We don't want to take away people's incentives for hard work and innovation. That will make economic growth stagnant and will not meet the needs of society as a whole either.
Balance, yes. But I support some taxing of the wealthy to support this effort.
Speaking of hard work and innovation, there are millions of people who work their guts out for years but, because they don't work in a sector/job/industry that supports the generation of individual wealth, they live on small incomes for life. As such, I think those people who are lucky enough to be able to accumulate wealth have some responsibility/obligation to share a tine portion of their riches with the society that helped them acquire wealth status. Millions of people are never rewarded for their hard work and I think it's one of those grand myths out there that if you just work hard enough, the money will come - for many, it never does.
Tybee
07-11-2009, 01:23 PM
Especially when rich people could never have become rich without society helping them to become rich. Wealth is not created by an individual acting in isolation. Wealth can only be generated in a societal context which allows the generation of wealth by individuals/groups/organizations. As such, the wealthy should give some of that back to the people they got it from.
What if they already give back in the form of charities etc.?
What if they already give back in the form of charities etc.?
Yes, that definitely counts.
Those (wealthy people) that give back to charities should be taxed less than those who keep every last dime for themselves.
Tybee
07-11-2009, 01:25 PM
Balance, yes. But I support some taxing of the wealthy to support this effort.
Speaking of hard work and innovation, there are millions of people who work their guts out for years but, because they don't work in a sector/job/industry that supports the generation of individual wealth, they live on small incomes for life. As such, I think those people who are lucky enough to be able to accumulate wealth have some responsibility/obligation to share a tine portion of their riches with the society that helped them acquire wealth status. Millions of people are never rewarded for their hard work and I think it's one of those grand myths out there that if you just work hard enough, the money will come - for many, it never does.
But, in a free country, we have choices.
But, in a free country, we have choices.
"Free" in theory. Not always "free" in reality.
We live in a society, not an island of one.
As such, "choices" are heavily framed/determined by that society.
No individual makes their way through life without the assistance of countless numbers of people/groups/organizations.
Spang
07-11-2009, 01:29 PM
"I can work hard all my life and in the end still suffer, 'cause the world is controlled by you lazy mother<CENSORED>" - Boots Riley
"I can work hard all my life and in the end still suffer, 'cause the world is controlled by you lazy mother<CENSORED>" - Boots Riley
genericstamp!
Tybee
07-11-2009, 01:33 PM
"Free" in theory. Not always "free" in reality.
We live in a society, not an island of one.
As such, "choices" are heavily framed/determined by that society.
No individual makes their way through life without the assistance of countless numbers of people/groups/organizations.
Well, if you look at welfare, IMO, long term it only hurts. Also, who should determine what is rich? I think globally, an income of $50,000 puts you in the top 1%. But, that amount doesn't make you rich. Different areas make a huge difference on what it takes to get by in the US. I think I'm more concerned with the numbers changing, as I think they will.
Tybee
07-11-2009, 01:34 PM
"I can work hard all my life and in the end still suffer, 'cause the world is controlled by you lazy mother<CENSORED>" - Boots Riley
Most times, it's what YOU do with all that hard work. If you can't manage money, you're screwed.
Laura Cereta
07-11-2009, 01:35 PM
Balance, yes. But I support some taxing of the wealthy to support this effort.
Speaking of hard work and innovation, there are millions of people who work their guts out for years but, because they don't work in a sector/job/industry that supports the generation of individual wealth, they live on small incomes for life. As such, I think those people who are lucky enough to be able to accumulate wealth have some responsibility/obligation to share a tine portion of their riches with the society that helped them acquire wealth status. Millions of people are never rewarded for their hard work and I think it's one of those grand myths out there that if you just work hard enough, the money will come - for many, it never does.
True. The Fair Tax idea that's been floated around might solve this, though. Then everyone would pay the same percent of their income. The rich would obviously pay more because they have more, but as it is the top 1% of earners in the U.S. are providing almost half of our total tax revenue.
There are other factors involved, too. Pres. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy but he cut government spending and balanced the budget. The economy thrived under his administration and the wealthy didn't seem too concerned about the extra taxes. Balance is definitely the key.
Laura Cereta
07-11-2009, 01:37 PM
"Free" in theory. Not always "free" in reality.
We live in a society, not an island of one.
As such, "choices" are heavily framed/determined by that society.
No individual makes their way through life without the assistance of countless numbers of people/groups/organizations.
