Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, to tie this back to health care.... I tend to be of the opinion that single-payer will never fly in the U.S. because the majority of Americans (or, at the very least the majority of consistently enfranchised Americans, to say nothing of influential entities) have a firm and constant belief that everyone should be able to provide for themselves and their families just fine and if they can't, they're essentially less-worthy people who don't really deserve to be helped, and certainly not at the expense, even minor, of those who work hard, or at least appear to do so, to succeed in the system.

Really? All I've seen is people who want more and more from the government. There isn't a voting block out there who believes that we should provide for ourselves these days.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

When, exactly, was this great golden age of America?

Considering he was talking about Greenwich and Long Island Sound, presumably it's a time when we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

One premise upon which the U.S. was founded was the clear and powerful protection of individual liberties, and the protection of these has remained strong throughout its history.

So, to tie this back to health care.... I tend to be of the opinion that single-payer will never fly in the U.S. because the majority of Americans (or, at the very least the majority of consistently enfranchised Americans, to say nothing of influential entities) have a firm and constant belief that everyone should be able to provide for themselves and their families just fine and if they can't, they're essentially less-worthy people who don't really deserve to be helped, and certainly not at the expense, even minor, of those who work hard, or at least appear to do so, to succeed in the system.

This, to me, is the bottom-line for many of the anti-health care reform arguments.

Your right, we were founded on the protection of individual liberties and strong property rights. That is the primary cause for our economic success as a country. If you have secure rights in your poperty and freedom to do what you want, people will put great effort into improving their poperty. Where collective ownership rewards use and not improvement let alone basic upkeep.

As far as the paragraph on single payer (government run) health care and Americans largely not thinking people deserve help, that is very much overly dramatic and I don't think it is true at all.

I think the biggest challenge to socializing healthcare in our country is the fact that about 90% of the people have health care and about 80% of them are generally happy with what they have. As those people start to understand their care will diminish, the math just does not add up. Not to mention they see a plan the President cannot even articulate, so it looks obvious we are about to throw another pile of money away.

The scary part is the plan may actually pass. The only thing I can say to those who want socialized medicine is, you better get it right the first time. Because you are not going to get multiple chances at this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

There were some great tidbits in the news the last couple days.

The WSJ had an article about how you keep people who leave the hospital from being readmitted. It centered on a 75 year old woman who had heart issues. They told her when she was discharged not to eat hot dogs as the sodium would cause fluid build ups. She went to a 4th of July picnic and... had a hot dog. She ended up back in the ER and admitted the next day. She said that she didn't care if it killed her, she was having a hot dog on the 4th of July.

If that is your attitude why exactly are we providing you anything? If you value a hot dog so highly that you will be admitted to the hospital over it should we be paying to admit you to hospitals?

I don't remember which paper, but it was about a rally in South Carolina where a 70 year old retiree told a senator that 'he didn't want the government putting their hands in his Medicare'.

I stand by the problem with health care in this country is that it's citizens are stupid.

We've got multiple doctors in my family. You'll hear 10 different stories like this each and every time you sit down for an extended family dinner. Diagnosing a patient is one thing. Getting them to follow their doctor's orders is a different situation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Your right, we were founded on the protection of individual liberties and strong property rights. That is the primary cause for our economic success as a country.

Actually, the primary cause for our economic success was cheap immigrant labor around the turn of the century and being the only "civilized" country that didn't have our infrastructure destroyed by 2 world wars. All the BS about it being our unfettered capitalism is just song and dance.

SI

[JPhillips]

Our abundant natural resources didn't hurt either.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Actually, the primary cause for our economic success was cheap immigrant labor around the turn of the century and being the only "civilized" country that didn't have our infrastructure destroyed by 2 world wars. All the BS about it being our unfettered capitalism is just song and dance.

SI

Who said anything about unfettered capitalism?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Saw some great notes on taxes in Connecticut. 14% of the state income tax is paid by the citizens who live in Greenwich. Stamford, Greenwich, New Caanan and one other town pay 24% of the state income tax. Just a minor expense for a tiny percentage of the population.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Those percentages don't sound all that alarming, considering that much of the wealthy population in Connecticut is concentrated in southern Fairfield County. There is only a 2% difference between the high and low state tax bracket in Connecticut. We generate a high proportion of the tax revenue primarily because our residents as a whole make a lot of money (though there is a surprising gap between rich and poor in our county), not because the State of Connecticut is stealing only from a few hedge fund managers in Greenwich.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Our abundant natural resources didn't hurt either.

