• 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!

Can we pay for healthcare and SS with sales tax?

Fletch said:
SS and Medicare/Medicaid are already set up through payroll taxes so Im not sure what the incentive to chnge would be. If people really want Medicare for all, the funding mechanism is already in place. Just raise the withholding on everyone and viola, free healthcare.
Click to expand...

raising the witholding will not cover the 35 trillion in new spending.
it would also require a major increase in the pay roll tax as well.

closer to 20% along with the withholding raise.

also it isn't free so stop saying it because it isn't true.

Free means that I PAY no money at all whatsoever.
that is what the word free means.

with medicare people pay a ton of money on top of advantage plans to cover what medicare doesn't.
it is no where close to free.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sales taxes are regressive in that a greater percentage of tax per income is taken from the poor and middle class. This is the definition of regressive.

And SS is a social safety net.. its not a retirement benefit.

IF it was a retirement benefit.. I would be guaranteed to get my money out of it n. but I will never get the money out of social security that I put in. Unlike my retirement.

You or your spouse or your parent has to put into the social safety net for you to take out.. but its still a social safety net.
Click to expand...

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

people pull out way more than they pay in. the biggest people to gain this advantage were the first people in the pot.
in general though people get more out of SS/medicare than they pay into it.
 
charliebrown said:
I would seriously consider sales tax on stock!!! That would curtail the short term trading for profit and it would disproportionately affect the rich more than the poor.

PS, we can not afford to have a group of traders exempt from said tax.
Click to expand...

you don't know how stocks work do you?
 
ludin said:
raising the witholding will not cover the 35 trillion in new spending.
it would also require a major increase in the pay roll tax as well.

closer to 20% along with the withholding raise.

also it isn't free so stop saying it because it isn't true.

Free means that I PAY no money at all whatsoever.
that is what the word free means.

with medicare people pay a ton of money on top of advantage plans to cover what medicare doesn't.
it is no where close to free.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.
 
A better way to pay for health care, without raising taxes, is for the US Government to sell the natural resources found on Government Land, to the free market. The profit can be used to pay for needed social services. For example, if the US Government sold oil from government land in Alaska, then every time we fill up our car's gas tank with gasoline, the price stays the same; no extra tax, but profit money goes to health care.

The so-called socialist country, Sweden, supplements its freebies, with its rich oil deposits. The natural treasure of the Sweden; oil, is shared with all the people through collective benefits. Without oil to offset these high social costs, socialism could not last in Sweden. You cannot just steal money through taxes. If on the other hand, the Government turned a profit, by being a commodity merchant, then we all can benefit while stimulating the economy; win-win.

\
 
Jimmy Who said:
Just asking why and why not?
Click to expand...



Why not is because too many people who could not afford it would be having to pay as opposed to using a progressive tax on income.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sales taxes are regressive in that a greater percentage of tax per income is taken from the poor and middle class. This is the definition of regressive.

And SS is a social safety net.. its not a retirement benefit.

IF it was a retirement benefit.. I would be guaranteed to get my money out of it n. but I will never get the money out of social security that I put in. Unlike my retirement.

You or your spouse or your parent has to put into the social safety net for you to take out.. but its still a social safety net.
Click to expand...

That is not the definition of a regressive tax rate. A tax rate is a percentage of the thing being taxed. Income is not being taxed in this case. A sale is. And since its FLAT, everyone pays the same rate.

And SS is not a safety net. Its a retirement benefit. Gurauntee money has nothing do with it. You qualify for it through work and then you get the benefit. Much like workers comp, also a benefit. A safety net is something you dont pay for it. Its there in case you need it. Social Security, Medicare are supplemental.
 
jaeger19 said:
The rich need medicare… and they like social security since it benefits them.

In fact social security is already a wealth redistribution system already that benefits the rich.
Click to expand...

The rich dont need medicare or SS. They are rich. An SS benefit is way less than they would have in investments, assets, and savings. And they certainly arent going to medicare doctors or cant afford their medical bills.
 
ludin said:
you point is a bit off.
Florida also does not have a state income tax either, and their sales tax is quite low considering that essential items are not taxed like food.
that is why it is not regressive and it does not stop spending, however if the state would to jack the sales tax to 10% and then the counties have their only +2-3% on top of it.
then yes you would see a huge disincentive on spending.

sales tax hits poor people. unlike income taxes.

those types of sales tax are only not regressive if there is a discount or non-tax on essential items such as food etc ...
Click to expand...