The structural-functionalist theory. :cool:
cinnamongirl
07-11-2009, 01:42 PM
Well, if you look at welfare, IMO, long term it only hurts. Also, who should determine what is rich? I think globally, an income of $50,000 puts you in the top 1%. But, that amount doesn't make you rich. Different areas make a huge difference on what it takes to get by in the US. I think I'm more concerned with the numbers changing, as I think they will.
I believe the going standard is $250,000+ per year, or at least it was earlier this year. It's hard to argue that anyone making more than that is living hand-to-mouth.
Well, if you look at welfare, IMO, long term it only hurts. Also, who should determine what is rich? I think globally, an income of $50,000 puts you in the top 1%. But, that amount doesn't make you rich. Different areas make a huge difference on what it takes to get by in the US. I think I'm more concerned with the numbers changing, as I think they will.
Not talking globally, talking about the US.
$50,000 in the USA is not rich. At all. Especially in a major urban center.
Maybe an income of >$250,000 puts you into the "wealthy" category...
The structural-functionalist theory. :cool:
Ah, my sociological views coming through!
Lealy
07-12-2009, 01:53 AM
I believe the going standard is $250,000+ per year, or at least it was earlier this year. It's hard to argue that anyone making more than that is living hand-to-mouth.
No one should have to live hand to mouth and that should not be the standard.
5 years ago my family was making 34k and we went though Foreclosure and Bankruptcy. We had our gas turned off for more than six months during that time. I worked 12 hour night shifts at the hosp and hubby worked during the day. I took care of the kids during the day and could not afford daycare for 4. 3 years later I was a stay at home mom and hubby made more than 230k. No one would help or contribute when we had nothing, sold everything we had and worked non stop but so many think it is their right to take it now. I did the taxes that year we were not eligible for the child tax credit per child only the main deduction, we owned no home so nothing there, we could not deduct my student loan interest no longer eligible. In fact the only deductions we were eligible for were my husbands work expenses. We have never owned a new car, never received unemployment, no free lunches we pay for street paving here and Education is paid for by property taxes.
This idea that the so called rich don't pay their fair share is crap. Those that are really rich don't pay and won't in the future regardless of the laws. That is the problem the rich know how not to pay people like us don't have the luxury of a CPA to hide money, overseas accounts or whatever loopholes that congress creates for them. We paid more in taxes last year than we made in the first 5 years of our marrage Federal alone at 36.9%, state taxes, local taxes (to a city we don't even live in), sales taxes, property taxes ect. by the time we were done we are somewhere around 63%. The year before we made 184k that is where I found to be the biggest change in taxes. O promised everyone a tax cut so did Bush for that matter well we never qualified for any of them.
Life is not fair I tell this to my children everyday so that I will never hear excuses come out of their mouths. We work hard We have done whatever we had to so that we could survive and we deserve to receive at least half of the money we earn but since life is not fair we already pay out more.
You don't know me. This subject normally makes me mad because everyone is always so good at deciding how others should live except when it comes to themselves. Even though the economy has tanked our income in the last year my husband still has a job so we will probably not hit O's definition of rich but I would like to someday so I can afford to send my kids to school since they won't be included in any programs. Even though we are not at the rich mark that just means our taxes are not supposed to go up but he never said anyone over 150k would go down it's all semantics.
This should not be about how much more those evil rich people pay it should be about how much money we would save if we got the crooks in Washington to stop using our taxes as personal piggy banks for themselves and their families. As well as stop the wasteful spending that just ends up in the hand of special interest groups.
PA_Voter
07-12-2009, 02:18 AM
No one should have to live hand to mouth and that should not be the standard.
5 years ago my family was making 34k and we went though Foreclosure and Bankruptcy. We had our gas turned off for more than six months during that time. I worked 12 hour night shifts at the hosp and hubby worked during the day. I took care of the kids during the day and could not afford daycare for 4. 3 years later I was a stay at home mom and hubby made more than 230k. No one would help or contribute when we had nothing, sold everything we had and worked non stop but so many think it is their right to take it now. I did the taxes that year we were not eligible for the child tax credit per child only the main deduction, we owned no home so nothing there, we could not deduct my student loan interest no longer eligible. In fact the only deductions we were eligible for were my husbands work expenses. We have never owned a new car, never received unemployment, no free lunches we pay for street paving here and Education is paid for by property taxes.
This idea that the so called rich don't pay their fair share is crap. Those that are really rich don't pay and won't in the future regardless of the laws. That is the problem the rich know how not to pay people like us don't have the luxury of a CPA to hide money, overseas accounts or whatever loopholes that congress creates for them. We paid more in taxes last year than we made in the first 5 years of our marrage Federal alone at 36.9%, state taxes, local taxes (to a city we don't even live in), sales taxes, property taxes ect. by the time we were done we are somewhere around 63%. The year before we made 184k that is where I found to be the biggest change in taxes. O promised everyone a tax cut so did Bush for that matter well we never qualified for any of them.
