I have a better response: Not just NO, but HELL NO!

Can you imagine how much worse recessions will get with this plan? First of all, a progressive income tax system tends to moderate economic downturns. The reason for this is when things start overheating in the economy, people run into higher tax brackets. That tends to bring the growth down a bit lower and when you finally get a bust, it doesn't tend to fall as far, and as incomes do decrease (though, normally, wages are sticky downwards, but some folks will get lesser paying jobs as layoffs happen), there will be less tax burden.

Without this balancing system, you will have to rely solely on monetary policy to prevent overheating of the economy. Especially when you take out the self-regulating effect of a progressive tax system, it becomes far harder to do so. The central bank has to be much more on the ball, and I doubt they'll be able to do it. And, of course, there are limits on what monetary policy alone can do.

Our recessions today are far less painful than they were in the late 19th Century. Because back then they had no mechanisms to slow down economic growth to prevent overheating. So the economy overheated, rose too high, and crashed very far down. The boom/bust cycle was a rollercoaster compared to today's gentle sloping (relatively speaking, of course).

Oh, and the fact that I have no problems in taxing people who make more money a higher percentage. In fact, I'd even consider it fair to do. And after all, what are we talking about here? Raising the top rate to 36%? That's very small for most of the people in that bracket. Hell, the more you make, the more you can afford to spare. $4k for a guy making $19,000 a year is far worse of a hit than $4k for a guy making $60k a year.

FWIW it's worth, I hate hearing people say that the rich need to "pay their fair share." I recognize full well that as an aggregate amount the richest in this country pay more than the rest of us. They pay their fare share and a lot more.

But a progressive tax is the only way our system will work. The funny thing is that it was conservatives in this country who originally pushed for a progressive tax, and it was smart. Nothing else will work. Thanks to the way we've jacked up the tax code in this country, there are people making a whole lot of money who pay less in taxes as a percentage than people who make less money than them. That's what makes the system not work, and it's that decision more than any other that has led to our record deficits.

What fascinates me though is when people bash rich people for saying rich people need to bear more of the burden. Dutch, you're bashing John Edwards for saying the people at the top need to pay more taxes. Do you realize he's talking about himself too? According to his last campaign disclosure in 2003, he had a net worth between $12 million and $60 million. People make it sound like everyone with money is a Republican and none are Democrats. Warren Buffet is one of the most liberal people in the country. He is also fiercely opposed to any repeal of the estate tax, and there's only one guy in the country with more of an estate than him.

Just as you ask the question why do people blast the rich not paying enough in taxes, I ask this question: Why do you blast rich people who say they don't pay enough in taxes?

Single, aren't ya...

Rearranging the order here, because in a way I think you answered your question earlier in your post. I think the perception is that sure, we can raise taxes for the "rich", and we'll probably define "rich" as $100k and up. Unfortunately, it's guys like Edwards (nothing against him personally, but *like* him) that are going to have good tax guys who can find loads of loopholes and won't be affected by this much at all. Guys closer to that $100k may well have much simpler taxes (I know my taxes basically consist of income, deductions for the kids, deductions for mortgage interest, and a small amount for charity, and that's about it) won't be able to find loopholes and will get hit a bit harder.

edit: if Edwards is talking about closing loopholes, then fine. I doubt that's what would happen though.

France isn't exactly a great example (along with other socialist states), considering the extremely high tax rates and the major problems they are facing in paying for the great health care system.

The problem I have with the argument, is what is "fair"? Should a guy who works hard, took a big risk, and made a nice living have to pay a higher % of his income simply because he makes more?

As for taxes, it's a tough problem. We are in a global economy, and other countries are slashing taxes lower over each other (corporate tax is a big one).

Knowing people that are in the business of identifying people that are likely to have or at least are in the running to be diagnosed with specific diseases based on their medical history, I believe you are wrong. Companies and governments are pretty much welcome to share your or anyone's medical history at a whim, just so they are sharing them with companies, or business associates, rather than uncovered individuals.

I disagree. Two years is a long time. I have great faith in the Democrats' ability to screw up their chances in two years.


This analysis makes complete sense to me.