Thats what I said. We have a sales tax. Thus a sales tax works. Its not regressive though. Everyone pays the same rate. These taxes hit everyone, not just the poor.
 
wellwisher said:
A better way to pay for health care, without raising taxes, is for the US Government to sell the natural resources found on Government Land, to the free market. The profit can be used to pay for needed social services. For example, if the US Government sold oil from government land in Alaska, then every time we fill up our car's gas tank with gasoline, the price stays the same; no extra tax, but profit money goes to health care.

The so-called socialist country, Sweden, supplements its freebies, with its rich oil deposits. The natural treasure of the Sweden; oil, is shared with all the people through collective benefits. Without oil to offset these high social costs, socialism could not last in Sweden. You cannot just steal money through taxes. If on the other hand, the Government turned a profit, by being a commodity merchant, then we all can benefit while stimulating the economy; win-win.

\
Click to expand...

I don't agree. If you love animals, trees, mountains, streams, oceans, etc. Don't sell this land for profit. The people that buy it will not pass any savings on to consumers. They will make this into a very nasty polluted country. Let's stop doing the wrong thing for profit. Thank You.
 
ludin said:
Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

people pull out way more than they pay in. the biggest people to gain this advantage were the first people in the pot.
in general though people get more out of SS/medicare than they pay into it.
Click to expand...

Not me. I will be a loser to social security. Even if I took out now.. which I am not even close to eligible... with the amount that I would get at the highest payout.. I would have to live to 101 to break even.
 
jonny5 said:
The rich dont need medicare or SS. They are rich. An SS benefit is way less than they would have in investments, assets, and savings. And they certainly arent going to medicare doctors or cant afford their medical bills.
Click to expand...

the rich need medicare. And they go to medicare doctors all the time. I see tons of rich clients in my facilities. Multimillionairs. Who LOVE their medicare. Boom.. get your total knee and between medicare and their supplement.. not one dime do they spend out of pocket.

And they benefit from SS. What do you think folks like yourself do with your Social security? You spend it in the stores, healthcare places, buy the products that we rich people are invested in.
 
jaeger19 said:
the rich need medicare. And they go to medicare doctors all the time. I see tons of rich clients in my facilities. Multimillionairs. Who LOVE their medicare. Boom.. get your total knee and between medicare and their supplement.. not one dime do they spend out of pocket.

And they benefit from SS. What do you think folks like yourself do with your Social security? You spend it in the stores, healthcare places, buy the products that we rich people are invested in.
Click to expand...

They dont NEED it. And we're talking about direct benefit, not some indirect unprovable benefit. Ask the rich if they would rather pay payroll tax or keep the cash.
 
jonny5 said:
They dont NEED it. And we're talking about direct benefit, not some indirect unprovable benefit. Ask the rich if they would rather pay payroll tax or keep the cash.
Click to expand...

When it comes to medicare..yes they need it. Its just not feasible to have a policy on a 76 year old that has heart problems. Way too much risk as a primary insurance for the insurance company.

I can answer that question. Would you rather pay payroll tax or keep the cash. I would rather pay payroll tax because I get more back from my customers from their social security.

Now.. would all rich say that? Perhaps not... but then I know multi millionaires that grouse about welfare and while they benefit from building low income housing and getting housing payments directly from the government. And meanwhile.. having their property managers encourage their renters to sign up for government programs that will put in new windows, water heaters and upgrade lighting in THEIR RENTALS.

Or multimillionaires that grouse about welfare... while showing me the 350,000 dollar pivot they just got courtesy of a government program check.
 
jaeger19 said:
When it comes to medicare..yes they need it. Its just not feasible to have a policy on a 76 year old that has heart problems. Way too much risk as a primary insurance for the insurance company.

I can answer that question. Would you rather pay payroll tax or keep the cash. I would rather pay payroll tax because I get more back from my customers from their social security.

