If you raise taxes on the 100-200k earners, won't 1% ers pay more as well? Everyone with higher income pays more at that marginal rate. So it's not like rich people won't be affected. They'll pay more than anyone else in that bracket. So I don't quite see how this works as a "bread and circuses" distraction. Rich people who don't want to pay more taxes don't want to pay more at any level. That's why they fought so hard to get the top rate capped at 400k instead of 250k AND why they were content not to let the Bush tax cuts expire at lower levels. They would have been paying more at *every* level.
If you raise taxes on the 100-200k earners, won't 1% ers pay more as well? Everyone with higher income pays more at that marginal rate. So it's not like rich people won't be affected. They'll pay more than anyone else in that bracket. So I don't quite see how this works as a "bread and circuses" distraction. Rich people who don't want to pay more taxes don't want to pay more at any level. That's why they fought so hard to get the top rate capped at 400k instead of 250k AND why they were content not to let the Bush tax cuts expire at lower levels. They would have been paying more at *every* level.
One of the problems is how many of the 1 percent get large portions of their income from investments, not wages. So raising taxes on wages of those earning 100k-200k doesn't necessarily mean that all rich people will pay more.
If you raise taxes on the 100-200k earners, won't 1% ers pay more as well? Everyone with higher income pays more at that marginal rate. So it's not like rich people won't be affected. They'll pay more than anyone else in that bracket. So I don't quite see how this works as a "bread and circuses" distraction. Rich people who don't want to pay more taxes don't want to pay more at any level. That's why they fought so hard to get the top rate capped at 400k instead of 250k AND why they were content not to let the Bush tax cuts expire at lower levels. They would have been paying more at *every* level.
One of the problems is how many of the 1 percent get large portions of their income from investments, not wages. So raising taxes on wages of those earning 100k-200k doesn't necessarily mean that all rich people will pay more.
Here ends tacos' understanding of the tax code.
I though Clinton already said she wants to raise the rate on investment income?
One of the problems is how many of the 1 percent get large portions of their income from investments, not wages. So raising taxes on wages of those earning 100k-200k doesn't necessarily mean that all rich people will pay more.
Here ends tacos' understanding of the tax code.
I though Clinton already said she wants to raise the rate on investment income?
I thought I read that she wants to implement a tax on "medium term investments" that would be something like 30%? So presently short term investments are at marginal tax rates and then there are long term capital gains which are taxed at the capital gains tax rate. I think this involved some new tax for stocks held under two years or something.
I though Clinton already said she wants to raise the rate on investment income?
I thought I read that she wants to implement a tax on "medium term investments" that would be something like 30%? So presently short term investments are at marginal tax rates and then there are long term capital gains which are taxed at the capital gains tax rate. I think this involved some new tax for stocks held under two years or something.
Ah I see. I honestly don't know much about how all that works. But I do ASSume that if she were to raise taxes on the UMC or whatever you want to call them, she would also add more brackets at the top and close loopholes etc. that unfairly benefit the wealthy I don't know how you could do one without the other just in terms of the optics of the situation.
Not to mention the fact that none of this has the slightest chance of passing in a Republican controlled Congress, lol. Oh well.
I don't know a lot about taxes here either but isn't the top bracket now capped at 400k? Adding another couple of brackets I think would help a lot. Like 500k+ gets a higher rate then at 750 then at a million etc
Some people make millions or billions per year here and still pay what a 250k family would % wise? Or less as a lot of it is investment income
I thought I read that she wants to implement a tax on "medium term investments" that would be something like 30%? So presently short term investments are at marginal tax rates and then there are long term capital gains which are taxed at the capital gains tax rate. I think this involved some new tax for stocks held under two years or something.
Ah I see. I honestly don't know much about how all that works. But I do ASSume that if she were to raise taxes on the UMC or whatever you want to call them, she would also add more brackets at the top and close loopholes etc. that unfairly benefit the wealthy I don't know how you could do one without the other just in terms of the optics of the situation.
Not to mention the fact that none of this has the slightest chance of passing in a Republican controlled Congress, lol. Oh well.