Only time will tell to what extent American prosperity depended on strong property rights and individual liberty--China is going to be an interesting test case. It's worth remembering that the other major industrial power to emerge from the nineteenth century was Germany: hardly a liberal state.

In the meantime, though, it is pretty clear that American prosperity owes a lot--not everything, but a lot--to geography and historical accident.

We just happen to be a former colony of the (monarchical) country that started the industrial revolution--that gave us a leg up on the rest of the world. If the industrial revolution starts in Spain rather than in England, we might all be trying to sneak across the border into Mexico, not vice versa. We've got wonderful access to the world's two biggest oceans and numerous ports; it has been centuries since we faced a real military threat on our land borders; our indigenous population was small at the time of colonization and was nearly annihilated thereafter, which meant that (unlike in Latin America), continuing struggles with indigenous peoples were not continually destabilizing.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Only time will tell to what extent American prosperity depended on strong property rights and individual liberty--China is going to be an interesting test case. It's worth remembering that the other major industrial power to emerge from the nineteenth century was Germany: hardly a liberal state.

In the meantime, though, it is pretty clear that American prosperity owes a lot--not everything, but a lot--to geography and historical accident.

We just happen to be a former colony of the (monarchical) country that started the industrial revolution--that gave us a leg up on the rest of the world. If the industrial revolution starts in Spain rather than in England, we might all be trying to sneak across the border into Mexico, not vice versa. We've got wonderful access to the world's two biggest oceans and numerous ports; it has been centuries since we faced a real military threat on our land borders; our indigenous population was small at the time of colonization and was nearly annihilated thereafter, which meant that (unlike in Latin America), continuing struggles with indigenous peoples were not continually destabilizing.

I don't have much to add, but I would say that Germany instituted some pretty "liberal" social policies in the 19th centuries, including a national health insurance plan.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Those percentages don't sound all that alarming, considering that much of the wealthy population in Connecticut is concentrated in southern Fairfield County. There is only a 2% difference between the high and low state tax bracket in Connecticut. We generate a high proportion of the tax revenue primarily because our residents as a whole make a lot of money (though there is a surprising gap between rich and poor in our county), not because the State of Connecticut is stealing only from a few hedge fund managers in Greenwich.

My point is that the wealthy already pay a huge expense to subsidize the poor. It's not a 'minor expense'.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Really? All I've seen is people who want more and more from the government. There isn't a voting block out there who believes that we should provide for ourselves these days.

I think the problem is both parties are so extreme today. It's all-or-nothing.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

My point is that the wealthy already pay a huge expense to subsidize the poor. It's not a 'minor expense'.

The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

"We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation."

If we want to "be like Europe" when it comes to healthcare, the poor and middle class are going to have to pay up too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

"We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation."

If we want to "be like Europe" when it comes to healthcare, the poor and middle class are going to have to pay up too.

[flere-imsaho]

Gap growing between rich and poor - World business- msnbc.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Gap growing between rich and poor - World business- msnbc.com

The answer to that problem is not to bring the rich down. (Though I know inherently, that's what people want, because they're jelous of what the rich have). That won't make the poor better off.

Successful people are not the problem.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

The answer to that problem is not to bring the rich down. (Though I know inherently, that's what people want, because they're jelous of what the rich have). That won't make the poor better off.

Successful people are not the problem.

EDIT: "Successful" people becoming rich by exploiting the poor are a problem for society as a whole, aren't they?

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Successful" people becoming rich by exploiting the poor are a problem

SI

How do they exploit anyone? I mean as a class as a whole, not any anecdotal examples of theft or whatever.

Do you just mean that they employ people that make minimum wage? Or that they sell products that poor people can't resist?

The fact that the disparity is the problem tell you that this is just about jelousy. What if we could improve the standard of living of the poor by 3X, but that to do it the rich's standard of living would have to increase 10X. Would we reject that because it increased the disparity?

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Successful" people becoming rich by exploiting the poor are a problem for society as a whole, aren't they?

SI

And why do you put successful in quotes?

And who's "rich"? When exactly does someone become an exploiter of the poor? If I make $50k today, but hope to make $100k within 10 years, doing roughly the same job, will I have become an exploiter somewhere along the way? (even though the only difference is that I pay more money for the government to waste?) Will I have become evil and part of the problem by then, or will it take more success, and a $200k salary to cross that line?

