Paying for health care
In case you were wondering what the Democrats had in mind for the state now that they are in control and looking to the next election read the rocky article of 8/24 on the insurance plans for the state. Every one of them looks to take more money out of your pocket to give to someone else. They have plans to mandate health insurance for every Coloradoan as if that’s their job. Any one making a decent living will is required to pay more taxes much more taxes. Of course it will be for the children, which has been their catch phrase for years now or maybe the line will be the rich must pay their fair share. Well if the rich were to pay their fair share their taxes would have to be lowered as by the Governments own statistics show the top 50% of taxpayers pay 96.70% of ALL taxes. Who are the top 50% of taxpayers? They are any individual or couple filing jointly making $29014 or more a year.
These numbers come from the Internal Revenue Service for 2004 the latest year they have number for. Now don’t you feel much better knowing your part of THE RICH the Dems keep talking about? Remember that the next election
This letter has not been edited.
I'm all for states looking to improve health care. If the goal is to pay for it with payroll taxes, I will automatically oppose it. Tax goods and services. Then there is personal control over how much one chooses to spend. If you tax payroll, only those working, will pay for health care. Not very equitable, if you ask me.
Posted by Dan2 on August 28, 2007 02:36 PMDan 2
The one bad rub to your increased sales tax, or a value added tax, is that it will also hit those in the lower economic stratus more than your "average" taxpayer. Someone already struggling to make ends meet and only purchasing the bare essentials to provide for a family has already run out of disposable income. It's not necessarily a choice of to buy or not.
Financing such a proposed health plan is going to be interesting to say the least. I would imagine that they are going to hit the pockets of those in society that it would cause the minimal economic impact. And that's not going to be the working poor.
Posted by mongoose on August 28, 2007 02:49 PMHow to lie with statistics. "The top 50% of taxpayers pay 96.70% of ALL taxes." Maybe that's because income is so inequitably distributed that the wealthy few make the vast majority of the money and so naturally pay the most taxes. But Warren Buffett famously observed that he was being taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. Fair? I don't think so.
Posted by JJA on August 28, 2007 02:52 PMMaybe the dems plan is not the best way to handle our healthcare crisis. But it is at least a plan. What has the cons come up with. I'll tell you. ZIP They have done nothing and that is why a bunch of them lost their jobs in nov. It wasn't all about the war. I'm 57 and don't know if I'll get my social security.
Posted by larrymc on August 28, 2007 03:02 PMlarrymc
I'm with you in that I'm almost 60 and wonder if I'll ever see what I paid in over my lifetime. However, I found that neither party was too keen on the idea of fixing the SS system. Both enjoy reaching in for the hard cold cash, leaving an IOU, and funding their pet projects.
Democrats don't like what the Republicans spend SS monies on, and vice versa. Neither party can come up with a repair project separately that the other will agree with; and, they won't work together to find middle ground to base a repair on. They prefer to point to each other and yell obstructionist (while reaching with their other hand into the till). And the system remains broken.
The same thing is going to happen with a state run health plan. A lot of tinkering, jousting and name calling. If it ever works it will never be at an optimum.
Posted by mongoose on August 28, 2007 03:11 PMMongoose,
That is my point exactly. I have health insurance. It is affordable. I also own my own business, so I bear the burden of this expense 100%. My total out of pocket (with maximum co-pays and my premium) is $4800/year. If a proposal is out there for me to get "free health care" but my taxes go up, just 12% (or 12% of my income goes to pay for universal health care), now I am paying $14,000, an increase of 292%.
However, if we tax goods at 12%, I have the ability to control what I purchase, where I purchase it, and how much I purchase. Plus, those that are below the Federal poverty level (family of 4 income is less than $20,444), they already qualify for food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance.
So, who really needs "affordable" health care? Median income in the US is $48,200 (per household). We could assume that those households making between $20,500 and $48,200 would need assistance, right? Just how many people is that? I don't even have the first clue. But I really can't imagine it is a lot.
Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP takes care of the truly poor. Anyone making above median income, should be able to afford "normal" insurance, be it employer sponsored or individual. So, we can narrow down those who really do need assistance in making health care affordable. Until I see a study that shows those numbers, and what it would take to help those individuals, I have a hard time getting behind anything that recommends a drastic change from where we are now.
Posted by Dan2 on August 28, 2007 03:27 PMAnd don't forget the new proposals are being beefed up to include people making 300% above the poverty level. That includes people making more than $60,000 a year, well above the median income of $45,000 and who are more able to afford insurance than most.