Ok so I only got it half right, that's what I get for not googling. Here is an explanation:
I don't know a lot about taxes here either but isn't the top bracket now capped at 400k? Adding another couple of brackets I think would help a lot. Like 500k+ gets a higher rate then at 750 then at a million etc
Some people make millions or billions per year here and still pay what a 250k family would % wise? Or less as a lot of it is investment income
I think more brackets is probably a unity horse issue on here. I honestly don't know why it hasn't been done (other than that political donors most likely fall into that group, lol).
The top tax rate is 39.5% on income over $400k excluding the amount you can take a deduction on like your mortgage interest. I think the capital gains rate is 25%. So some people who make all or most of their income through investing can pay a lower rate than people who are paid regular salaries. They are relatively few though. I completely understand and second the outrage about it but closing that particular loophole won't be a big money maker for the government, which is why the discussion tends to shift back towards adding more brackets and broadening the base and such. I still think it should be done just on principle though.
The US is also the only country that taxes worldwide income (corporate and personal). But tax rates alone don't tell us much because of credits, exemptions, and NOL carry forwards. We'd have to look at average effective tax rates across countries to really compare, and we'd have to look at other forms of local tax, value added tax, property tax, and more. It's really convoluted.
This is why it's so hard to discuss this issue meaningfully in political campaigns.
I think I'm reasonably smart. But everything you just said up there? It makes me feel both stupid and sleepy.
It's a cluster. I only know what I need to know to do my job, plus whatever else interests me that I have time to read about. No one can keep up with it all.
I don't know a lot about taxes here either but isn't the top bracket now capped at 400k? Adding another couple of brackets I think would help a lot. Like 500k+ gets a higher rate then at 750 then at a million etc
Some people make millions or billions per year here and still pay what a 250k family would % wise? Or less as a lot of it is investment income
I think more brackets is probably a unity horse issue on here. I honestly don't know why it hasn't been done (other than that political donors most likely fall into that group, lol).
The top tax rate is 39.5% on income over $400k excluding the amount you can take a deduction on like your mortgage interest. I think the capital gains rate is 25%. So some people who make all or most of their income through investing can pay a lower rate than people who are paid regular salaries. They are relatively few though. I completely understand and second the outrage about it but closing that particular loophole won't be a big money maker for the government, which is why the discussion tends to shift back towards adding more brackets and broadening the base and such. I still think it should be done just on principle though.
I don't think the long-term capital gain rate is even 25%. Isn't the max 20%, plus the medicare % if it applies?
That was my point before. America has been so beholden to not upsetting corporations that we've bent over backwards to give them benefits to keep them here, to our detriment. Exxon Mobile pays $0 in taxes, yet takes great advantage of their American operations, American workers, and the US government.
Surely, Sweden, Germany and France are not barren wastelands of no jobs and no companies. In fact, I think government-subsidized health care, child care and parental leave are probably pros for the companies as well. I've heard it's a headache for foreign companies to open American operations and have to figure out the system of providing health insurance for their employees. Companies in the US lose people (99% of the time it's women) right and left because of a lack of lengthy maternity leave and the high cost of child care, which means they lose out on investments they have made in training that employee.
We've tried essentially not taxing businesses and rich people to try to get them to stay in the US and be "job creators" and it's not working.
But the United States corporate tax rate is ALREADY HIGHER than the countries you listed. It's 35% here, 22% in Sweden, 29.65% in Germany, and 33.33% in France.
ETA: But all of those countries tax individuals at a higher rate than we do, and that's what I would argue should be done.
I would guess, though without proof, that those countries have fewer loopholes for corporate taxation. But I would also support an overall much higher individual tax rate. I'd totally sign on for Sweden which I think is around 60%. In exchange for that you get guaranteed healthcare, college, p/maternity leave, pension, and all the meatballs you can eat. Plus fewer mass shootings and a vastly narrower wealth gap. Sign me the fuck up, ladies.
But the United States corporate tax rate is ALREADY HIGHER than the countries you listed. It's 35% here, 22% in Sweden, 29.65% in Germany, and 33.33% in France.
