Article - Tax the rich to pay for health bill

[Stayne]

To the topic raised in the OP. The funny/sad thing is that there have been alternatives to increasing taxes on the top 1-5% of earners to fund health care. One of those is the tax on sugary soft drinks. Taxing sugared soft drinks would raise funds from the entire population, not just the rich, and might have the effect of reducing the intake of sugary drinks which would help reduce the onset of type 2 diabetes. Yet, the opposition party has decried it and rallied against it.

The other issue, which is an honest and serious issue, has to do with how resources are utilized. On 60 Minutes, there was a piece on how much money was spent on care for terminally ill patients during only the last 2 months of their lives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737138n&tag=api

The issue is how much money and resources are spent on treatments for people who are beyond treatment. Again, there was legislation that supported the discussion end-of-life care, a living will, the option of hospice or in-home care, etc. The goal being to allow patients to choose how they want to die (because we all die) when they are still in a state to be able to make those choices. This legislation, however, was decried by the opposition party as "Death Panels".

So, when any real alternative is opposed, the easy answer is tax the rich. Tax the rich is the worst of the three options. What we need is a better allocation of resources, and a tax on sugary beverages or candies also makes sense. But when one party wants nothing but to play the spoiler and is not contributing to solutions but only criticizing every option, then we end up with the politically easy solutions like tax the rich.

[stas]

Originally Posted by Stayne

Even if the tax rates were flat, the highest earners would still pay the vast majority of taxes. That's just math. Even with the progressive tax policy, the top 20% still take in half of all income in the U.S. post-taxes. So, the big earners continue to be the big earners (and continue to have more opportunity), and the poor continue being dirt poor (and continue having less opportunity).

On another note, I've often heard that states that tend to vote GOP tend to get more federal tax dollars returned to them than states that tend to vote DEM. I found these numbers at the Tax Foundation. How much each state payed is compared with how much the state gets back in terms of dollars returned for every dollar sent to the Federal Government. Then, states are ranked on how much they get back. The state that gets back the most for how much they give is ranked #1, and the one that gets back the least is ranked #50. Using the most recent numbers (2005), I categorized the states by DEM or GOP based on how they voted in 04 and 08. Below are the results of those mean rankings:

2004 GOP MEAN RANK: 19
2004 DEM Mean RANK: 36

2008 GOP MEAN RANK: 13
2008 DEM MEAN RANK: 33

GOP states get more back on average than DEM states. That means that DEM states are supporting GOP states. Yet, GOP states are constantly bitching about taxes, even though they are on the receiving end of them more than on the paying end.

so you know where money goes (in a broad, state-wise sense) but not why, to who, or who voted for it? did you also look at poverty rates in gop vs dem states, to see if your equal opportunity 'bitching' might already be playing out in the real world, if it is the reason thats occuring, rather than the gop just screaming for money?

[stas]

Originally Posted by FireWall

The Founding Fathers would disagree since they considered that phrase a direct rebuttal of the Divine Right of Kings. To say that it suggests nothing is actually quite preposterous. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

Expecting the wealthy to pay a fair amount of taxes is not punishing them. They earn a disproportionate amount of income, so they should pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. It's actually quite simple.

Yeah, I forgot, when the right wants to fund a new expenditure, they don't worry about paying for it (e.g., the War in Iraq). Why bother when you can just increase the budget deficit and national debt? Sorry, but someone has to flip the bill for national projects.

I fail to see how securing tenure is going to make him wealthy. Besides, this isn't a question of "seeing things from their perspective." This is a question of doing what's right.

im sorry i get hung up on little words, can you expound on the divine right of kings a little for me? and since you are such an expert on what they wanted and intended, can i see some documents that would support your assertions that they believe you should punish people for luck?

you and stayne still seem to be missing the point. no one is complaining about how much they pay now. do i have to say that every post? the point is just continuing to heap taxes upon them, which is clearly unreasonable, unless like you, everyone else in the us believes in a communist society.

im sorry i thought the thread title was about paying for healthcare with the rich people's taxes, which is unrelated to the war. you know, new expenditures need new sources of income.

ah, whats "right". whats "right" according to you, you mean, and then forcing it on everyone else? isnt your inner communist chafing at this idea, or is that what equality is all about? maybe the soviets got it right after all...

[stas]

Originally Posted by Stayne

But its ok to neglect the 80% of the population not born into a life of opportunity and hold that against them?

The rich are not being pushed into poverty, or even into middle class. They still bring in more than half of the entire national income after taxes. Can you cool it on the "punish the rich" rhetoric please? Are the wealthy so sensitive that they will stop earning money because the tax code "sends the wrong message?" Poor babies. Or do you think the tax code will make it so people won't want to earn more money? I'd like to see you back that claim up.

You have a funny way of wishing success. You are saying that when I grow up and make lots of money I will change my view. First, you must not be familiar with faculty salaries. Second, why might I not be like many high earners who are in favor of the additional taxation knowing that it will be helping those less fortunate? Not all wealthy are miserly bastards who play the victim.

again, you too easily fall back on 'if not a, then b', as if there are only two options. to not overly tax the rich is not to 'neglect' the poor, unless you concede that no other reasonable courses of action exist. hope youre enjoying the strawmen.

who are you to arbitrarily say what an acceptable standard of living is for the rich, that you can tax them to that point? i would argue the point of government is not to set a ceiling on standards of living, but a floor. if the government poorly and inefficiently spends its money (most on education per capita, without good results, etc) it should not run back to the people every time it needs more. it should be held accountable. our government has been overspending for decades (ss fund is just ious) and should not be able to repeatedly fleece those who provide the majority of its income. that is a great way to drive them out. plenty of companies are leaving as it is, and if we do our best to drive away the largest part of our tax base, we'll be in the same spot without income. demanding accountability and reform are better measures to address this than taxes. again, this is you and the dems putting the cart before the horse. there are small reforms that will go a long way to help before we need drastic measures. refusal to implement these by both parties over the years is what has gotten us here.

ill give you an analogous real business example. youre an operations/logistics analyst at a hospital. the hospital wants to buy 2 x-ray machines for $4+ million dollars to get more patients through. however, you do your job and realize that the current process is poorly managed and tracked, and that with tweaking it, you can not only take care of your current patient load, but get more through the system without having to purchase the additional machines. you now have that $4+ million to spend elsewhere for other needs.

our system may need an overhaul, but we need to see what we can do with what we've got. we need an honest, direct assessment of our current system and we need to tweak what we can without raising taxes because you cant go back from there (how do you continue to raise government expenditures and decrease taxes for more than a short period of time?). small steps are the best way to go and drastic changes should be reserved for when you have evaluated the quick easy alternatives and they will not yield the necessary results.

i dont consider warren buffet and george soros great examples of the rich. everyone like the socialite parasite pelosi who has already made their money and doesnt have to worry about it being taxed and affecting their lifestyle will undoubtedly approve of raising taxes on income. i worry more about small business people who may have high incomes but also consolidate financial returns as individual income. that means working capital and new expenditures come entirely out of their pockets, thus they need higher incomes. i don think you appropriately understand small business structures and needs. you and firewall usually play to the preconception of a kennedy like family.

[Sutterkane]

Originally Posted by Stayne

To the topic raised in the OP. The funny/sad thing is that there have been alternatives to increasing taxes on the top 1-5% of earners to fund health care. One of those is the tax on sugary soft drinks. Taxing sugared soft drinks would raise funds from the entire population, not just the rich, and might have the effect of reducing the intake of sugary drinks which would help reduce the onset of type 2 diabetes. Yet, the opposition party has decried it and rallied against it.

Taxing one item that is bad for your health isn't going to solve people's intake problems. If you force people addicted to soft drinks to drink diet sodas because they will be cheaper due to a tax, then you have to turn around and realize those drinks still have a pretty high sodium level. Diet sodas are practically all sodium. There are still plenty of other foods and drink that are awful for you...unless you want to go tax everything except grilled chicken salads without dressing, cheese, bacon bits, and croutons.