I'm all for a plan to help those in need but this is rather overblown.
Posted by KW on August 28, 2007 03:39 PMJJA,
Is income "distributed", or earned?
"The top 50% of taxpayers pay 96.70% of ALL taxes"
"the wealthy few make the vast majority of the money and so naturally pay the most taxes."
But, do the top 50% make 96.7% of the income?
Not even close.
Posted by Mike on August 28, 2007 06:42 PMlarrymc if you dont see your social security please call your wonderful extreme far left liberal socialist dumocrat. remember when Bush had his plan to make ssi look like the plan that the government employees have, all the top dums trashed it and all they could say was the plan would make the rich richer. your boy teddy, who you should never ride in a car with, stood up and told the senate that if Mary Jo was alive today, anyone remember how she was killed, she would be able to collect ssi and live very well. he said its not borke and is fully funded. great man.
BTW the plan that Bush was wanting to put in place was not his idea. nope he browed it from a speach and plan that billy c talked about in his state of the union address in 98 and at that time all the dums thought it was wonderful and cheered. but like all plans to help the american public it was just talk as it was not about raising taxes to taking money from the rich to give to the lazy.
NO I DONT THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY BUSINESS IN THE HEALTH CARE OF THIS COUNTRY. THEY WOULD TRASH OUR HEALTH CARE TO THAT OF WHAT MEXICO HAS AND WE ALL KNOW WHERE THEIR PEOPLE COME FOR FREE CARE.
JJA is correct.
How much did YOU and your family pay for health insurance last year as compared to 7 years ago?
Repeal the tax cuts (welfare ) for the rich.
Posted by dmz on August 29, 2007 07:19 AMSo how do you like Ritter's "Blue Ribbon" healthcare commision's $26 billion a year proposal for a Colorado health-care "fix." That's over $5,000 a year tax-hike for every man, woman and child in the state--$20,000 of annual IOUs that must be paid by a family of 4.
Doesn't that make you feel better already?
Posted by Hank on August 29, 2007 07:26 AMBetter than giving it to the so-called health insurance industry, hank.
You must be in the insurance biz.
Posted by dmz on August 29, 2007 07:32 AM"Repeal the tax cuts (welfare ) for the rich."
That would mean you lose your tax cuts too dmz. The cuts were across the board. The line you repeat is a lie perpetuated by the Bush-Haters club of America.
I'd prefer to keep my tax cut, thank you!
Posted by KW on August 29, 2007 08:34 AMKW: "That would mean you lose your tax cuts too dmz."
From the article copied below:
"Only three percent of families with annual incomes of less than $200,000 will receive any benefit from these tax breaks. Families with yearly incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 will receive an average tax cut of only $25. And families earning less than $100,000 -- the vast majority of Americans -- will not benefit at all."
The full article:
Tax Breaks for the Wealthy
by Gene C. Gerard
January 30, 2006
On January 1, Congress allowed two tax breaks that benefit the wealthy to become effective. The cuts eliminated current provisions of the tax code that limits the amount of personal exemptions and itemized deductions that Americans with high incomes can take. Over the course of the next five years the tax cuts will cost approximately $27 billion, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ironically, Republicans in Congress, only two weeks before the cuts took effect, voted to reduce domestic spending on programs affecting the poor and the middle class by $39 billion over the next five years.
The tax codes eliminated are the Pease provision and the personal exemption phase-out provision (PEP). Both were originally passed in 1990 in an effort to reduce the deficit. The Pease provision limited the amount of itemized deductions taxpayers with high incomes could claim. The tax code permits individuals to reduce their taxable income either by the standard deduction or by an amount equivalent to their total itemized deductions. In general, wealthy taxpayers use itemized deductions much more than the middle class and the poor.
The Pease provision reduced the amount of deductions for those who itemized and had incomes exceeding $145,950 last year. The total amount of itemized deductions wealthy taxpayers could claim was reduced by three percent of the amount by which their incomes exceeded $145,950. Similarly, the PEP provision of the tax code phased out personal exemptions for the wealthy. The tax code permits individuals to claim a personal exemption for each member of their household; last year it was $3,200.00.
They can subtract personal exemptions from their adjusted gross income before calculating their taxes, thereby reducing the amount of taxes owed. In 2005 the PEP provision mandated that taxpayers lost two percent of their personal exemption for every $2,500.00 by which their income exceeded $218,950 for married couples and $145,950 for singles.