ETA: But all of those countries tax individuals at a higher rate than we do, and that's what I would argue should be done.
I would guess, though without proof, that those countries have fewer loopholes for corporate taxation. But I would also support an overall much higher individual tax rate. I'd totally sign on for Sweden which I think is around 60%. In exchange for that you get guaranteed healthcare, college, p/maternity leave, pension, and all the meatballs you can eat. Plus fewer mass shootings and a vastly narrower wealth gap. Sign me the fuck up, ladies.
Right? Think of how much of your income goes to healthcare over your lifetime! Why some people don't want to never worry about that again is beyond me.
If HRC is saying she's not going to raise taxes on incomes of 100-250k that's only going to help her candidacy. As income increases, percentage voting republican increases. And in an election where she could be opposite a moron, a lot of smart (and female) Republicans are looking for an alternative.
I don't know a lot about taxes here either but isn't the top bracket now capped at 400k? Adding another couple of brackets I think would help a lot. Like 500k+ gets a higher rate then at 750 then at a million etc
Some people make millions or billions per year here and still pay what a 250k family would % wise? Or less as a lot of it is investment income
I think more brackets is probably a unity horse issue on here. I honestly don't know why it hasn't been done (other than that political donors most likely fall into that group, lol).
The top tax rate is 39.5% on income over $400k excluding the amount you can take a deduction on like your mortgage interest. I think the capital gains rate is 25%. So some people who make all or most of their income through investing can pay a lower rate than people who are paid regular salaries. They are relatively few though. I completely understand and second the outrage about it but closing that particular loophole won't be a big money maker for the government, which is why the discussion tends to shift back towards adding more brackets and broadening the base and such. I still think it should be done just on principle though.
While the number of people who make money characterized as capital gains is small, the dollars generated are not. Why do you think fixing that loophole will not be a big money maker?
I think more brackets is probably a unity horse issue on here. I honestly don't know why it hasn't been done (other than that political donors most likely fall into that group, lol).
The top tax rate is 39.5% on income over $400k excluding the amount you can take a deduction on like your mortgage interest. I think the capital gains rate is 25%. So some people who make all or most of their income through investing can pay a lower rate than people who are paid regular salaries. They are relatively few though. I completely understand and second the outrage about it but closing that particular loophole won't be a big money maker for the government, which is why the discussion tends to shift back towards adding more brackets and broadening the base and such. I still think it should be done just on principle though.
While the number of people who make money characterized as capital gains is small, the dollars generated are not. Why do you think fixing that loophole will not be a big money maker?
I'm not against closing it at all, as I've said numerous times in here. It just won't bring in as much money as we need to fund all the programs people on this board like to talk about: UHC, universal prek, year long paid parental leave, free community college, subsidized daycare. It absolutely should be done in the sense that every bit helps and also just because of the principle of the thing. But more brackets should be added at the top and the base should be broadened as well imo.
This piece estimates it at 180 billion over ten years.
Do we need to balance the budget? Honest question. Some economists (Paul Krugman, for example) would say that deficit spending isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I would guess, though without proof, that those countries have fewer loopholes for corporate taxation. But I would also support an overall much higher individual tax rate. I'd totally sign on for Sweden which I think is around 60%. In exchange for that you get guaranteed healthcare, college, p/maternity leave, pension, and all the meatballs you can eat. Plus fewer mass shootings and a vastly narrower wealth gap. Sign me the fuck up, ladies.
Right? Think of how much of your income goes to healthcare over your lifetime! Why some people don't want to never worry about that again is beyond me.
I think the reason people do not want UHC is that many people are bad at statistics. Those against it tend to not have dealt with the costs associated with a chronic illness or a cancer diagnosis and feel like it will never be their problem.
Right? Think of how much of your income goes to healthcare over your lifetime! Why some people don't want to never worry about that again is beyond me.
I think the reason people do not want UHC is that many people are bad at statistics. Those against it tend to not have dealt with the costs associated with a chronic illness or a cancer diagnosis and feel like it will never be their problem.
