• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Bill Extends Wage Tax to Investments

Prof actually raises several very good points:


(All via: Checking the Math on Health Care - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com )

First Thoughts on the CBO Score - Business - The Atlantic

A disturbingly high percentage of the revenues still come from insurance premiums for other programs. About $53 billion of the net deficit reduction is from Social Security taxes collected on the wages people will now be getting in lieu of health care benefits. But since those contributions raise the amount Social Security will eventually have to pay out, the Republicans convincingly argue that this is not true "deficit reduction"; it's just deficit shifting. Ditto the premiums for the new long-term care insurance.

Gimme Gimmicks: Getting Giddy Over the CBO's Latest Health Care Score - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

The score for the Senate bill includes $72 billion in revenues generated by the CLASS act, a federally-backed disability insurance program. But that $72 billion is just premium revenue that will eventually have to be used to pay out benefits. The score counts that revenue anyway, despite the fact that, according to the CBO, it would probably add to the deficit in the long term.

Five Reasons The CBO Figures Are Phony

The reconciliation bill will end student loan subsidies to lenders. The C.B.O. says this will save $19.4 billion over the first decade, accounting for virtually all of the $19.8 billion in deficit reduction from the health care reconciliation bill.
 
Obama's socialist health care program may be approved tomorrow by the slime ball dems but it will never pass the stink test in the SCOTUS.... No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that you have to have health insurance and you can not be forced to buy it...37 states are already filing law suits against Obama Care.....

Thank God this piece of crap will be thrown out.........
 
passage will INITIATE an entirely new POLITICS of health care

far uglier, far more damaging to the party

it's your move, "moderates"
 
Obama's socialist health care program may be approved tomorrow by the slime ball dems but it will never pass the stink test in the SCOTUS.... No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that you have to have health insurance and you can not be forced to buy it...37 states are already filing law suits against Obama Care.....

Thank God this piece of crap will be thrown out.........

You can post this in more threads but you're still wrong.
 
You can post this in more threads but you're still wrong.

Your clueless.. You have no clue about your daddys socialist Obama care,...I am done with you,,,,,,,,
 
It needs to be both, really. The problem is during a recession, reducing spending and raising taxes just amplify the problem.

Reducing spending, especially in government, is never a bad thing when times are tight. There's plenty of waste that could be eliminated quite easily, IMO. Business and consumers are going to drive the economy, not the blowhards in Washington DC.
 
Reducing spending, especially in government, is never a bad thing when times are tight. There's plenty of waste that could be eliminated quite easily, IMO. Business and consumers are going to drive the economy, not the blowhards in Washington DC.

Exactly, you cut taxes and reduce spending.......works every time.......JFK did it....Reagan did it and so did President Bush........
 
Reducing spending, especially in government, is never a bad thing when times are tight. There's plenty of waste that could be eliminated quite easily, IMO. Business and consumers are going to drive the economy, not the blowhards in Washington DC.

Where exactly do you think government-spent dollars go? Some sort of fire pit?

It gets paid to someone, who spends it on something, where it gets spent on something else, and so on.

Reduction in government spending has a similar effect to reduction in consumer spending.

Exactly, you cut taxes and reduce spending.......works every time.......JFK did it....Reagan did it and so did President Bush........

Reagan and Bush both increased our debt significantly. Borrow and spend just means you pay later instead of now.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, you cut taxes and reduce spending.......works every time.......JFK did it....Reagan did it and so did President Bush........


Reagan and Bush left us with HUGE deficits that Democrats had to come in and clean up.
you Republicans have a very short and selective memory.
 
Obama's socialist health care program may be approved tomorrow by the slime ball dems but it will never pass the stink test in the SCOTUS.... No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that you have to have health insurance and you can not be forced to buy it...37 states are already filing law suits against Obama Care.....

Thank God this piece of crap will be thrown out.........

Sorry Navy....Obama and the Democrats are going to protect your ass despite every effort from you Republicans to prevent it.
This time around, your precious corporate insurance companies are going to lose and the American people are going to win this round.
 
Where exactly do you think government-spent dollars go? Some sort of fire pit?