The gulf between the educational opportunities in this country is significant. In my area alone, one only has to look at what's available to an inner city kid on Chicago's south side, and what's available to a kid at the public schools in the wealthy north shore suburbs to see this.


I've bolded the important part. This isn't about what people with money do, it's about what people who don't have money get. People with money will always be willing to pay more for extra. Did you know, for instance, that there's a growing trend among upper-middle-class Americans to go abroad to places like India for surgeries, since the quality of care is the same, but their money can buy them more amenities (such as time spent in-patient), than in America?

Instead, compare the experience of the uninsured/underinsured American to their societal counterpart in a country with universal health care. If you're an underinsured blue collar worker in the U.S., you live in constant fear of a freak, non work-related accident, that will send you to the hospital. If you awkwardly slip and break your leg in your driveway one day, you're screwed. You'll be paying for that care for years, at least. In a UHC country, it's a trip to the hospital, your leg gets set, and you don't pay anything.

Most of the UHC opponents I know have never lived in a UHC country, and base their opposition to UHC on these anecdotal horror stories that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh like to throw around.

I've lived in a UHC country for 5 years, and now I live in the U.S. and have excellent private health insurance. In my experience, the difference has mainly been a nicer class of waiting room in the U.S., but considerably more paperwork.

I've worked with HIPPA, and I can tell you that this isn't the case.

You can't have worked at too high a level with HIPPA if you think that an insurance company is somehow realistically restricted from sending data regarding your medical utilization to another company, if it serves the interest of your insurer. Look up business associate.

We do not live in a free market. Capitalistic system, yes, but not a free market.

Working with the General Counsel of a major medical institution, I have audited the implementation of a major database system specifically in light of HIPPA restrictions. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Having said that, the original contention was that HIPPA would make it difficult, if not impossible, to globally track symptoms, in its current legal understanding. You're making the contention that insurance companies can, under HIPPA, have some level of access to an individual's medical record. Those are two very different contentions.

Some people will sell their soul to partake in politics. I can assure you that John Edwards probably doesn't care if a tax burden on his class brings him down from 45 million a year to 25 million a year if the money is being used simply for pleasure.

But to a corporation, or a small business, that's a big deal. The misconception is that all rich people use profits simply for yachts. I would say a lot of people use profits to pay their employees or materials or research.

Like I said, I don't mind a reasonable solution. And if the progressive tax rate needs to be increased, by God, I want to know why and see results. If the end result is a recession after 10 years of it, I don't think we want it.

But, I agree with you in a sense, a recession 10 years from now isn't something a candidate today is very much worried about.

I thought it was 'conventional wisdom' that you had to settle with the provider directly (not file with insurance) if you really wanted medical privacy. Maybe I've had a little more insight than most?

"Profits" that are reinvested into the business before the end of the year aren't really profits, are they? Depending on the business structure, there are any number of ways to spend some unexpected profits in December to reduce that tax burden. Of course, if you're trying to bank them for a rainy day they are and the government is going to take a share.

That's fine, I've done more than my share of HIPPA auditing and implementations as well. I assure you, that your insurance company can send your detailed utilization records to a third party for analysis. It is done. It is done all of the time, and it is perfectly legal under HIPPA. The companies performing the analysis are business associates, and therefore allowed access to the data. There are companies whose business model is to provide this very type of analysis for HMOs, and state governments managing Medicaid.

Oh and my contention isn't that your insurance company has access to your medical records somehow beyond what is submitted to them for payment. My contention is that insurance companies can share your utilization data with their business associates. By utilization data, I mean any claims submitted to the insurer. Doctor visits, the specialty of the physician, any items billed in an insurance claim(right down to a bandaid), ER visits, any prescriptions filled, how regularly they are filled, fillings, caps, or root canals, oh yeah any diagnosis codes submitted in the billing process; All of those things can be freely shared with business associates.

How about a platform of cutting the loopholes from the tax code, but not by way of a 'flat tax' or other oversimplification that adjusts the tax rate in a way to greatly reduce tax burden on the rich?

Or in other words, progressive income tax, extreme reduction of loopholes and ability to sneak your money out to Bermuda...

