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.
This research is interesting. Thank you for sharing.
I read it, and one thing I did not see addressed in all of this is the comparison of the burden placed on people to cover their healthcare costs.
Specifically, I didn't see this comparison:
The cost burden to individuals of taxes paid + healthcare costs incurred
Vs.
The tax burden placed on individuals (whom receive healthcare from their taxes) in other countries
What does THAT comparison look like? Without addressing that, I'm not sure how you really answer this question of regressivity/progressivity.
Thats a no brainer. All countries in the developed world has a national health care system not only because it is vastly more cost effective, but it is also a great relief for the poor and middle class. Nothing is more regressive than privatized systems and low tax-to-GDP ratio. The rich will always pay more into the tax system than the middle and the poor regardless of whether the tax is a sales tax or an income tax. That money is then spent to the benefit of the people and nation as a whole. The alternative is privatized user fees. The old poor widow pays the same dollar amount as the billionaire for the same service. Thats the American system.
Thats a no brainer. All countries in the developed world has a national health care system not only because it is vastly more cost effective, but it is also a great relief for the poor and middle class. Nothing is more regressive than privatized systems and low tax-to-GDP ratio. The rich will always pay more into the tax system than the middle and the poor regardless of whether the tax is a sales tax or an income tax. That money is then spent to the benefit of the people and nation as a whole. The alternative is privatized user fees. The old poor widow pays the same dollar amount as the billionaire for the same service. Thats the American system.
Well - yes, this is the kind of the point I'm getting at. And it's not addressed in this study.
While assumed, I don't know if what you write is true. I would like to see the numbers.
Then you are denying the reality. Massive tax cuts for the rich and destroyed unions had the EXACT effect it was DESIGNED to have. Transfer of wealth from the 99% to the top 1%. The donor class are not stupid. They know what they are doing. You want more of the same.
Thats a no brainer. All countries in the developed world has a national health care system not only because it is vastly more cost effective, but it is also a great relief for the poor and middle class. Nothing is more regressive than privatized systems and low tax-to-GDP ratio.
Why do you think the tax-to-GDP ratio is so low in the US? I've already cited an economist explaining it: over-reliance on a progressive tax system.
And if you want to eliminate privatized systems and user fees, you'll need to tax regressively. This is all explained in the research linked in the OP. Europe's/Scandinavia's regressive tax systems replace privatized user fees. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?
If you want European-Scandinavian-style social programs, why do you balk at putting the middle class in the top tax bracket like they do? Your vote should be "Yes.".
Well - yes, this is the kind of the point I'm getting at. And it's not addressed in this study.
While assumed, I don't know if what you write is true. I would like to see the numbers.
Just look up costs of health care systems around the world and what they pay in taxes for their health care systems. Americans already pay more in taxes for our health care than countries with single payer systems, but in addition we have to pay extortionate amounts of money to big pharma and big insurance.
Imagine if all roads were privatized instead of public roads. What would be the consequences? The poor widow will have to pay $4000 a year to drive on the roads. Same price for the billionaire. 30% of income for the poor widow. 0.001% of income for the billionaire. Thats the effect of privatized user fees instead of socializing it.
Why are the donor class so vehemently against taxes? They will always pay more into the system than the 99%. Thats what they hate.
No, I am not. Europe/Scandinavia, with their much more regressive tax systems, have much less income inequality. I've cited an economist explaining why that is so. And I've already posted a link to Obama's former OMB Director stating exactly the same: higher taxes on the rich won't reduce inequality.
Why do you think the tax-to-GDP ratio is so low in the US? I've already cited an economist explaining it: over-reliance on a progressive tax system.
And if you want to eliminate privatized systems and user fees, you'll need to tax regressively. This is all explained in the research linked in the OP. Europe's/Scandinavia's regressive tax systems replace privatized user fees. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?
If you want European-Scandinavian-style social programs, why do you balk at putting the middle class in the top tax bracket like they do? Your vote should be "Yes.".
Thats simply not true. America has much lower taxes on the rich than other countries and can certainly increase the tax-to-GDP ratio if we tax the rich at higher rates like they do in other countries. Combine this with massively strengthening of unions to redistribute income and we can tax everyone at higher rates. I dont have a problem with that. Back to what made America great and built the middle class. Strong unions.
Just look up costs of health care systems around the world and what they pay in taxes for their health care systems. Americans already pay more in taxes for our health care than countries with single payer systems, but in addition we have to pay extortionate amounts of money to big pharma and big insurance.
Imagine if all roads were privatized instead of public roads. What would be the consequences? The poor widow will have to pay $4000 a year to drive on the roads. Same price for the billionaire. 30% of income for the poor widow. 0.001% of income for the billionaire. Thats the effect of privatized user fees instead of socializing it.
Why are the donor class so vehemently against taxes? They will always pay more into the system than the 99%. Thats what they hate.
I'm not arguing against anything you're saying - I'm simply saying it was not addressed. And I would like it to be.
I shouldn't have to look up these figures and do this comparison myself.
For one: that's not the work I do, and I wouldn't trust myself to do it correctly or rigorously.
Secondly: this should have been an obvious point to the authors, and I question why it wasn't included in the first place. These are the type of people that can best shed light on that kind of comparison, and it's a shame they didn't think to include that kind of information in this report.
Yes you are. Only a fool would think that the donor class that implemented the Reaganomics agenda didnt know what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing. And it was a big success. For the top 1%. Thats who was intended to benefit. Destruction of the unions and massive tax cuts for the rich meant that transfer of income from the 99% to the top 1% went through the roof.
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.