That isn't why it makes me nervous. I've heard horror stories about health care in Canada. I think every person should have access to healthcare and I don't mind my tax dollars subsidizing for those who can't afford it. I don't trust that the government will manage it correctly (you know because they do such a stellar job with all the other programs that they run).
the healthcare here is insane. Sure we have a company plan so we "only" have to pay about $500/month. But the company is paying the other $1500/month which instead could be part of salary? AND every time we go to the doctor it's $25-35 and we still have to pay copays for prescriptions etc. Even though the cost of our insurance is about $20-25,000 per year. It's insane. But I feel like we need to have a good plan because we have young children and who knows what could happen. It sucks
the healthcare here is insane. Sure we have a company plan so we "only" have to pay about $500/month. But the company is paying the other $1500/month which instead could be part of salary? AND every time we go to the doctor it's $25-35 and we still have to pay copays for prescriptions etc. Even though the cost of our insurance is about $20-25,000 per year. It's insane. But I feel like we need to have a good plan because we have young children and who knows what could happen. It sucks
But that money has to come from somewhere. It's not like you would see that money in salary if we had government healthcare, it would be paid in taxes.
I think the reason people do not want UHC is that many people are bad at statistics. Those against it tend to not have dealt with the costs associated with a chronic illness or a cancer diagnosis and feel like it will never be their problem.
That isn't why it makes me nervous. I've heard horror stories about health care in Canada. I think every person should have access to healthcare and I don't mind my tax dollars subsidizing for those who can't afford it. I don't trust that the government will manage it correctly (you know because they do such a stellar job with all the other programs that they run).
I guess seeing my husband work for a Fortune 100 company and seeing the asshattery that goes on with health insurance companies, I don't know why I should trust a private company to do any better. Anyone who thinks private enterprise is inherently more efficient than government has clearly never been on hold with Comcast. Yes, there are inefficiencies in government, but really, not every program is run terribly. And having a third party like an insurance company make decisions about what care a patient can and cannot receive is horribly inefficient. The fact that medical practices have to employ people whose sole job is to code procedures for insurance and deal with insurance reimbursements is kind of insane.
At least my vote is my voice in government (unless you live in the District, then sucks to be you).
I think I'm just really tired of the "government is terrible!" attitude. ANY operation - private enterprise or government - that gets to a certain size is going to have inefficiencies.
the healthcare here is insane. Sure we have a company plan so we "only" have to pay about $500/month. But the company is paying the other $1500/month which instead could be part of salary? AND every time we go to the doctor it's $25-35 and we still have to pay copays for prescriptions etc. Even though the cost of our insurance is about $20-25,000 per year. It's insane. But I feel like we need to have a good plan because we have young children and who knows what could happen. It sucks
But that money has to come from somewhere. It's not like you would see that money in salary if we had government healthcare, it would be paid in taxes.
well of course everyone has to pay for the healthcare. BUt it couldn't cost NEARLY AS MUCH. Taking out the middle man (insurance companies) would net an enormous saving. Also, setting fixed prices for prescription drugs and taking away some of the power big pharma has over us.
That isn't why it makes me nervous. I've heard horror stories about health care in Canada. I think every person should have access to healthcare and I don't mind my tax dollars subsidizing for those who can't afford it. I don't trust that the government will manage it correctly (you know because they do such a stellar job with all the other programs that they run).
I guess seeing my husband work for a Fortune 100 company and seeing the asshattery that goes on with health insurance companies, I don't know why I should trust a private company to do any better. Anyone who thinks private enterprise is inherently more efficient than government has clearly never been on hold with Comcast. Yes, there are inefficiencies in government, but really, not every program is run terribly. And having a third party like an insurance company make decisions about what care a patient can and cannot receive is horribly inefficient. The fact that medical practices have to employ people whose sole job is to code procedures for insurance and deal with insurance reimbursements is kind of insane.
At least my vote is my voice in government (unless you live in the District, then sucks to be you).
I think I'm just really tired of the "government is terrible!" attitude. ANY operation - private enterprise or government - that gets to a certain size is going to have inefficiencies.