Now.. would all rich say that? Perhaps not... but then I know multi millionaires that grouse about welfare and while they benefit from building low income housing and getting housing payments directly from the government. And meanwhile.. having their property managers encourage their renters to sign up for government programs that will put in new windows, water heaters and upgrade lighting in THEIR RENTALS.

Or multimillionaires that grouse about welfare... while showing me the 350,000 dollar pivot they just got courtesy of a government program check.
Click to expand...

No, the rich dont need medicare. They have money. That they take advantage of every dollar they are owed is a different idea.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Who said:
Just asking why and why not?
Click to expand...

SS should be out of the question. It is already paid for. I'm open to ideas about using a sales tax to help pay for healthcare, but not for a single payer government run operation, which probably eliminates most ideas. But, I do like the idea that if everyone gets healthcare then everyone pays for it and I wouldn't care how regressive the left would try to claim it is. In fact, I would argue that if the poor are going to use healthcare more then they should pay more for it.
 
Moderate Right said:
SS should be out of the question. It is already paid for. I'm open to ideas about using a sales tax to help pay for healthcare, but not for a single payer government run operation, which probably eliminates most ideas. But, I do like the idea that if everyone gets healthcare then everyone pays for it and I wouldn't care how regressive the left would try to claim it is. In fact, I would argue that if the poor are going to use healthcare more then they should pay more for it.
Click to expand...

SS isnt paid for. It will run a deficit this year and only get worse.

B. LONG-RANGE ESTIMATES
 
jonny5 said:
SS isnt paid for. It will run a deficit this year and only get worse.

B. LONG-RANGE ESTIMATES
Click to expand...
SS has a 1.7 Trillion dollar trust fund that has been " borrowed " by the US government
because they passed a law years ago that made it where the surplus from the money the SS system took in had to go into Government bonds that nobody else could buy
that 1.7 Trillion dollars is part of our debt because we " borrowed " it and we have to pay it back
Have a nice day
 
Moderate Right said:
SS IS paid for. It doesn't actually run out of money for years and there are many easy fixes.
Click to expand...

When its fixed then itll be paid for. But as it owes trillions more than it expects to collect in even the long range, it isnt paid for.
 
Tbird19482 said:
SS has a 1.7 Trillion dollar trust fund that has been " borrowed " by the US government
because they passed a law years ago that made it where the surplus from the money the SS system took in had to go into Government bonds that nobody else could buy
that 1.7 Trillion dollars is part of our debt because we " borrowed " it and we have to pay it back
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

Hence why it isnt paid for. The 'trust fund' was spent. And even if that money was paid back, it would soon be back in defict again. Promised liabilities are in the hundreds of trillions.
 
jonny5 said:
When its fixed then itll be paid for. But as it owes trillions more than it expects to collect in even the long range, it isnt paid for.
Click to expand...

It's paid for now. You're talking about the future.
 
jonny5 said:
Hence why it isnt paid for. The 'trust fund' was spent. And even if that money was paid back, it would soon be back in defict again. Promised liabilities are in the hundreds of trillions.
Click to expand...
Why isn't it paid off??
Ask your Congressmen and Senators
The way it was set up was that any surplus funds taken in from the FICA tax had to be invested in " Secure " Government bonds that nobody else could buy
these bonds give very little ROI and were used to keep the deficits down and was put on the debt and has to be paid back.
when The Republicans and anybody else calls the SS system an ENTITLEMENT program in a way they are right we paid into it for years and years and we are entitled to get our money back
It is NOT an entitlement program in the way they imply like welfare and medicaid
IF that money was paid back and invested in secure bonds or something it could get a lot higher ROL then it gets now and the fund would be funded for many more years
and IF they raised the FICA tax back up to where it use to be it would have more revenue and a larger surplus then it has now
when I worked I paid the higher rate for almost 50 years
so as I said it is an entitlement program in the way we are entitled to get our money back
have a nice day
 
Tbird19482 said:
The Republicans and anybody else calls the SS system an ENTITLEMENT program in a way they are right we paid into it for years and years and we are entitled to get our money back
Click to expand...

The supremes have ruled you are not entitled to get anything back. From here:


socialsecurity.gov said:
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
Click to expand...

Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program funded by a payroll tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom