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.
Same question to you... Would you be willing to implement a 25% national VAT tax on everything to fund single-payer health care for all?
Background info:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We can have national single-payer healthcare that covers everyone if we do one simple thing: implement a 25% VAT tax like many Scandinavian/European countries already have.
Here's how we get to that percentage...
Looking at the costs to the Fed Gov for national health care for all, a liberal think tank, Urban Institute, has projected that it will cost the Fed Gov an additional $3.2 trillion per year ($32 trillion over 10 years) as costs are shifted away from employers, individuals, cities, and states, and onto the Fed Gov.
Quote:
"The increase in federal expenditures would be considerably larger than the increase in national health expenditures because substantial spending borne by states, employers, and households under current law would shift to the federal government under the Sanders [Medicare for All] plan. Federal expenditures in 2017 would increase by $1.9 trillion for acute care for the nonelderly, by $465.9 billion for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare, and by $212.1 billion for long-term services and supports.
In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026. The increase in federal spending is so large because the federal government would absorb a substantial amount of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and households."
At the current annual US consumer spending level of $11.7 trillion, a 25% national VAT tax will raise $2.93 trillion in tax revenue. Almost enough, currently, to pay for single payer national health care for all. Adjust the VAT tax rate up or down as needed according to actual health care costs.
So... Is everyone on board with that? For paying a 25% VAT tax on everything, we get single-payer health care for all.
I've been an internist for almost 40 years, and now and again have had mid-levels working with or under me. IME a good quality mid-level can handle most all general/office non-emergent medical encounters.
Yes, working with you or under you.
There some good mid-level providers, I agree. But I generally prefer doctors.
As part of my compensation when I work, I receive employer sponsored health insurance. My employer pays part of the premium that would otherwise come to me in the form of wages or other benefits, or kept by him to invest as he saw fit, to a for profit insurance company that is publicly traded on Wall Street.
I also pay part of the insurance premium, using my wages that I would otherwise spend, donate or invest elsewhere. My employer must offer this benefit in order to remain competitive in terms of attracting competent employees. It is even mandated to a certain degree, depending on your state and the size of your company.
Now, why should we be forced to buy this product from a for-profit corporation that in turn does business with huge for-profit hospital corporations, and restricts my use of practitioners to their contracted panels?
Can anyone please explain to me why the public option in Obamacare, where my employer could have paid premiums into a Medicare for everyone type system instead of subsidizing some other CEOs multi million dollar salary, was shot down?
By the way, newsflash for you, you, your employer, and virtually all Americans are all part of the Wall Street. We all are.
Not necessarily. Sometimes tax events are triggered unexpectedly. For example, for all the whining and complaining some do about how the rich get so many tax breaks, the opposite is actually true. Most deductions are phased out at higher income levels. That's why the effective tax rates rise on an exponential curve as income increases.
Top 1%: 27.16%
Top 5%: 23.61%
Top 5-10%: 13.73%
Top 10-25%: 10.37%
Top 25-50%: 7.48%
Bottom 50%: 3.45%
See the huge drop off in the effective tax rate from the top 5% to the top 5-10%? It's about a 10 percentage point difference. That 5%-ish level is where most tax deductions are phased out.
And there's not a damned thing an accountant can do about it. It's tax code.
Congress is not going to stop pandering to the Family Values crowd any time in the foreseeable future, and Democrats are not going to stop demanding that tax breaks for middle class families be extended to non-taxpayer families. Childless adults earning minimum wage pay higher effective tax rates than many middle class families of four.
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.
