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.
Glad you make that point.....it also cost me more for a single mom who lives at poverty level, who pays no taxes, who continues to have babies to milk the system. That mom cost us all more, so guess we should tax her for each baby she has by a different man? Right? According to your logic above. That mom cost us more because of a selfish and stupid choice. Right?
no, the government gets to pick the winners and losers in the tax table-not the citizens. only certain bad behaviors need to be taxed, after all.....
like for instance, the big banks of wall street are getting big tax BONUSES under the stimulus bill even though they behaved badly.
Tanning salons are a needless luxury and should, like tobacco and booze, be subject to increased taxation.
That is not the point, Greg-
Taxing tanning salons to finance this bill is a drop of "revenue" in an ocean of debt. It is ridiculous.
Again, lets do the math-
30-40 million people. Let's assume families of three to four in that number. That makes 10 million. With actual coverage costs at $1,000 per month, that makes $10,000,000,000 per month cost to cover these people. X12 and we have $120,000,000,000 per year. X10 and what do we have?!?!?!
Lo and behold! It is the actual ten year cost of this program (which has leaked out), which is $1.2 trillion over ten years.
Nothing is free, and this is what this program will cost. Now who will pay?
1. Buisness- those smaller buisnesses currently not providing healthcare will be forced to spend $10,000 per employee per year (getting potentially 50% back through tax incentives), thus increasing thier costs at $5,000 per employee. The easy alternative is just to pay the $2,500 fine per employee. Estimates have already come in from buisness detailing how these addtional costs will kill jobs- forcing employers to lay off current employees and or not hire new employees.
2. The government- Increased expenses and reduced revenues as a result of increased unemployment will reduce federal tax revenues, further complicating our delicate balance sheet. In a sitatution of rapidly escalating deficits, this is just an acceleration to insolvency.
3. Seniors- cutting $500 billion from medicare. The claim is that this will not alter coverage. How can that be so? Already providers lose money on most medicare patients and will simply refuse to see them if the reimbursement deteriorates further. The result? No access to healthcare. Currently (in our state, which has the lowest reimbursement for medicare in the US) we are paid one fourth what we are paid to see a Blue Cross patient i.e.- if we added one Blue Cross patient (which we can), we could eliminate three medicare patients and be financially ahead with less work. It is a simple buisness option. Mayo Scottsdale had recently refused to see medicare.
4. Tax payers- The increased payroll tax that is proposed to finance this, as well as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will increase taxes for all of us. Less money circulating in the economy- worse economy. There are a multitude of new taxes planned and massive new government infrastructure to facilitate this. We all pay for something we did not want.
5. Our children- They are screwed. Saddled with this additional burden, there is no way our kids can enjoy the same opportunities and lifestyle that we have enjoyed. Through no fault of thier own, they are victims of social programs and liberalism. How long do you think they will willingly support these debts and oblige to servitude? Not long.
so the idea is to give coverage to the 30-47 million with out insurance
so lets compare costs to something simular in numbers:.......
LOOK at the numbers; look at the cost of our current systems: the more costly medicare; or even the less costly medicaid....go ahead look at the numbers
1. MEDICARE currently covers (only partially, it is not 100% coverage) about 40 million (about 1/7th of the population) seniors and has an ANNUAL COST of 500 BILLION dollars
2. we spend 300 BILLION dollars on MEDICAID ...to cover (at 100%) about 30 million (most esitmates are between 25 million and 35 million).....
so as you can see, the ANNUAL cost just to cover the 30 million people who dont have insurance would be AT LEAST 300 billion.....that's 3 trillion over 10 years....much more than the CBO estimates
now lets take it further, since some people want a single payer system:
using the medicare numbers..................................to cover all, would cost anywhere from $2.5-4.5 trillion A YEAR..............
using the mediciad numbers..................................transfer that number to 320 million people (our population) the cost would be about 3 TRILLION A YEAR..................