[Stayne]

Originally Posted by Sutterkane

Taxing one item that is bad for your health isn't going to solve people's intake problems. If you force people addicted to soft drinks to drink diet sodas because they will be cheaper due to a tax, then you have to turn around and realize those drinks still have a pretty high sodium level. Diet sodas are practically all sodium. There are still plenty of other foods and drink that are awful for you...unless you want to go tax everything except grilled chicken salads without dressing, cheese, bacon bits, and croutons.

You are correct that diet sodas are not a magic bullet. But, diet sodas do not produce type 2 diabetes, which is an expensive and growing problem in our sugar-loving population. The effect of possibly decreasing soda intake is just a side effect, not the main goal, of the tax. The main goal is to help fund health care. Let's not confuse the two. (oh.. and soft drink addiction? Let's not pretend that soft-drinks are like tabacco in addictiveness, such that consumers of soft drinks are captive victims of the tax.)

Clearly, the best move is to evaluate our current health-care practices and make tough choices. Unfortunately, when those issues have been raised, the opposition party screams "rationing", "death panels", "bureaucrats getting between doctor and patient", "unplugging grandma" and other exaggerated and unhelpful scare-slogans. This scaremongering hurts the discussion and makes an already difficult issue impossible to work on... but that, as they themselves have stated, is the GOP goal.

[AGT-Shady]

Originally Posted by Stayne

Clearly, the best move is to evaluate our current health-care practices and make tough choices.

Which in particular are you referring to? (or was the soda tax it)

[Sutterkane]

Originally Posted by Stayne

Clearly, the best move is to evaluate our current health-care practices and make tough choices. Unfortunately, when those issues have been raised, the opposition party screams "rationing", "death panels", "bureaucrats getting between doctor and patient", "unplugging grandma" and other exaggerated and unhelpful scare-slogans. This scaremongering hurts the discussion and makes an already difficult issue impossible to work on... but that, as they themselves have stated, is the GOP goal.

Make tough choices? So you admit that in order to save money on health care we need to reduce some treatments and as such some people will die earlier than expected? If not, then explain your tough choices.

As I've said before, you can't simply reduce costs and still magically give better care. Scientists and doctors have been saying for years about when women should get breast and cervical exams and suddenly in the name of health care reform we want those experts to say otherwise. You already have panels coming out and saying shit like "well, the result of having these exams early doesn't result in a very large increase in life". Yet it does result in life increase. These people are literally ok with people dying because they don't get checked up for things. If the problem is false positives, then make the exams better. Don't take away the thought that people need them.

[Stayne]

Originally Posted by AGT-Shady

Which in particular are you referring to? (or was the soda tax it)

These are two of the issues I was referring to:

Originally Posted by Stayne

To the topic raised in the OP. The funny/sad thing is that there have been alternatives to increasing taxes on the top 1-5% of earners to fund health care. One of those is the tax on sugary soft drinks. Taxing sugared soft drinks would raise funds from the entire population, not just the rich, and might have the effect of reducing the intake of sugary drinks which would help reduce the onset of type 2 diabetes. Yet, the opposition party has decried it and rallied against it.

The other issue, which is an honest and serious issue, has to do with how resources are utilized. On 60 Minutes, there was a piece on how much money was spent on care for terminally ill patients during only the last 2 months of their lives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737138n&tag=api

The issue is how much money and resources are spent on treatments for people who are beyond treatment. Again, there was legislation that supported the discussion end-of-life care, a living will, the option of hospice or in-home care, etc. The goal being to allow patients to choose how they want to die (because we all die) when they are still in a state to be able to make those choices. This legislation, however, was decried by the opposition party as "Death Panels".