Do you exploit the poor? Certainly you're rich by any worldwide standard.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

The fact that the disparity is the problem tell you that this is just about jelousy. What if we could improve the standard of living of the poor by 3X, but that to do it the rich's standard of living would have to increase 10X. Would we reject that because it increased the disparity?

In the zero sum game of the economy, I don't see how this sort of change can exist. It would have to be some sort of massive change like how we suddenly found some great natural resource that made everyone else richer. But this isn't the case- the money is basically being siphoned from the poor to the rich.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In the zero sum game of the economy, I don't see how this sort of change can exist. It would have to be some sort of massive change like how we suddenly found some great natural resource that made everyone else richer. But this isn't the case- the money is basically being siphoned from the poor to the rich.

SI

It's just a hypothetical to make a point. Is the problem the disparity, or the the fact that the poor or too poor? It should be the latter, but people are more concerned with the former.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But this isn't the case- the money is basically being siphoned from the poor to the rich.

SI

How are the rich doing this exactly?

It's not a zero sum game. The economy grows, there's more and more activity, and everyone's standard of living increases.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The answer to that problem is not to bring the rich down.

Never said it was. I was just responding to this:

"We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation."

by suggesting that the reason for this is simple math. The rich have gotten richer at a rate that outpaces the increase in wealth amongst everyone else. If tax rates have generally stayed the same (let's forget that Bush lowered tax rates for the rich), then surely it is only logical that they continue to pay more, in absolute terms, towards taxes?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

It's just a hypothetical to make a point. Is the problem the disparity, or the the fact that the poor or too poor? It should be the latter, but people are more concerned with the former.

If there's, say, a giant diamond mine discovered- no one is saying that now-rich person who discovered it should give it all away.

But don't come to me in this economy and play poor and talk about how your workers should sacrifice so you can keep all of the diamonds for yourself.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

How are the rich doing this exactly?

It's not a zero sum game. The economy grows, there's more and more activity, and everyone's standard of living increases.

I'm not one to argue this because I think the wage difference between the two is warranted.

But you could argue that the bailouts and a lot of other government interventions benefit the rich primarily. They were allowed to dabble in risky stuff while having no chance to fail. If a small business makes bad investments, they go under. If CitiBank does, they get bailed out.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

What if we could improve the standard of living of the poor by 3X, but that to do it the rich's standard of living would have to increase 10X. Would we reject that because it increased the disparity?

Let's try a more realistic example. What if we could improve the standard of living of the poor by 3X, but that to do it the rich's standard of living would have to decrease by .005X? Would we reject that because of its undue burden upon the rich?

Now I'll just sit back and wait for the inevitable post that says that if we raise taxes on the rich, even a little, they'll lose all ambition to actually become wealthy....

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But you could argue that the bailouts and a lot of other government interventions benefit the rich primarily. They were allowed to dabble in risky stuff while having no chance to fail. If a small business makes bad investments, they go under. If CitiBank does, they get bailed out.

I definitely agree with that, and still haven't figured out why the party that's supposed to be more sympathetic to the poor is all about corporate handouts.

[JPhillips]

We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

That's because they're leaving out the FICA taxes that are regressive. Add that 15.3% tax and I bet things look very different.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

Funny they use the word honesty when they don't even address progressivity. The income tax total isn't measuring prgressivity in any meaningful way. According to the latest available data(2006 tax year) the top one percent have a total federal effective tax rate of around 32%. That's several points lower than it was in the nineties.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

It's just a hypothetical to make a point. Is the problem the disparity, or the the fact that the poor or too poor? It should be the latter, but people are more concerned with the former.

There's a fair amount of research to suggest that disparity causes many other issues: Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Note: I'm not valuing wikipedia as a source here, just as a jumping-off point for suggesting the studies behind this)

[lynchjm24]

The government needs to do a better job regulating markets. That isn't the same thing. I grew up poor, I knew a lot of poor people, I still know a lot of poor people. There are some that just plain have bad luck. Some poor people are poor because they are stupid or lazy, most are both.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let's try a more realistic example. What if we could improve the standard of living of the poor by 3X, but that to do it the rich's standard of living would have to decrease by .005X? Would we reject that because of its undue burden upon the rich?

Now I'll just sit back and wait for the inevitable post that says that if we raise taxes on the rich, even a little, they'll lose all ambition to actually become wealthy....

It's make that trade.

This is a great example of what liberals don't understand about more conservative economic views.

