Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you should have no problem with a 30% VAT. Any existing taxes going to fund health care are eliminated, creating a tax savings, and everyone can choose how much tax they pay by what they buy. The low-income would naturally be limited by their inability to spend/buy much.
Thanks for sharing your preference for 30% VAT. Trust me, I heard you the first 20th times you said it. That is what you want. I get it.
As I have already explained I prefer:
1. Keep HC related taxes we pay now, which covers about half of what would be needed
2. Add 2% to income tax (which could be split between employer/employee)
3. Add the rest to VAT, probably around 2%
You're not getting it. Many employers of low-wage workers don't provide insurance, either due to having less than 50 employees or keeping their employees' weekly work hours under full-time. An additional payroll tax for single-payer health care would be netted against the employee's wages in the cost of employment calculation, thereby reducing their wages.
This is all common business sense, liberals' pipe dream fantasy mentality notwithstanding.
Wouldn't universal healthcare (no matter WHO pays for it) remove the incentive to skirt the system by under-employing people as part-timers, and remove the dis-incentive to cap employment at 50 people? Both of those are the very job-killers that people blame on ACA.
I don't have all the answers, but it seems that what has been proposed, in SOME FORM, would work.
People pay for part of it via taxes, that are more than offset by reduced HC cost
Employers pay for it via offset HC cost
Employers who have been under-employing people will feel some pain (good), they'll have to pay their fair share now, can't loophole their way out of it by holding people to part-time and by restricting employment levels.
Will that hurt some people, and some employers? YES
Any solution (to just about any political problem) will hurt some. The goal is to find a solution that, on the whole, does more good than harm.
Finn, employers really *don't* pay for your insurance now. It's nothing but a money swap on paper. A company creates a budget for its employees that includes insurance costs as part of the total compensation package. If the US switched to a universal plan, the "employer portion" of the new tax is really coming from you as part of your total compensation. That's in addition to any "employee portion" you would pay. Employers are not going to suddenly roll over extra money your way as a result of universal healthcare. It's all coming out of your pocket.
When Politifact assessed Bernie Sanders' proposed plan they made the above fact very very clear. I posted the full assessment and link many pages back in this thread. Here's another link: How much would Bernie Sanders
Yeah, sure. I can think of a lot of reasons for UHC, but I wouldn't push that one. You could end up with egg on your face, like Obama did with the promise that premiums would go down under the ACA.
It is the conservative argument for single payer, so it is worth mentioning.
Well, based on that estimate, if you made 100k you'd end up paying 4k extra in taxes a year. That is a small small price to pay for having full medical coverage, but conservatives will always complain no matter what, because everything is a competition and they must have the biggest pile of crumbs.
Well, the problem is the guy who made 100 mil. or whatever, they will fight this to the end.
P.S. Even though, in many countries there is actually an upper limit, but it all depends on how exactly it is implemented.
Thanks for sharing your preference for 30% VAT. Trust me, I heard you the first 20th times you said it. That is what you want. I get it.
As I have already explained I prefer:
1. Keep HC related taxes we pay now, which covers about half of what would be needed
2. Add 2% to income tax (which could be split between employer/employee)
3. Add the rest to VAT, probably around 2%
You wouldn't need any additional taxes if government would reform costs.
The only reason the US spends almost double per person on healthcare are inefficiency and out of control costs that need to be regulated (largely suppliers, not providers).
I think I posted something earlier in this thread, but incase I haven't, we already pay for universal healthcare. More government dollars are spent per person in the US than in the rest of the countries with socialized medicine, then we pay for it all over again out of pocket.
It's called insanity and why people keep buying into the game is beyond me. The argument for single payer is fitting for democrats, republicans, business, everyone.
Thanks for sharing your preference for 30% VAT. Trust me, I heard you the first 20th times you said it. That is what you want. I get it.
As I have already explained I prefer:
1. Keep HC related taxes we pay now, which covers about half of what would be needed
We can't keep those taxes when the health care programs for which the tax is paid no longer exist. When everyone is moved to a single-payer for all system, those taxes are extinguished.
Quote:
2. Add 2% to income tax (which could be split between employer/employee)
3. Add the rest to VAT, probably around 2%
Wow. That falls WAY, WAY short of the funding actually needed for single-payer for all.
It is the conservative argument for single payer, so it is worth mentioning.
Not if it isn't true!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
You wouldn't need any additional taxes if government would reform costs.
The only reason the US spends almost double per person on healthcare are inefficiency and out of control costs that need to be regulated (largely suppliers, not providers).
I think I posted something earlier in this thread, but incase I haven't, we already pay for universal healthcare. More government dollars are spent per person in the US than in the rest of the countries with socialized medicine, then we pay for it all over again out of pocket.
It's called insanity and why people keep buying into the game is beyond me. The argument for single payer is fitting for democrats, republicans, business, everyone.
So it's the paper clip budget?
I think there are several reasons why our costs are higher. The higher pharma costs are a big one. Our system is more "on demand" for another (less waiting time). Many others.
Wouldn't universal healthcare (no matter WHO pays for it) remove the incentive to skirt the system by under-employing people as part-timers, and remove the dis-incentive to cap employment at 50 people? Both of those are the very job-killers that people blame on ACA.
Yes, it would, but the consequence would be lower wages/hour as the cost of that health care payroll tax would be netted against employee wages.
Quote:
I don't have all the answers, but it seems that what has been proposed, in SOME FORM, would work.
People pay for part of it via taxes, that are more than offset by reduced HC cost
Employers pay for it via offset HC cost
Employers who have been under-employing people will feel some pain (good), they'll have to pay their fair share now, can't loophole their way out of it by holding people to part-time and by restricting employment levels.
I realize people would like to think so, but it just doesn't work that way in reality. I've already clearly explained why, above.
Quote:
Any solution (to just about any political problem) will hurt some. The goal is to find a solution that, on the whole, does more good than harm.
30% VAT. Taxpayers are in the driver's seat by choosing what they buy.
European and Scandinavian countries have a 20%-25% VAT, and it has worked very well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