Life is not fair I tell this to my children everyday so that I will never hear excuses come out of their mouths. We work hard We have done whatever we had to so that we could survive and we deserve to receive at least half of the money we earn but since life is not fair we already pay out more.
You don't know me. This subject normally makes me mad because everyone is always so good at deciding how others should live except when it comes to themselves. Even though the economy has tanked our income in the last year my husband still has a job so we will probably not hit O's definition of rich but I would like to someday so I can afford to send my kids to school since they won't be included in any programs. Even though we are not at the rich mark that just means our taxes are not supposed to go up but he never said anyone over 150k would go down it's all semantics.
This should not be about how much more those evil rich people pay it should be about how much money we would save if we got the crooks in Washington to stop using our taxes as personal piggy banks for themselves and their families. As well as stop the wasteful spending that just ends up in the hand of special interest groups.
I hope your family feels stronger having gone through what you have.
Unfortunately regardless of what O says, everyone's taxes are going up and there will not be tax cuts for 95% of Americans--it just may not hit you directly through payroll. You will be faced for the next 3 years of taxes coming out of everywhere--whether your State ups their payroll or sales/use tax, your city and school taxes will increase, you'll see new (or increases) in all those federal taxes you're already paying on your phone, gas, electric, insurance, etc. Inflation, due to our borrowing, will increase your commodities by at least 5% shortly, so we'll call that an interest payment rather than a tax. So, IMO anyone who thinks O is cutting taxes for everyone but the "rich" has not come off the campaign trail yet.
I don't mind helping people and causes with my limited funds, but I still would like to live in a country in which I can chose causes I personally believe in and not have my contributions dictated to me by my government. Paraphrasing Huckabee, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and we wouldn't need government at all!
Tybee
07-12-2009, 05:57 AM
Yes, that definitely counts.
Those (wealthy people) that give back to charities should be taxed less than those who keep every last dime for themselves.
I know some so-called rich people, I know many more that are ranked in the 'poor' catagory. Most of the ones that are poor are the most greediest 'me, me, me' people I've ever known. Ones who sit on their asses day in and day out, moaning about what others have done to them. They don't have any idea how to get out of this situation, they don't want to know. It's easier that way. They don't take it kindly when you suggest what THEY could do to help themselves. If you're kind enough to loan or give them some money, they go to the movies, go out to eat, buy CDs. One family in particular, gets food stamps and other government assistance, while buying a pool (above ground, ahhh that's sad....), their kids get free Christmas gifts yearly cause they play the game so well. They also get free school lunches. This family is related to my sister by marriage.
My husband used to be involved in drugs many years ago. Not anymore, he got out of the cycle of BS of the wrong friends etc. I could name off the top of my head at least 10 ex-friends who all abuse the system of 'these people need help'.
I doubt very strongly that these are a minority of the people who never seem to do any better. The system of government welfare isn't what is needed as it keeps people staying where they are. They don't have any work ethics. They just 'wait'.
jlynne
07-13-2009, 03:13 AM
I spoke to a doctor this weekend whose income is over $350K. He will be subject to the new tax and is planning on passing it on to his patients. He is forced to use an accrual method for his income -- although he receives substantially less in payments than he bills out-- and is locked into fixed price contracts with the government (Medicaid and Medicare) that are paying him late or in IOUs. His student loan debt is so high that he can't absorb the increased tax. I give him credit for going the surcharge route instead of the route of the other doctors in his practice -- they're dropping their medicaid patients.
Paraphrasing Huckabee, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and we wouldn't need government at all!
Unfortunately, about 99% of human beings are completely unable to live by this, therefore a system of government or societal checks/balances is absolutely needed. Both individuals and goverments screw up yes, but it's not even realistic in today's world to imagine living in a society without a government.
I give him credit for going the surcharge route instead of the route of the other doctors in his practice -- they're dropping their medicaid patients.
Yes, that is at least better than dropping them.
jlynne
07-13-2009, 12:09 PM
Yes, that is at least better than dropping them.
It's an ironic situation. A tax intended to provide for universal healthcare is going to hurt medicaid patients.
I know there is a speciality medical practice that is shopping for an accounting/financing company to do an offshoring proposal for them. I am hoping one of my friends gets to work on the project so I can see the results. It would be nice to know where the money people are going to be traveling to to get their health care so I can invest in the infastructure in that area.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.