It gets paid to someone, who spends it on something, where it gets spent on something else, and so on.

Reduction in government spending has a similar effect to reduction in consumer spending.



Reagan and Bush both increased our debt significantly. Borrow and spend just means you pay later instead of now.

And the deficit under Obama in a little over a year is 3 times what it was when Bush left office and with Obama care it will be 5 times over it...........
 
Where exactly do you think government-spent dollars go? Some sort of fire pit?

It gets paid to someone, who spends it on something, where it gets spent on something else, and so on.

Reduction in government spending has a similar effect to reduction in consumer spending.



Reagan and Bush both increased our debt significantly. Borrow and spend just means you pay later instead of now.

So the government is better at spending the money we earn through our own efforts than we are? Sorry, don't buy it, never have. Whether it gets paid to someone in New York when I live somewhere is really insignificant in the scope of the local economy. I'd rather my money go to pay for goods and services where I live, than to line the pockets of some lobbyist or grant to study flea farts, neither of which will do much for the economy as a whole.
 
You and others keep on making this argument, but repetition doesn't make it any more reasonable.

Why don't you look up what percentage of people fell into the highest tax bracket back when the top marginal rates were that high.

Because that will prove what?
 
Because that will prove what?

It will help you understand why it's facile to claim that because the tax rates were higher in the past, tax rates should be increased now.

Setting aside the fact that you've offered zero evidence that higher taxes in the past actually had a positive impact on the economy, if the top marginal tax rate in the past only applied to income over a exceedingly high amount, then that information is absolutely useless in determining what our top tax rate should be today.
 
It will help you understand why it's facile to claim that because the tax rates were higher in the past, tax rates should be increased now.

Setting aside the fact that you've offered zero evidence that higher taxes in the past actually had a positive impact on the economy, if the top marginal tax rate in the past only applied to income over a exceedingly high amount, then that information is absolutely useless in determining what our top tax rate should be today.
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect. We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went. Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me. I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things. We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.
 
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect. We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went. Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me. I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things. We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.

He's basically saying that when the tax rate was at 90% or whatever, that way less people made enough to pay such a tax.
Now if the rate is at 40% and a lot of people make enough to pay it then your going to have a net increase in tax revenue because you haven't priced every one out.

Making more money is not based on pure luck.
 
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect.

I'm not the one claiming it would. See, if you're going to make a claim, you should back it up with evidence.

We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went.

I'm sorry that you don't understand statistics.

Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me.

The share of federal income tax borne by the richest 1% has long outpaced their share of federal income.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things.

The income disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the country grew faster under Clinton than under any other president.

We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.

More expert statistical analysis.
 
They explain it in the article. It changes the dynamics of competition for them while raising their costs.

One thing is certain: they will be laying off a lot of people, as will many companies.

Hello 15 percent unemployment?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling..... once again we respond to headlines without understanding the issue.

This deals with a potential loss of government subsidies to large companies with defined benefit pension plans that already had, at the time of enactment of Medicare D, rich prescription programs for their retired employees. These subsidies were to incent these large organizations to keep their plans.

The government is now proposing to tax this subsidies. This could result in a one-time, non-cash adjustment to the companies deferred tax liability.

Curious why the Conservs would worry about government subsidies and would see taxing those subsidies as logical, especially since we are 5 years into this plan and we are literally subsidizing the "haves" here.

No one should be shedding crocodile tears over this one.
 
Sorry Navy....Obama and the Democrats are going to protect your ass despite every effort from you Republicans to prevent it.
This time around, your precious corporate insurance companies are going to lose and the American people are going to win this round.

This is not a loss for insurance either. They are going to do quite well in this new structure. This is really a loss for America. We could have had real health reform and all we got was very, very ugly politics. Everyone in Washington should be ashamed at this outcome. And the American electorate should be ashamed for not really understanding the issues and substituting noise and shouting for intelligent debate.
 
Last edited:
I would definetly consider a VAT or some pigovian type taxes (maybe on unhealthly foods, liquor, tabacco, optional medical procedures like some plastic surgery, or gasoline) instead of an investment tax. However, in doing so I think you will come up to some pretty harsh political opposition. For example, the excise tax I feel would be one of the better ways to fund this bill, however it has been scaled back so much I feel it may now be largely ineffective.
 
