Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?

Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?
Republicans believe the answer's no; Bernie Sanders believes otherwise? I suspect he's right. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?
Republicans believe the answer's no; Bernie Sanders believes otherwise? I suspect he's right. Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

No, since both are unconstitutional.

Not likely. To be sure one must include sales of which particular items and at what percentage rate.

Glitch said:

No, since both are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I thought the Fed Gov can now tax you anyway they want thank's to the 16th Amendment?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Click to expand...

Fund it with a portion of what we're already paying in premiums. Cutting out the for profit insurance middleman will be a big cost savings. Letting single payer negotiate prices will be another one.

Helix said:

Fund it with a portion of what we're already paying in premiums. Cutting out the for profit insurance middleman will be a big cost savings. Letting single payer negotiate prices will be another one.

Click to expand...

And the ones that pay nothing stay at nothing?

Luther said:

And the ones that pay nothing stay at nothing?

Click to expand...

Absorb Medicaid into the new single payer.

As for poor people paying a significant amount of money for health care under any system, good luck squeezing more blood from that turnip.

Helix said:

Absorb Medicaid into the new single payer.

As for poor people paying a significant amount of money for health care under any system, good luck squeezing more blood from that turnip.

Click to expand...

So what happens when those that do not pay nothing increase even more?

Like the relativity NEW Medicaid EXPANSION etc....

Luther said:

So what happens when those that do not pay nothing increase even more?

Like the relativity NEW Medicaid EXPANSION etc....

Click to expand...

Canada has managed just fine

Helix said:

Fund it with a portion of what we're already paying in premiums. Cutting out the for profit insurance middleman will be a big cost savings. Letting single payer negotiate prices will be another one.

Click to expand...

You forget that most people who have private insurance get most of it paid for by their employer. Fixing our broken system is a lot more complicated than a couple of worn out soundbites.

Luther said:

So what happens when those that do not pay nothing increase even more?

Like the relativity NEW Medicaid EXPANSION etc....

Click to expand...

The same thing that happens in the rest of the first world : they get health care for a fraction of what we pay, and most of them have a similar or higher life expectancy.

washunut said:

You forget that most people who have private insurance get most of it paid for by their employer. Fixing our broken system is a lot more complicated than a couple of worn out soundbites.

Click to expand...

The complicated part is getting enough obstructionists voted out.

I'm Supposn said:

Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?
Republicans believe the answer's no; Bernie Sanders believes otherwise? I suspect he's right. Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

What would be the percentage added as a sales tax to fund this?

Helix said:

The complicated part is getting enough obstructionists voted out.

Click to expand...

My sense is that people underestimate the complexity of a multi-trillion dollar piece of our economy. For example I wonder how many folks even on a site to "debate politics" understand the role of insurance companies at major corporations. There they get paid just as an administrator. Large companies self-insure. Or that about 20 million people on Medicare also have a form of private insurance for their Medicare plus.

While there are cost savings in the two places you mentioned, there are many other areas for cost containment. However they don't lend themselves to a 30 second ad or a minute on the debate stage. Cost cuts are a positive to the consumer but politicians fear them because they also translate into job loses etc. Thus I am much more skeptical than you that any political solution will be found. The last 30-40 years experience has proven that to be true.

washunut said:

My sense is that people underestimate the complexity of a multi-trillion dollar piece of our economy. For example I wonder how many folks even on a site to "debate politics" understand the role of insurance companies at major corporations. There they get paid just as an administrator. Large companies self-insure. Or that about 20 million people on Medicare also have a form of private insurance for their Medicare plus.

While there are cost savings in the two places you mentioned, there are many other areas for cost containment. However they don't lend themselves to a 30 second ad or a minute on the debate stage. Cost cuts are a positive to the consumer but politicians fear them because they also translate into job loses etc. Thus I am much more skeptical than you that any political solution will be found. The last 30-40 years experience has proven that to be true.

Click to expand...

It will be tough to get single payer through without an economic collapse happening first. Then there is the added problem of keeping Republicans out of power long enough for it to set. If not, they will sabotage it and try to force it into failure as they have done with the ACA.

Luther said:

I thought the Fed Gov can now tax you anyway they want thank's to the 16th Amendment?

Click to expand...

Taxing incomes is not the same thing as a sales tax. Regardless of how someone earns their income, Congress has the constitutional authority to tax it. However, Congress can only impose a sales tax on commerce that crosses interstate and international borders. They have no constitutional authority to implement any tax on intrastate commerce. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment already prohibits any federal program like MediCare/MedicAid since the US Constitution never gave Congress the authority to enact such organizations. Only the States have the constitutional authority to spend taxpayer money on social programs like MediCare/MedicAid. The federal government is prohibited.

Glitch said:

Taxing incomes is not the same thing as a sales tax. Regardless of how someone earns their income, Congress has the constitutional authority to tax it. However, Congress can only impose a sales tax on commerce that crosses interstate and international borders. They have no constitutional authority to implement any tax on intrastate commerce. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment already prohibits any federal program like MediCare/MedicAid since the US Constitution never gave Congress the authority to enact such organizations. Only the States have the constitutional authority to spend taxpayer money on social programs like MediCare/MedicAid. The federal government is prohibited.

Click to expand...

Nope. The wickard decision shows federal control over inter and intra state commerce constitutional

I'm Supposn said:

Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?
Republicans believe the answer's no; Bernie Sanders believes otherwise? I suspect he's right. Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Hmmm... why do you believe Sanders is right.

Particularly when federal sales tax is so regressive it will hit poor and middle class folks more.

Originally Posted by Helix:
fund it with a portion of what we're already paying in premiums. Cutting out the for-profit insurance middleman will be a big cost savings. Letting single payer negotiate prices will be another one.
And the ones that pay nothing stay at nothing?

Luther said:

And the ones that pay nothing stay at nothing?

Click to expand...

Helix and Luther, federal net cost of Medicare4All, (M4A) would depend upon how the act's drafted; (i.e. dependent upon if what if any co-payments should the be paid by patients or those responsible for any patient's M4A co-payments).
In the cases of the poor, that would be, as Medicaid is now funded from governments' general tax revenues and budgets.

Effectively, medical expenditure's for treating the poor would increase only to the extent that the working poor are generally not covered by state's administered Medicaid.
Effectively, hospital emergency room treatments with all of their consequential additional costs including eventual costs due to medical preventative and screening procedures that were not performed.

Regarding M4A additional costs to aggregate taxpayers and our governments, treating the poor and the working poor would effectively be improved with little or no increased costs to our aggregate governments and taxpayers.

Respectfully, Supposn

Luther said:

I thought the Fed Gov can now tax you anyway they want thank's to the 16th Amendment?

Click to expand...

The way I take that is the federal government can tax incomes from whatever source. A sales tax is not a tax on incomes but things bought and sold. I'm no constitutional lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. You have your income tax which taxes your income, your corporation tax which taxes corporations income, your capital gains tax which taxes you income from stocks and bonds etc. But all income based.

A sales tax isn't a tax on income but items bought and sold.

Perotista said:

The way I take that is the federal government can tax incomes from whatever source. A sales tax is not a tax on incomes but things bought and sold. I'm no constitutional lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. You have your income tax which taxes your income, your corporation tax which taxes corporations income, your capital gains tax which taxes you income from stocks and bonds etc. But all income based.

A sales tax isn't a tax on income but items bought and sold.

Click to expand...

The federal government has a variety of taxes not income based. The penalty for not having insurance under the ACA was ruled a tax. You have tax stamps for things such as NFA firearms....etc

jaeger19 said:

Hmmm... why do you believe Sanders is right.

Particularly when federal sales tax is so regressive it will hit poor and middle-class folks more.

Click to expand...

Jaeger19, I'm pleased that you asked this question.
Progressive income taxes are not, (as conservatives wish us to believe), all that progressive. Due to the waivers, exceptions, and exclusions or reductions of tax rates upon favored classes of taxpayers or income sources, the character of our federal individual income tax system's progressive tax rates are less progressive than otherwise and less equitable among income tax payers.

I'm among those believing on that Fair-tax proponents are correct, in aggregate, wealthier individuals would be subject to as much or more net taxes if any proportion of our current progressive income tax system were transformed to a sales tax.

In my opinion, what's problematic are:
(1) I doubt the U.S. Congress would enact and in the future retain sufficient Pretax-refunds to compensate the poor that currently are not subject to income taxes.
(2) I don't believe we can or should attempt to effectively enforce a federal sales tax rate to sufficiently replace all federal revenues due to taxes based upon net incomes, wages, and payrolls, or even upon only individuals' net incomes and wages.
(3) Most Fair-tax proponents insist on the transformation be accomplished in a single step.