Realizing of course you are going to be begged to keep in various loopholes that make life easier on the middle and lower upper class or else no one will vote for you. And of course, this assumes you can survive the negative consequences on your donor base (typically rich people with money to spare for political hot gas).

Would you vote for a candidate attempting to reduce the tax code games as a major part of their platform?

Shouldn't our congress be working on issues like this as well?

I think that is pretty much right. That is actually one of the concerns "in the business" surrounding Wall Mart's $4 pricing on selected generics. Those transactions are completely settled at the pharmacy without any submission to insurance. Lots of people who review that data will have to develop work arounds to account for those unidentified transactions.

I used to hang my hat on this type of thing. Complete and real simplification of the tax code using a progressive scale. I also felt that a flat tax wouldn't be ALL that bad either. The thought was that you'd save a fortune in enforcement and processing at the IRS. The downside is that you'd also have a huge negative impact on the tax accounting, tax preparation, and tax avoidance(attorneys) sectors. So I'm now thinking that that wouldn't be such a good trade.

On the tax code simplification, I heard an interesting story on this topic on NPR. One of the folks interviewed described what I'll call a never ending cycle. A simplified tax code will have a larger impact in certain individuals than others. Their specific circumstances will cause relative "injustices" for some individuals amongst their peers. People paying for college tuition. People paying for the medical costs for special needs children. People who commute simply insane distances so they can afford to put a house over their family's heads. There are lots and lots of exceptions that very simply "will" be legislated into a simplified tax code. The result isn't a simplified tax code.

I've become a tax code simplification defeatist, so that sort of platform will fall flat with me, although not all that many years ago that wouldn't have been the case. It would have gotten serious traction with me.

Tax code simplification isn't going to happen when lobbying groups have as much power as they have today. Even after the Abramoff scandal, they're pretty powerful. And which interest group is going to give up the perks they currently have in the tax system?

Was out of the loop for a few days.

But what are the thoughts on the AMT system? How does play a role?

First off, I think Edwards is going to sew up the nomination. I think Obama is going to go for second fiddle this time around, and then run in 2016 for the whole schbang. I think Hillary has too many enemies and will rally the Republicans like no one else and so the Democrat powers will make sure she doesn't win the nomination (i.e. look at what happened to Dean in the last primary).

Second, I think the whole universal health care is a mistake. The reason why we appear to lag behind regarding health care is that the stats are skewed. I think we have a basic health care system which is good, but not great. That is the health care system most go to. However, our top of the line system is without peer, but only the wealthy among us can afford that care and they do, and pay out of pocket. The result is a high average cost per patient, but only because of the few wealthy that skew the results.

Additionally, I have experienced first hand our system vs. that of England. My uncle had a heart attack and would have died had he had his episode in England. Here, he was able to be seen right away and had the appropriate measures taken. In England, according to my aunt, he would have been on a 6 week waiting list.

Third, I think the war on poverty idea is a good idea. He needs to couch it not as an us vs. them issue though, rather as a what's good for the country argument. He should position himself as between republicans and democrats on the issue and offer incentives to get private entities to do such works.

I will say this though, I may be running my own business in the next 6 months to a year, possibly sooner. If I need to pay 36% in taxes vs. say 25% in taxes, that will have a large effect in my decision whether or not to hire any personnel.

A 6-week wait for treatment for congestive heart failure? Forgive me if I don't believe you.

The bolded part is, I think, more a reason why Hillary would lose the general election, but not one why she would lose the primary.

I still believe she'll win the primary. She has all the insider power, all the money, and the machine behind her. I just don't see a lot of compelling arguments against this.

My question is, how exactly do you "win poverty"? The new minimum wage proposal, in my view, isn't going to do it. Reading an article the other day, a woman who had four kids was on minimum wage. This alone, raised a lot of questions to me.

Poor people don't usually have access to many doctors or lawyers, so a pretty good argument could be made that you're incorrect there.

HOWEVER, the insurance industry is already doing this to doctors. No taxation needed.

Well my aunt says anecdotal evidence is pretty useless...

Actually, our government alone (ie, not including out of pocket costs or employer based healthcare at all) spends more per capita than any country with universal health care.

I agree with flere, a 6 week wait for a heart attack is a little far fetched. Was it for a specialized surgery? That could be the case. In any system there are some things that one does better than the other, and it's possible that in England they don't have many doctors that do that specific surgery. But also, England's healtcare system sucks (but is still better than ours overall). The US would be better off with a French style system which has both public and private components.

That's what a lot of people say, but think of it this way: your goal as a business owner is to maximize gross profit. If you hire personnel, it is with the belief that profit will increase because of it. Income taxes have no effect on gross profit, ie if your revenue is $200k and your expenses $100k, your profit is always $100k no matter if taxes are 50% or 10%. So your personal income tax level should have little impact on whether or not you hire someone.

Good luck with your business, if your business ability is as good as your ability to draft QBs in FOF, you'll be a rich man soon!

You have to look at it deeper than that in regards to cost. But, I would never want a full-blown health care system universally.

Your taxes has a HUGE effect on how a business operate. To be honest, if we had a tax rate of 45-50%, I would question why I would even want to start a business in the first place if I have to the government half of what I've earned. To me, entreprenurs and businessmen (not your Enrons, ect.) are the most important asset we have in a capitalist market.

Galaxy: You have to offset any increase in taxes for a business owner with a decrease in healthcare costs. There is a likelihood that businesses will actually save money.

Remember we spend more per capita on healthcare than anyone else in the industrialized world.

Just a random throw out question - Does making your campaign about getting out and working to fight poverty appeal to the set of Christian voters that have been voting Republican up until this point based on sin issues (gambling, gays, abortion)? My guess is that obviously the extremists aren't going to budge, but there is a chance a platform like this could swipe some of a crucial support group for the Republicans, a group that they have pretty much counted as their own up to now.

A chance, of course, does not equal a certainty.

I think that's part of the strategy. It would certainly appeal to me, for example.

I was speaking to Warhammer's point that the wealthy who pay out of their pocket skew the stats, when in fact government spending alone is more per capita than any other country.

If we changed the top marginal tax rates to 45 and 50% this year from 33 and 35%, and you made $72k, your total tax bill would be $15k ($15k with old rates). If you earned $150k you would owe $36k ($36k with the old rates). If you earned $200k, you would owe $58.5k ($52.5k with the old rates). You are telling me that you would question starting a business in the first place because if you made $200,000 a year from it, the new tax rates would take an extra $6,000 away from you?

Um, boasting that the US pays more per capita for healthcare is not really a good thing. It's called paying too much, not necessarily the quality of care. I guess it's been said many of times, but judging US healthcare by what a wealthy person can get in terms of service instead of what the poor/unemployed get in terms of service is not necessarily the best measure of the quality of healthcare.

You didn't quote anyone so you could be replying to someone earlier in the thread, but I am going to assume you were talking to me and/or JPhillips. We weren't boasting about the spending, we were saying that the system is broken. That an increase in taxes would be offset by a decrease in expenses for businesses (JPhillips) and that wealthy individuals paying out of pocket isn't skewing the stats, it really is bad (me).

I understand that, all I can say is that my uncle from England suffered a "heart attack" and would have died according to my aunt if he was in England.

What I don't get is why his condition was improved with a pacemaker.

The facts may be off, I don't know, all I know is what I was told. The wait in England was 6 weeks for a pacemaker at the time, and the doctors in VA told my aunt that if he did not have the pacemaker put in he would have died.

I agree profit is profit. However, if I am at say $100k profit, and I hire someone, I am suddenly at ~$50k profit, in the short term. As you mentioned, you anticipate higher profits later, but if they don't materialize, I am stuck with less money.

The other issue is that based upon tax rates, you have to pay people more so they can enjoy the same standard of living. So, if I am paying this person $50k and their taxes go up 5%, suddenly they are only earning $47.5k. Add inflation and their earning power is even less. So I need to pay them more to ensure they maintain their standard of living, or risk losing them to another job.

I appreciate the well wishes. I'm sure it will do well, I just need to be sure that I am the one they decide to partner with.

There are long waits for pacemakers in England. France doesn't have the waiting lists that England has, however, and one benefit of lagging behind in areas like this is that we can take what works from countries and get rid of what doesn't.

This is one item that absolutely pisses me off, not you Galaxy. Why does a woman have 4 kids if she is making minimum wage? Why? Last I checked, I was considered upper middle class and my wife and I have a hard enough time with 2 kids, we've decided to hold off having any more. Yet you have others out there who keep on having them? Close the legs sister...

I fall in the camp of losers and winners. I really think that all of us in this country have opportunities. They might not be equal, but if any of us maximizes our opportunities, we are going to do well.

The problem is that many of us do not realize what opportunities are. We have the opportunity to get an education in this country. It is up to the individual to make sure they maximize that. Not their parents, not their teachers, the child needs to make the most of their opportunity.

What people don't like is that they might have messed up their opportunities when they were 10 or 12 by screwing around rather than learning how to read, write, etc. It might be harsh, but I am making damn sure that my kids understand things. They are responsible for their actions and the resulting rewards and punishments.

Regarding Hillary, I think what is going to happen is that the Dems hierarchy is going to see that she is not going to win in 2008 if she runs, but Edwards will have a good shot to win. Therefore, they will eventually get behind him and push him to a victory. There is a lot of time before the election and I just don't see how Hillary is going to stand-up to the criticism she will receive the closer we get to the campaign.

I had the same views about the kids as you did. I think not having kids would go a long way to help solve the problems.

The system is broken, but going to an universal "health care" system doesn't mean its the answer. We need to look at the reasons as to why it is expensive. Your just saying we spend more. Also, France does has a large percentage of the medical field in private care. I believe that French citizens can opt out and use private care (with some public $). Germany has a "two-tier" system. The "universal" system in several countries are also starting to feel the financial bug as well.

However, the bottom line with health care is how each person views it. Is it a right? Or is it like electric, gas? Each person view's is different.

The simple fact is that not all kids start on equal footing, not even close. Some kids at 10-12 (or younger/older) didn't screw up their own opportunities, their parents or their school may have done it for them -- abused them, failed feed them, moved around with no stability, failed to educate them properly -- in other words they were very poor. Claiming some 15-year old kid should have studied harder and then went to college when he was forced to take a minimum wage job to help feed his family completely misses the point.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention the kid who gets sick but can't get proper medical care to get better so he can actually maximize his studies or employment opportunities.

As good as the U.S. is at allowing some to obtain the "american dream," it is simply not available to all. That is a myth.

Well, I guess it was partly in response to earlier posts about how great the U.S. health system is because rich people from other countries often choose to come here and your comments that I thought dovetailed with that. But I guess I was confused as to what you were saying.

Sort of a diversion to the thread, but I'll bite. Some have it easier, but anybody can pick themselves out of poverty and succeed. There are plenty of examples. It takes motivation, discipline, and hard work, but there is no one who can't make it.

Just have to disagree. Yes, there are examples of success - plenty - which came with hard work. But there are also plenty of examples of those who worked hard but did not succeed (at least defining success as middle income). My point is not that people can't do it -- they can -- it is that not everyone can, even if they are motivated and hard working. I just can't agree with the bolded statement. It's what people tell themselves (including me for the longest time) to make them feel better about ignoring the plight of the poor and disadvantaged.

Just so you know where I am coming from: my biggest concern is for children lacking proper parenting, and financial and health assistance. That is where I would like to see the focus of a "pro-poverty" candidate -- helping disadvantaged children and youth to succeed so there are a lot more of the successes of the type you describe rather than failures.

Glen: Not at all true. I'll throw out just one example, the child who has a lower IQ and higher risk of behavior problems because of lead poisoning. The child did nothing but live with his/her mother, but they will be at a permanent disadvantage in school/work.

I know I bang this drum a lot, but lead poisoning is one of the biggest factors for educational problems among the poor.

I think part of the problem I have, are with parents who lack the financial means to be able to provide children they have (then think others, who make wise decisions in regards to having children, should be responsible). That being said, how would you achieve your plans?

I agree with your hesitation to bail out the parents for poor decisions, but I am talking about helping out the children (who did not make the poor decision and have no blame). Thnk of it as "now that the children are born, what do we do about it?"

If you assist the children now, there is a good chance they will not grow up to be their parents and repeat the cycle of poor decisions. We all have to realize that healthy (physical and mental) children will grow up to be part of a contributing society that will alleviate the problem and not be part of the problem in the future. That's the only way to "win" against poverty.

As to achieving plans, I don't have all the answers, but I will start with 2. Making sure every child in America has access to good quality medical care and good quality education. Something that can be done by investing in both more than we do now. And I'm not talking about slightly upping the budget, I am talking about a monumental shift in funding both. Let's stop wasting money on pork, let's make better taxing decisions and wiser expenditures. You probably could have funded universal healthcare for children for several decades and built or upgraded thousands upon thousands of schools (infrastructure, teaching, etc.) with the money that was wasted in Iraq.

But that's part of the concern I have. You would be forcing those who are financially responsible, have children when they can provide them with the things that you talk about, to spend the money on irresponsible behavior of the parents. I do understand the kids aren't at fault, but yet the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible to provide the basic needs of children that parents should have the financial abilities to provide themselves (as well as good parenting skills, which I think is important to those things). Where do you draw the line? It's a tough situation.

Yes, but you have lost sight of the fact is that these bad parents' decisions affect not only their children but the rest of the public, even as it stands now without additional assistance. As I stated, if we start now, years down the road the problem will alleviate itself.

As for your statement that taxayers should not be responsible for meeting the basic needs of children, I have to disagree. It's the government, through its taxpayers in part, to help its citizens who cannot, like disadvantaged children, help themselves. You've heard of food stamps, right? The child tax credit?

To bump this thread, will this hurt Edwards?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observe...n/16593583.htm

That big house
Edwards' expansive estate raises questions in some quarters
Just for the record, the Taj Mahal is bigger, at 34,596 square feet. And if John Edwards is elected president, he'll move into a 55,000-square-foot house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Even so, the 29,000-square-foot Orange County estate Mr. Edwards and his family recently built has some eyes rolling. Isn't he going around talking about reducing poverty and helping the poor? The whole thing has provoked a lot of jokes, mostly at Mr. Edwards' expense.

However, several different threads can be pulled here. First is the size of the thing. The family living area is 10,778 square feet, which qualifies it as a Hummer House without even considering "The Barn" -- 6,300 more square feet with basketball and racquetball courts and a pool.

Whether it's in good taste is in the eye of the beholder. But it's clear such a large house, even if designed with conservation in mind, is not on balance environmentally prudent, given the fuel needed to heat and cool it. Yes, the Edwardses did buy 102 rural acres and presumably will protect it from development. Nevertheless.

Another issue, for some, is Mr. Edwards' wealth. He made millions as a trial lawyer, and some see amassing such riches as an ethical issue. It was Andrew Carnegie who said, "The man who dies ... rich dies disgraced." Jesus said, "Give all you have and follow me," although it appears few Christians take that literally. But Mr. Edwards didn't start life with money, he earned it. How he spends it is between him and his Maker -- though he should expect questions about how many houses for the homeless a portion of the construction money might have built.

Finally, some think there's something not right for a person as rich as Mr. Edwards to be talking about poverty. That's nuts. If only poor people were qualified to fight poverty, they'd lose some invaluable allies. The poor tend to be quite busy, thank you, fighting their personal poverty. It's hard to spearhead national crusades when you're holding down several jobs, trying to make the rent and struggling to find transportation, health care and safe neighborhoods.

This is reality in America: The wealthy and well-connected have more influence than the poor. Far better for them to use it to help in the fight against poverty than for more ominous endeavors, such as stock manipulation or tax fraud.

While I think Edwards will do more for the poverished americans than any other candidate, I think this hurts his image.

I would comment that he should really be able to spend the money he earned any way he chooses, but his actions don't really follow Democratic party-speak.

I agree with this. I think the problem he has is with his platform that he is pushing hard.

I'd be interested to know if he has donated large sums to charity/poverty issues. I have absolutely no problem with a guy building a $10 million house, who has donated $1 million to charity, running on poverty issues.

I just think it is bad timing to build such a project. No matter how he spends, opponents and the media will run with this; with his platform and quest for president.

Good point. He could have waited a year and a bit.

Indeed... it shows that Edwards is an absolutely horrid politician if he didn't realize how this would look while he's running for Democrat nomination.