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect. We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went. Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me. I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things. We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.

How exactly are all these rich people getting rich at the expense of others. Is it by working hard and making good choices in thier life. My father has done very well in life by going to school on scholarships and than worked hard and making lots of money. There is nothing that kept other people from doing the same thing in life other than thier lazyness or bad decisions. Why should people who have done well for themselves have to pay more than thier fair share. Why in the world should the US gov punish people for being succsesfull.
 
This is not a loss for insurance either. They are going to do quite well in this new structure. This is really a loss for America. We could have had real health reform and all we got was very, very ugly politics. Everyone in Washington should be ashamed at this outcome. And the American electorate should be ashamed for not really understanding the issues and substituting noise and shouting for intelligent debate.

I agree that this is not what is should be. But unfortunately with the party of no and the bluedog Democrats fighting real reform, this is the best that we can get FOR NOW.
This is just the starting point.
 
How exactly are all these rich people getting rich at the expense of others. Is it by working hard and making good choices in thier life. My father has done very well in life by going to school on scholarships and than worked hard and making lots of money. There is nothing that kept other people from doing the same thing in life other than thier lazyness or bad decisions. Why should people who have done well for themselves have to pay more than thier fair share. Why in the world should the US gov punish people for being succsesfull.

The left is so jealous of people that worked hard all their life and became wealthy............They are lawys whinning about that and want their money...I just hope the wealthy tell them to kiss their ass...........
 
He's basically saying that when the tax rate was at 90% or whatever, that way less people made enough to pay such a tax.
How many people make enough to pay a particular tax rate is irrelevant to the tax rate. The rate is what it is and if you make enough, you pay at that rate.
Now if the rate is at 40% and a lot of people make enough to pay it then your going to have a net increase in tax revenue because you haven't priced every one out.
I think you need to take another look at your logic.

Making more money is not based on pure luck.
You're right, even though that has nothing to do with what the tax rate is or should be.

I'm not the one claiming it would. See, if you're going to make a claim, you should back it up with evidence.
How about math. If you make 500 million a year and are taxed at 35% would you pay more or less tax if the rate was 70%?

I'm sorry that you don't understand statistics.
I'm sorry that instead of a rebuttal of substance you chose to dodge.

The share of federal income tax borne by the richest 1% has long outpaced their share of federal income.
Says you, a Reaganite.
From your link:

"In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income."

2007 total net worth of top 1% = 34.6% the next 19% = 50.5% and the rest - 80% = 15%

2007 financial wealth of the top 1%= 42.7% the next 19% = 50.3% and the rest - 80% = 7.0%

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

I happen to disagree with you.

The income disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the country grew faster under Clinton than under any other president.
We were and still are operating under Reaganomics.

More expert statistical analysis.
Thanks you. I'll take that as an 'I have no real rebuttal'.

How exactly are all these rich people getting rich at the expense of others. Is it by working hard and making good choices in thier life. My father has done very well in life by going to school on scholarships and than worked hard and making lots of money. There is nothing that kept other people from doing the same thing in life other than thier lazyness or bad decisions. Why should people who have done well for themselves have to pay more than thier fair share. Why in the world should the US gov punish people for being succsesfull.
Why don't you also use the Craig T. Nelson school of thought while you're telling us how your Dad got scholarships... The quote goes like this:

"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No. They gave me hope, and they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision. That came from my education." -Craig T. Nelson.
 
How many people make enough to pay a particular tax rate is irrelevant to the tax rate. The rate is what it is and if you make enough, you pay at that rate.

It is the most relevant part.
If you have a 90% tax at X dollars, then people are going to drop out of that fast.
They will go to the minimum threshold to avoid it.

Now if it's 40% or so, more people won't be against paying that as much as they would 90%.

You're right, even though that has nothing to do with what the tax rate is or should be.

You were using loaded language.
I hate when people describe wealthy individuals as "fortunate."
It implies that they didn't earn it.
 
Back
Top Bottom