So, when any real alternative is opposed, the easy answer is tax the rich. Tax the rich is the worst of the three options. What we need is a better allocation of resources, and a tax on sugary beverages or candies also makes sense. But when one party wants nothing but to play the spoiler and is not contributing to solutions but only criticizing every option, then we end up with the politically easy solutions like tax the rich.

Sutter, the issue of resource allocation is a hairy one. It is an issue that needs to be decided on the level of the individual, their family, and their doctor. Take a moment to watch that 60 Minutes piece if you can. It really clarifies the kinds of situations that I am talking about (e.g., terminally ill with 1-2 month life expectancy even with medical treatments), the kinds of resources that are being used (doctor time, unnecessary tests, beds in ICU), and alternative means of caring for these individuals (e.g., living wills, hospice, in-home, etc.). The argument is that better end of life education can lead to more natural death (as opposed to death by unplugging someone from the machine that is keeping them alive beyond their natural life) and better resource management.

Interestingly, the doctor in the 60 minutes piece would like there to be legislation on the issue so that it is not up to the family or the doctor to figure it out. He argues that it would be easier and clearer. IMO, I don't think those kinds of issues can be decided with broad strokes from congress. The end-of-life care portion that was in the health care bill (dunno if it still is) which was decried as "death panels" seemed to be as close as it could get to legislating those kinds of decisions. That legislation pushed for living wills and education of hospice and alternative-to-hospital care at end of life.

You say we can't save costs and give better care. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "better". Better could be defined as exhausting all options on every individual, regardless of the probability of success of any of those options. Or, better could mean maximizing the limitations of our resources and being more efficient in their allocation. The latter would require a realistic approach to whether a person's condition can be improved, and whether the effects of any medical treatments will help or simply make the remaining days that the person has more miserable (while expending valuable resources).

Health care is a tough issue. But that is all the more reason to stop the partisan point-scoring (not accusing anyone here) and focus on real options. I think this is an issue that most politicians would rather ignore, because it is one that has direct impact on the lives of their consituents. But, as we have already agreed, the status quo is unsustainable. Perhaps, as the doctor in the 60 minutes piece said, we Americans need to realize that we are mortal, and no matter what medical treatments we have at our disposal we will all eventually die. We need to come to grips with that culturally, and learn how to approach our death rather than try every means available, no matter the cost or probability of success, to avoid it.

[stas]

Originally Posted by Stayne

Health care is a tough issue. But that is all the more reason to stop the partisan point-scoring (not accusing anyone here) and focus on real options. I think this is an issue that most politicians would rather ignore, because it is one that has direct impact on the lives of their consituents. But, as we have already agreed, the status quo is unsustainable. Perhaps, as the doctor in the 60 minutes piece said, we Americans need to realize that we are mortal, and no matter what medical treatments we have at our disposal we will all eventually die. We need to come to grips with that culturally, and learn how to approach our death rather than try every means available, no matter the cost or probability of success, to avoid it.

we need to stop addressing it right now and heal the economy. whats less sustainable is 20+% unemployment among those 18-24 years old (as of an article in the wsj monday), especially if you want to have any (reasonably similar) future/standard of living for that generation. we are the ones who will be paying for this system, and we cant do that the way things are. businesses are not hiring because they do not know how much they will be on the hook for this new healthcare package. furthermore the cap-and-trade legislation is right behind it and another huge liability for industry. businesses are preparing for that because they dont know what the outcome will be - that means not taking on additional liabilities (employees).

i actually have changed my mind on taxing the rich as well, but by rich i mean the upper elite, not small business owners. unfortunately no one on here has a significant understanding of the tax structure, other than maybe sa, and arguments put forth have not detailed marginal tax rates, etc. it took me speaking with an executive officer of a regional bank who makes more than most people on this board (halfbreed included ;D) to understand part of it, and even now i dont understand it all.

[Stayne]

Sorry to bump an old thread. But I was browsing it again and remembered that when I read stas' last post I expected the thread to continue.

stas, would you mind expounding on that last paragraph? I'm curious what got you to change your mind. What did the EO of the bank say that changed your mind?