I'm a teacher in a large school district. Change is slow and the real experts are never consulted about what needs to occur. How would Government run healthcare be any better than our broken education system? With private companies I can at least have options and decide what is best for my family instead of letting the government do it.
Post by tacosforlife on Dec 30, 2015 11:07:36 GMT -5
That's a fundamental disagreement we aren't going to bridge. You have your anecdotes about horror stories from Canada, and I have my friend who lives in Canada and didn't have to pay a dime for his isolation unit, ICU stay, and year of treatment after developing a rare lung disease. That kind of illness could have bankrupted even a family with health insurance in the United States.
And again, like with many things, those of us who have great (usually company subsidized) health insurance don’t really suffer. I mean, we have great healthcare. So we’re fine. But there are tons of people in this country who can only afford a crappy high deductible plan and have to just hope nothing big happens or they are screwed. Or people who can’t actually even afford the medications prescribed to them so they have to not take them, or take a cheaper medicine that may not be as effective.
Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to charge whatever they want for a life saving drug? Why does it cost $30,000 to give birth in the USA? Why is a five minute visit to a doctor billed at hundreds of dollars?
Yes we have higher costs due to malpractice insurance as doctors need to cover their asses when it comes to possible lawsuits but I can’t believe that alone accounts for the VAST differences between what things cost here and in other developed countries.
My sister lives in London and she’s had a great experience with the NHS. My family still lives in Ireland and they get decent health care. Yes like with Canada there are delays for non emergency things. Often the wait lists are ridiculous. People pay supplemental insurance to get some better benefits so it’s not perfect by any means.
But the system here is only great for those of us who have enough money to pay for a good plan and choose their doctors and who can afford a copay every doctor visit and who, if they go to the pharmacy to pick up their RX and the pharmacist says “that’s $40 copay on that” they just say, oh ok and hand them the money. This is not everyone’s reality.
And again, like with many things, those of us who have great (usually company subsidized) health insurance don’t really suffer. I mean, we have great healthcare. So we’re fine. But there are tons of people in this country who can only afford a crappy high deductible plan and have to just hope nothing big happens or they are screwed. Or people who can’t actually even afford the medications prescribed to them so they have to not take them, or take a cheaper medicine that may not be as effective.
Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to charge whatever they want for a life saving drug? Why does it cost $30,000 to give birth in the USA? Why is a five minute visit to a doctor billed at hundreds of dollars?
Yes we have higher costs due to malpractice insurance as doctors need to cover their asses when it comes to possible lawsuits but I can’t believe that alone accounts for the VAST differences between what things cost here and in other developed countries.
My sister lives in London and she’s had a great experience with the NHS. My family still lives in Ireland and they get decent health care. Yes like with Canada there are delays for non emergency things. Often the wait lists are ridiculous. People pay supplemental insurance to get some better benefits so it’s not perfect by any means.
But the system here is only great for those of us who have enough money to pay for a good plan and choose their doctors and who can afford a copay every doctor visit and who, if they go to the pharmacy to pick up their RX and the pharmacist says “that’s $40 copay on that” they just say, oh ok and hand them the money. This is not everyone’s reality.
So we trade one crappy system for another? Why not wait until we can figure out a solution that actually is better for everyone? We had crappy insurance for a while while I was laid off. It sucked. Dd was sick, $40 copay, prescription, $40 copay. Allergic reaction to prescription cost us another $40 visit copay and another $40 presciption. All while I had no job and dh was working two. I get it. But everyone needing to wait hours at a clinic for a basic sick visit (similar to what we experience at the ER) sounds crappy too. It's not better it's just a different set of flawed rules.
But the system here is only great for those of us who have enough money to pay for a good plan and choose their doctors and who can afford a copay every doctor visit and who, if they go to the pharmacy to pick up their RX and the pharmacist says “that’s $40 copay on that” they just say, oh ok and hand them the money. This is not everyone’s reality.
SERIOUSLY. We have semi decent insurance and it costs $30 for an office visit and we were at the doctor about a jillion times last fall. There was one week where we spent $90 just in copays. I had a prescription for nyastin last week for my DD and it cost me $20. Last month, her antibiotic she needed for an ear infection cost $30. And that is after insurance. And we have decent insurance! I can't imagine what its like for others who truly can't afford these things. I mean, what do you do?
And again, like with many things, those of us who have great (usually company subsidized) health insurance don’t really suffer. I mean, we have great healthcare. So we’re fine. But there are tons of people in this country who can only afford a crappy high deductible plan and have to just hope nothing big happens or they are screwed. Or people who can’t actually even afford the medications prescribed to them so they have to not take them, or take a cheaper medicine that may not be as effective.
Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to charge whatever they want for a life saving drug? Why does it cost $30,000 to give birth in the USA? Why is a five minute visit to a doctor billed at hundreds of dollars?
Yes we have higher costs due to malpractice insurance as doctors need to cover their asses when it comes to possible lawsuits but I can’t believe that alone accounts for the VAST differences between what things cost here and in other developed countries.
My sister lives in London and she’s had a great experience with the NHS. My family still lives in Ireland and they get decent health care. Yes like with Canada there are delays for non emergency things. Often the wait lists are ridiculous. People pay supplemental insurance to get some better benefits so it’s not perfect by any means.
But the system here is only great for those of us who have enough money to pay for a good plan and choose their doctors and who can afford a copay every doctor visit and who, if they go to the pharmacy to pick up their RX and the pharmacist says “that’s $40 copay on that” they just say, oh ok and hand them the money. This is not everyone’s reality.
So we will all have ok healthcare with crappy wait times and the uber rich can pay for the good healthcare that some of the middle class can afford now? I don't see how this is better.
And again, like with many things, those of us who have great (usually company subsidized) health insurance don’t really suffer. I mean, we have great healthcare. So we’re fine. But there are tons of people in this country who can only afford a crappy high deductible plan and have to just hope nothing big happens or they are screwed. Or people who can’t actually even afford the medications prescribed to them so they have to not take them, or take a cheaper medicine that may not be as effective.
Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to charge whatever they want for a life saving drug? Why does it cost $30,000 to give birth in the USA? Why is a five minute visit to a doctor billed at hundreds of dollars?
Yes we have higher costs due to malpractice insurance as doctors need to cover their asses when it comes to possible lawsuits but I can’t believe that alone accounts for the VAST differences between what things cost here and in other developed countries.
My sister lives in London and she’s had a great experience with the NHS. My family still lives in Ireland and they get decent health care. Yes like with Canada there are delays for non emergency things. Often the wait lists are ridiculous. People pay supplemental insurance to get some better benefits so it’s not perfect by any means.
But the system here is only great for those of us who have enough money to pay for a good plan and choose their doctors and who can afford a copay every doctor visit and who, if they go to the pharmacy to pick up their RX and the pharmacist says “that’s $40 copay on that” they just say, oh ok and hand them the money. This is not everyone’s reality.
So we trade one crappy system for another? Why not wait until we can figure out a solution that actually is better for everyone? We had crappy insurance for a while while I was laid off. It sucked. Dd was sick, $40 copay, prescription, $40 copay. Allergic reaction to prescription cost us another $40 visit copay and another $40 presciption. All while I had no job and dh was working two. I get it. But everyone needing to wait hours at a clinic for a basic sick visit (similar to what we experience at the ER) sounds crappy too. It's not better it's just a different set of flawed rules.
I certainly don't see it that way (trading one crappy system for another) so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Just because there isn't a PERFECT solution available doesn't mean we should continue plodding along in the pockets of insurance companies and big pharma.
hopefully if we do move to a universal healthcare system, we can do a good job with it. But I really don't think the systems in Canada and the UK are actually worse for people, as a whole, than here. Maybe worse for certain people, but overall I think the population of those countries as a whole, has a better healthcare system than we do.
25,000 a YEAR for a family healthcare plan that still has copays and deductibles. Thinking that isn't ludicrous, to me is ludicrous. It's LUDICRIOUS I SAY.