Congressional Republicans have frequently said that the Pease and PEP provisions made it more difficult for Americans to determine their taxes. However, it’s typically high-income taxpayers who take itemized deductions. And these are individuals who usually have their taxes prepared by accountants and other tax professionals who can easily calculate these provisions.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that over the next 13 years these tax breaks for the wealthy will deprive the country of $197 billion in revenue. And a study by the Brookings Institution determined that 97 percent of the Pease and PEP tax breaks will go to those households with incomes above $200,000. And more than half of these breaks will benefit the 0.2 percent of families with annual incomes exceeding $1 million. Once these tax cuts are fully implemented in 2010, the average millionaire will save $19,000 annually in taxes.
Only three percent of families with annual incomes of less than $200,000 will receive any benefit from these tax breaks. Families with yearly incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 will receive an average tax cut of only $25. And families earning less than $100,000 -- the vast majority of Americans -- will not benefit at all.
Shortly before these tax cuts became effective Republicans in Congress approved of massive and draconian domestic budget cuts, despite objections by Democrats. Republicans insisted that “tough choices” had to be made in an effort to reduce the growing deficit. Consequently, they voted to cut $11 billion over the next five years from Medicaid, the health care system that serves America’s poor. Substantial reductions were also made in childcare assistance, which will result in 255,000 fewer children living in poverty receiving federal assistance.
Republicans voted to cut funding for child support enforcement programs by $1.5 billion over the next five years. These funds are used to locate parents who have failed to pay child support and collect delinquent payments on their child’s behalf. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this loss of federal funding will result in $2.9 billion in child support going uncollected in the next five years.
Other cuts were equally severe. Congressional Republicans agreed to cut $343 million in funding for foster care programs, including reductions that will make it more difficult for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren to receive assistance. Over $12 billion was cut from federal college loan programs, making it more difficult for poor and middle-class Americans to afford a college education.
If Republicans had chosen not to allow the Pease and PEP tax cuts to take effect this would have saved more than two-thirds of the funding cut from domestic programs. In fact, over the next five years these tax breaks exceed the savings from all of the reductions in low-income assistance programs that Congress voted to cut. It appears that for Congressional Republicans, “tough choices” in reducing the deficit didn’t include requiring the wealthy to continue to pay their fair share of taxes.
Posted by Truth on August 29, 2007 08:48 AMTruth used Gene Gerard as a source
Gene C. Gerard is columnist for COUNTERBLOG; Their own description of their website on the TITLEPAGE OF WEBSITE: “Home
of intelligent commentary and douchebaggish faux-nalysis alike (but mostly the latter)”
Again, you post long winded drivel containing nebulous statistics from suspect websites and treat it as definative.
How do you find these guys?
AF
Tax Increase OR Tax Revenue? What is more important? To some I think it is truly the tax increases and to hell with the amount of $$$$ the tax revenue generates. As long as we soak the rich, to hell with the side affects that creates. BTW it is usually those with the $$$ that use those $$$$ to pay US.
On another thread Tbone talked about his friend and the troubles he is in due to being laid off and then not being covered once he got a job due to pre-existing conditions. That is terrible and very wrong. Wrong for the Govt to not pass legislation to make it viable for individuals to get their own insurance without tax penalties and get away from the Employer based HC system. If Tbones friend had his insurance for himself and not his previous employer, then the Pre-existing conditions would not be an issue.
Dan2, I am hearing there are new numbers coming out on how many are in real need of getting insurance. I am trying to find out where I saw that information.
Posted by bwr on August 29, 2007 09:57 AMNice post Truth. But here's the real facts regarding how the tax cuts are affecting the poor, middle class and the wealthy.
The Myth of Spending Cuts for the Poor, Tax Cuts for the RichTop Quintile: Lower Tax Rates, Higher Tax Burden. Between 1979 and 2003, the share of income taxes paid by the highest-earning quintile jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent. Their share of all taxes paid (including social insurance, corporate, and excise taxes) increased from 56 percent to 66 percent. Upper-income taxpayers are paying more, not less, of the tax burden.
Please click on the link and read the rest of the info so you can see how middle class taxes are also reduced proportionately.
Unlike during the 90's when middle class income tax rates increased every year.
Posted by KW on August 29, 2007 10:00 AMThanks bwr. I will check back from time to time today to see if you find anything.
DMZ,
Tax cuts for the rich. I would like to see someone define what "rich" actually is.
Single taxpayer tax schedule:
$0 - 7,825 = 10%
$7,826 - 31,850 = $782 plus 15%
$31,851 - 77,100 (where most people are) = $4,386.25 plus 25%
$77,101 - 160,850 = $15,698.75 plus 28%
$160,851 - 349,700 = $39,148.75 plus 33%
$349,701 - unlimited = $101,469.25 plus 35%
Of particular note, the last tax bracket, imagine making $350,000/yr. The Federal government at the present rate, takes 2/3 of your income. Your tax bill would be $223,969.25 Fair?
So, who is actually getting a HUGE break in this mess?
Posted by Dan2 on August 29, 2007 10:37 AMRegarding the tax cuts that many seem to think are unjust and not benefiting the working class, don't forget such items in the tax bill as the Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit.
The Child Tax Credit allows for up to $1K per child be deducted from any tax liability. The Additional Child Tax Credit actually generates a payment to the tax payer who cannot use their full Child Tax Credit. As an example, a family with two children only has a tax liability of $1,200 after going through adjustments to taxable income. With $2K in Child Tax Credit that $1,200 is eliminated and the taxpayer is eligible for up to an $800 refund in addition to the withholding during the year..
Due to the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, families in the income level above around $80K start losing these credits on a progressive scale.
The Earned Income Credit allows for additional refund generation for working class families earning up to the mid $30sK. It has been indexed upward every year as a part of the tax packages.
If you want to reverse all of Bush's tax cuts, you'll be causing a greater percentage impact on the working man than the rich man. Watch what you wish for so that it doesn't backfire and impact those needing the current tax program more than the despised rich.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 11:06 AMall of the socialist want the rich to pay for everything they need. I am going to work on my own tax program for me and work it out so that I dont make over 15k per year as my business will own everything and show a loss at the end of the year or maybe break even.
that or we need a flat tax on everything that is purchased and then the illigals can pay their fair share on all the money they make under the table. ever notice all of the new trucks they like to drive? they dont work for anything close to minimum wage as the left likes us to believe and they get free health care on us.
You folks do realize that because of the adjustments allowed, most people make much more than they report, and usually the wealthier you are, the more "adjustments" you can afford to make. If you're wealthy enough, sometimes, you pay no taxes at all!
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 29, 2007 12:24 PMJJA uttered:
"How to lie with statistics. "The top 50% of taxpayers pay 96.70% of ALL taxes." Maybe that's because income is so inequitably distributed that the wealthy few make the vast majority of the money and so naturally pay the most taxes."
So, where was the lie? Also, the rich are taxed much more than others. Did you not know that?
dmz declared:
"Repeal the tax cuts (welfare ) for the rich."
Welfare? That is too funny. How do you tax one group at a higher rate, take their money and give it to another group that pays a much lower rate (if they even pay at all), and then accuse the higher taxed group of receiving welfare?
The more I read these forums, the more I realize that liberals (in general) have abandoned rational thought. They sputter out nonsensical, emotionally charged statements that they cannot explain when questioned. It's a shame because I love a good debate. The real debate nowadays is not between liberals and conservatives; it's between libertarians and conservatives.
Posted by John II on August 29, 2007 12:26 PMThe only welfare going on is the theft of treasure from the producers in this country to the non-producers. Welfare to the rich, what a joke.
The truth is the rich pay FAR more than there fair share of taxes.
The class envy approach of income is not distributed fairly is total bullcrud. The socialist mind thinks that the guy who sweeps up the debris should make the same as a heart surgeon?
Sorry, reality does not work that way.
Posted by Dravur on August 29, 2007 01:11 PMDid anyone read the story of the family from New Orleans who settled in Longmont after Hurricane Katrina?
The family took every penny they had to start a photography business.They have 3 children. they have no insurance and are just scraping by. So what do they decide to do?
Have another child of course! Who is going to pay for that when they have no insurance and no money.
This is why I do no support government sponsored health care,it breeds irresponsibility.
If my husband and I would not have had insurance we would have never had children.
People are supposed to be responsible for themselves. I was brought up that way and so was my husband. No handouts. Work for what you need and rely on yourself to be responsible for youself.
I'm sorry this family lost everything in the aftermath of Katrina, but having another child they clearly cannot afford is down right stupid!
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 01:35 PMlarrymc,again you didn't do any research,Bush had a great plan killed by the dems.because it was good for the people,kept the economy going and no lost of jobs.
Posted by Keith on August 29, 2007 06:56 PMKW,No facts please,this is a liberal post.
Posted by Keith on August 29, 2007 09:10 PM