In my opinion, #3 should not be considered.
If the federal taxes are incrementally and simultaneously transformed, after one of the incremental steps, sales tax will approach an unacceptable rate and further increases will not be enacted.
If I'm incorrect, all federal taxes upon individuals' net incomes and wages would be eliminated. Conceivably, in that case, all enterprises' taxes upon net incomes and payrolls could also be eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Jaeger19, I'm pleased that you asked this question.
Progressive income taxes are not, (as conservatives wish us to believe), all that progressive. Due to the waivers, exceptions, and exclusions or reductions of tax rates upon favored classes of taxpayers or income sources, the character of our federal individual income tax system's progressive tax rates are less progressive than otherwise and less equitable among income tax payers.

I'm among those believing on that Fair-tax proponents are correct, in aggregate, wealthier individuals would be subject to as much or more net taxes if any proportion of our current progressive income tax system were transformed to a sales tax.

Click to expand...

BWWAWWWAAHHH... this is so funny. No.. in aggregate wealthier individuals would not be subject to more net taxes... because wealthier people do not consume at the level that poor people do.

Give a 100 poor people 1000 dollars generates a heck of a lot more economic activity than one rich person getting 100,000. THATS why rich people have much higher savings rates.

Not to mention that fair tax allow exceptions for business purchases.. which makes it real easy for rich people to avoid sales taxes.

jaeger19 said:

BWWAWWWAAHHH... this is so funny. No.. in aggregate wealthier individuals would not be subject to more net taxes... because wealthier people do not consume at the level that poor people do.

Give a 100 poor people 1000 dollars generates a heck of a lot more economic activity than one rich person getting 100,000. THATS why rich people have much higher savings rates.

Not to mention that fair tax allows exceptions for business purchases.. which makes it real easy for rich people to avoid sales taxes.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by I'm Supposn:
“... Progressive income taxes are not, (as conservatives wish us to believe), all that progressive. Due to the waivers, exceptions, and exclusions or reductions of tax rates upon favored classes of taxpayers or income sources, the character of our federal individual income tax system's progressive tax rates are less progressive than otherwise and less equitable among income tax payers.

I'm among those believing on that Fair-tax proponents are correct, in aggregate, wealthier individuals would be subject to as much or more net taxes if any proportion of our current progressive income tax system were transformed to a sales tax. ...”.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Jaeger19, I, and I hope we are discussing the differences between a flat general sales tax rates and a tax upon net income. Although we have progressive income tax rates, that's still somewhat true.

Individual persons' business expenses are tax deductible, and its believed a substantial portion of aggregate tax-deductible expenses are actually for the personal benefit of the taxpayers and their dependents; (i.e. individual incomes declared for tax purposes are understated).
A major task of lobbyists, tax attorneys, and accountants is to enable their clients to understate their net incomes and reduce their income taxes).

Value Added Tax, (i.e. VAT) is the superior method of sales tax administration. Because you can permit an enterprise to immediately deduct the VAT they paid, from the VAT they collected from their customers, (due to current computer capabilities), its now easier to enforce while being more business friendly.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Value Added Tax, (i.e. VAT) compared to prior conventional sales tax methods. ... I’m aware of advantages to VAT compared to other sales tax methods but no disadvantages. Many nations have enacted VAT and/or transformed their prior sales tax method to a VAT. ...

Click to expand...

I'm Supposn said:

Originally Posted by I'm Supposn:
“... Progressive income taxes are not, (as conservatives wish us to believe), all that progressive. Due to the waivers, exceptions, and exclusions or reductions of tax rates upon favored classes of taxpayers or income sources, the character of our federal individual income tax system's progressive tax rates are less progressive than otherwise and less equitable among income tax payers.

I'm among those believing on that Fair-tax proponents are correct, in aggregate, wealthier individuals would be subject to as much or more net taxes if any proportion of our current progressive income tax system were transformed to a sales tax. ...”.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Jaeger19, I, and I hope we are discussing the differences between a flat general sales tax rates and a tax upon net income. Although we have progressive income tax rates, that's still somewhat true.

Individual persons' business expenses are tax deductible, and its believed a substantial portion of aggregate tax-deductible expenses are actually for the personal benefit of the taxpayers and their dependents; (i.e. individual incomes declared for tax purposes are understated).
A major task of lobbyists, tax attorneys, and accountants is to enable their clients to understate their net incomes and reduce their income taxes).

Value Added Tax, (i.e. VAT) is the superior method of sales tax administration. Because you can permit an enterprise to immediately deduct the VAT they paid, from the VAT they collected from their customers, (due to current computer capabilities), its now easier to enforce while being more business friendly.
Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Exactly.. which again means that the Tax is paid largely by the consumers..in other words..its still very regressive. The rich will still have easy ways of avoiding taxes.. and the poor and middle class who spend a much greater portion of the income in consumption.. will get hammered.