Liberals actually believe (or are being disingenuous) that the reason people have concerns about over-taxing the rich is that we are sympathetic to them. That's not true. We actually believe that if you overtax the rich, you negatively impact everyone's standard of living, including the poor, and especially the middle class. And that has nothing to do with ambition to work. Classic strawman argument, that while occasionally made by some conservatives, is very weak and is not made by most.

Liberals like to present themselves as being on the morally correct side (and I'm just talking about economics here, I understand that many Republicans are all about morals elsewhere on the poltical specturm, which is one of the reasons I'm not a Republican). But for the most part, we all want the same things. We want to ease poverty, we want to increase everyone's standard of living. We just have disagreements about the best ways to actually do that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I definitely agree with that, and still haven't figured out why the party that's supposed to be more sympathetic to the poor is all about corporate handouts.

No party is sympathetic to the poor. Just sympathetic to votes.

Politicians know who butters their bread at the end of the day. These guys on both sides get massive money from banks, investment firms, and other financial institutions.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's make that trade.

This is a great example of what liberals don't understand about more conservative economic views.

Liberals actually believe (or are being disingenuous) that the reason people have concerns about over-taxing the rich is that we are sympathetic to them. That's not true. We actually believe that if you overtax the rich, you negatively impact everyone's standard of living, including the poor, and especially the middle class. And that has nothing to do with ambition to work. Classic strawman argument, that while occasionally made by some conservatives, is very weak and is not made by most.

Why can't we be sympathetic to them? You have people paying over 50% of their income to taxes. You then have a large percent of the country paying 0%. Many of those paying that 50% worked really hard to get to a position where they could make that. That's fucked up in my opinion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

It's make that trade.

This is a great example of what liberals don't understand about more conservative economic views.

Liberals actually believe (or are being disingenuous) that the reason people have concerns about over-taxing the rich is that we are sympathetic to them. That's not true. We actually believe that if you overtax the rich, you negatively impact everyone's standard of living, including the poor, and especially the middle class. And that has nothing to do with ambition to work. Classic strawman argument, that while occasionally made by some conservatives, is very weak and is not made by most.

Liberals like to present themselves as being on the morally correct side (and I'm just talking about economics here, I understand that many Republicans are all about morals elsewhere on the poltical specturm, which is one of the reasons I'm not a Republican). But for the most part, we all want the same things. We want to ease poverty, we want to increase everyone's standard of living. We just have disagreements about the best ways to actually do that.

That's true for those of us that believe in progressive taxation as well. That's why things like this:

Though I know inherently, that's what people want, because they're jelous of what the rich have

Don't help forward the discussion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why can't we be sympathetic to them? You have people paying over 50% of their income to taxes. You then have a large percent of the country paying 0%. Many of those paying that 50% worked really hard to get to a position where they could make that. That's fucked up in my opinion.

If anyone is paying more than 50% of their income in taxes they seriously need a new accountant. Remember that marginal rates are meaningless and changes in tax brackets only apply to income above the bracket cutoff. For example, you would need to make much more than 1 mil to pay 500,000 even if the top rate was 50%. It's effective tax rates that really matter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's true for those of us that believe in progressive taxation as well. That's why things like this:

Don't help forward the discussion.

When people throw out things like "the rich exploit the poor" with no explanation of who exactly is exploiting who and how, it sounds like jelousy to me.

It also seems believable to me that more people's economic viewpoints are motivated by hatred and jelousy of the top 1% (because 99% of people are conceivably subject to such hate), than those who just feel bad for the top 1% and want them to have all their money because they deserve it (because only 1% of people are conceivably subject to that). And liberals always throw out the latter, that anyone who isn't with them is pro-rich, so it's not unreasonable for me to throw out that response.

The buzz is always that Republicans are only for the rich, which I guess means there's a TON of rich people in this country, because they still win elections.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If anyone is paying more than 50% of their income in taxes they seriously need a new accountant. Remember that marginal rates are meaningless and changes in tax brackets only apply to income above the bracket cutoff. For example, you would need to make much more than 1 mil to pay 500,000 even if the top rate was 50%. It's effective tax rates that really matter.

You get awfully close when all is said and done. Take living in California and making top bracket money. Not only do you pay the top federal rate of 35%, but you could be in a state like California that will tax you 10% too. When you throw in likely high property taxes which can add another 5-10% in some areas on, as well as 15% on the first $100k for FICA, you come awfully close to 50% of your income going out the door.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

When people throw out things like "the rich exploit the poor" with no explanation of who exactly is exploiting who and how, it sounds like jelousy to me.

It also seems believable to me that more people's economic viewpoints are motivated by hatred and jelousy of the top 1% (because 99% of people are conceivably subject to such hate), than those who just feel bad for the top 1% and want them to have all their money because they deserve it (because only 1% of people are conceivably subject to that). And liberals always throw out the latter, that anyone who isn't with them is pro-rich, so it's not unreasonable for me to throw out that response.

The buzz is always that Republicans are only for the rich, which I guess means there's a TON of rich people in this country, because they still win elections.

I don't want to say it's all about jealousy. I'm sure that plays a role in it. I just think as a society we've turned the rich into villians (which sometimes they are). When politicians campaign, they need a villian to reach their audience. It's easy to say "you're poor because the rich did it to you" instead of saying "you're poor because you didn't get a degree in something and work your ass off to make yourself better".

It's shifted into our culture too and is seen in movies and TV shows. The wealthy character is rarely the "good guy". We portray the wealthy as trust fund babies who are only there because of luck and evil doings. We don't look at some of the rich like the guys who founded Google who worked their ass off in school and created an idea that revolutionized the world.

I think it's more of a villian thing than jealousy thing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

When people throw out things like "the rich exploit the poor" with no explanation of who exactly is exploiting who and how, it sounds like jelousy to me.

It also seems believable to me that more people's economic viewpoints are motivated by hatred and jelousy of the top 1% (because 99% of people are conceivably subject to such hate), than those who just feel bad for the top 1% and want them to have all their money because they deserve it (because only 1% of people are conceivably subject to that). And liberals always throw out the latter, that anyone who isn't with them is pro-rich, so it's not unreasonable for me to throw out that response.

The buzz is always that Republicans are only for the rich, which I guess means there's a TON of rich people in this country, because they still win elections.

With this attitude I'd just argue that you really don't have much standing for complaining about negative generalizations.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You get awfully close when all is said and done. Take living in California and making top bracket money. Not only do you pay the top federal rate of 35%, but you could be in a state like California that will tax you 10% too. When you throw in likely high property taxes which can add another 5-10% in some areas on, as well as 15% on the first $100k for FICA, you come awfully close to 50% of your income going out the door.

There are a lot of problems here.

1) The top income tax rate only applies to money earned above that rate. Nobody pays the top rate on all their income even if you want to exclude deductions/exemptions/credits.

2) Of course you can't exclude deductions/exemptions/credits as everybody qualifies for some of them.

3) In 2009 you need to make over 370,000 to land in the top bracket. If you make that much you're paying less than 5% in FICA taxes.

4) Again, the top 1% had an effective total federal tax burden of less than 32% in 2006. I don't have numbers for each state, but I highly doubt they are paying an extra twenty percent in state taxes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There are a lot of problems here.

1) The top income tax rate only applies to money earned above that rate. Nobody pays the top rate on all their income even if you want to exclude deductions/exemptions/credits.

2) Of course you can't exclude deductions/exemptions/credits as everybody qualifies for some of them.

3) In 2009 you need to make over 370,000 to land in the top bracket. If you make that much you're paying less than 5% in FICA taxes.

4) Again, the top 1% had an effective total federal tax burden of less than 32% in 2006. I don't have numbers for each state, but I highly doubt they are paying an extra twenty percent in state taxes.

That's 32% federal income tax. You don't think that living in a high tax state like California (10% state income tax) with a relatively high property tax, you'd be closing in on 50%?

Even if you want to say it's 40% or 45%, that's still a huge chunk of change for someone to pay when a large percent of this country doesn't pay a dime.

[cartman]

Except that California has, compared to other states, a very low property tax rate. It is capped at 1% of the appraised value of the house, and the appraised value cannot increase by more than 2% per year from the purchase date. So even though the average value of a house in California is more than $500K, if these were bought 10 or more years ago, the taxable amount is only in the $200K to $250K range.

Plus, when you pay a state income tax or local property taxes, those are deductions you can claim on your Federal taxes.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's 32% federal income tax. You don't think that living in a high tax state like California (10% state income tax) with a relatively high property tax, you'd be closing in on 50%?

Even if you want to say it's 40% or 45%, that's still a huge chunk of change for someone to pay when a large percent of this country doesn't pay a dime.

No, that's a total federal tax burden. As for Cali income taxes, I haven't lived there, but I'm assuming there are deductions/exemptions/credits in the tax code that reduce that 10% number. Whether or not you think the total tax burden on any bracket is too high is a valid point of discussion, but you can't start that discussion with an inaccurate description of the amount of taxes paid.

Finally, everybody pays taxes. You can't compare total tax burden on the one hand with federal income tax burden on the other. The last data I saw had a much flatter overall tax burden than most people would expect.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, that's a total federal tax burden. As for Cali income taxes, I haven't lived there, but I'm assuming there are deductions/exemptions/credits in the tax code that reduce that 10% number. Whether or not you think the total tax burden on any bracket is too high is a valid point of discussion, but you can't start that discussion with an inaccurate description of the amount of taxes paid.

I know. I said 32% tax burden. Then I said add on the state and property tax which are not federal tax burdens. I don't think it's inaccurate to state that there are people who pay close to 50% of their income when all is said and done. I know I pay in the mid-30's overall and I'm in a low income tax state (3%) and not in the top tax bracket.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Finally, everybody pays taxes. You can't compare total tax burden on the one hand with federal income tax burden on the other. The last data I saw had a much flatter overall tax burden than most people would expect.

Not federal income tax which is the largest tax burden on an individual.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know. I said 32% tax burden. Then I said add on the state and property tax which are not federal tax burdens. I don't think it's inaccurate to state that there are people who pay close to 50% of their income when all is said and done. I know I pay in the mid-30's overall and I'm in a low income tax state (3%) and not in the top tax bracket.


Not federal income tax which is the largest tax burden on an individual.

You said income tax burden and I wanted to make clear that I was talking about all federal taxes(income, FICA, cap gains, etc.) As for the 50% number, can you show me any specific example of a person paying 50% of their income in taxes? I'll believe it if I see it, but the 50% number gets thrown around a lot with no specific reference.

Yes, the federal income tax is the largest tax, but if you are going to talk about only the federal income tax you can't throw out state and local taxes. It would be accurate to say in 2006 the top 1% paid @30% of their income in federal income taxes while others paid zero. It's not accurate to say the rich pay @ 50% of their income in taxes while others pay nothing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You said income tax burden and I wanted to make clear that I was talking about all federal taxes(income, FICA, cap gains, etc.) As for the 50% number, can you show me any specific example of a person paying 50% of their income in taxes? I'll believe it if I see it, but the 50% number gets thrown around a lot with no specific reference.

Yes, the federal income tax is the largest tax, but if you are going to talk about only the federal income tax you can't throw out state and local taxes. It would be accurate to say in 2006 the top 1% paid @30% of their income in federal income taxes while others paid zero. It's not accurate to say the rich pay @ 50% of their income in taxes while others pay nothing.

Take a single guy making $1m. He has $50k in deductions.

$310,184 Federal Income Tax
$12,400 Social Security
$27,550 Medicare
$95,000 State Income Tax (California)
$25,000 Property Tax on $2m home

$470,134 Total

That's awfully close to 50%. Would be if he had less deductions (I think the $50k in deductions is rather generous for a single guy). Or if he lived in a more expensive home which isn't out of the question for someone making that kind of money. If you want to say "all taxes" should be included such as sales, fees, etc by the government, you could even be over that mark.

You're right that I should use the comparision on people not paying anything when using the 50% example (since poorer people do pay some of those other taxes). But it's still a massive gap.

[cartman]

He has more than $50K in deductions, since the $120K he paid in state income and property taxes are able to be itemized as well.

[JPhillips]

He'll likely have much more in deductions than 50K. He's allowed to deduct state income or sales taxes so that's 95K right there. Most property taxes are deductible so let's give him 20k there. If he has a mortgage the interest is deductible. I'd bet this fictional guy will have 200k in deductions easy unless he has a terrible accountant. Taking 800,000 as his AGI lowers his income tax down to @258,000, which gets him close to 41% using the rest of your numbers.

edit: I should add that it's not going to be this simple. There are likely other credits/exemptions and the AMT will likely come into play, so using a briefly sketched fictional taxpayer doesn't answer the question.

Lowering the federal AGI will also lower the Cali AGI which will lower the Cali tax bill. In short, I'd expect a total tax burden somewhere in the 40-42% range.

[flere-imsaho]

This, apparently, is the post by Nate Silver that convinced Andrew Sullivan that the public option isn't something for a conservative to be worried about.