NOW lets look at what the taxpayer would expect to cover the entire population (singlepayer):
divide those numbers (2.5 trillion to 4.5 trillion) by the 120 million taxpayers(according to the IRS)...that's an average tax bill of $20,000-38,000 EACH HOUSEHOLD, EACH YEAR, an always rising.......can you afford that,,, I certainly cant...and its a HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE. and a heck of a lot especially if you dont go to a docotor but once a year.....is that what they want a once a year doctor bill for $20,000plus
so the idea is to give coverage to the 30-47 million with out insurance
so lets compare costs to something simular in numbers:.......
LOOK at the numbers; look at the cost of our current systems: the more costly medicare; or even the less costly medicaid....go ahead look at the numbers
1. MEDICARE currently covers (only partially, it is not 100% coverage) about 40 million (about 1/7th of the population) seniors and has an ANNUAL COST of 500 BILLION dollars
2. we spend 300 BILLION dollars on MEDICAID ...to cover (at 100%) about 30 million (most esitmates are between 25 million and 35 million).....
so as you can see, the ANNUAL cost just to cover the 30 million people who dont have insurance would be AT LEAST 300 billion.....that's 3 trillion over 10 years....much more than the CBO estimates
now lets take it further, since some people want a single payer system:
using the medicare numbers..................................to cover all, would cost anywhere from $2.5-4.5 trillion A YEAR..............
using the mediciad numbers..................................transfer that number to 320 million people (our population) the cost would be about 3 TRILLION A YEAR..................
NOW lets look at what the taxpayer would expect to cover the entire population (singlepayer):
divide those numbers (2.5 trillion to 4.5 trillion) by the 120 million taxpayers(according to the IRS)...that's an average tax bill of $20,000-38,000 EACH HOUSEHOLD, EACH YEAR, an always rising.......can you afford that,,, I certainly cant...and its a HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE. and a heck of a lot especially if you dont go to a docotor but once a year.....is that what they want a once a year doctor bill for $20,000plus
It is sad, but amazing, that these fools do not recognize the cost and damage that this plan will do.
We cannot afford our current social programs- any fool knows that. Now how does adding this huge additional burden help anyone?
I really think that the left feels as though there is some infinite pot of money among that nebulous group, "the rich", who can just write a check for all this and everything will be just fine. They actually believe that this program can be implemented with benefits for everyone and that no damage to the economy or the nation will occur as a result. Amazing, but true.
It's not fair. It's proponents lie about its effects, and even about the rate. And it creates a massive shift of tax burden from the top to the middle and bottom of the income scale.
It's no wonder someone with the income of Steve Forbes likes it. The only mystery is how he suckered middle class people into supporting it.
It's not fair. It's proponents lie about its effects, and even about the rate. And it creates a massive shift of tax burden from the top to the middle and bottom of the income scale.
It's no wonder someone with the income of Steve Forbes likes it. The only mystery is how he suckered middle class people into supporting it.
1. Forbes was pushing the 'flat-tax' so please get your story straight.
2. I was originally against it too. until I researched it.
a) the rebate covers all poor/middleclass
b) think of the tax on that lexus, etc
the fair tax is just that it is a fair tax, on ALL
ps. it will cover everyone, so you wont have the PROBLEMS you have with the current INCOME tax...think of all the people working "off the books" (not just illegals)...they are paying NOTHING in SS,fed/state income, medicare etc.....with the fairtax (a consumption tax) they will pay the tax as soon as they go to BUY something with their illegal (working off the books is illegal in all 50 states) money........plus think of all the drug money that floats areound and is never taxed........a consumption tax is the way to go
Tanning salons are a needless luxury and should, like tobacco and booze, be subject to increased taxation.
Indoor tanning treats or prevents vitamin D deficiency, sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, depression and cancers of the colon, prostate and breast when natural sunlight is unavailable (winter).
"The vitamin is D, nicknamed the "sunshine vitamin" because the skin makes it from ultraviolet rays. Sunscreen blocks its production, but dermatologists and health agencies have long preached that such lotions are needed to prevent skin cancer. Now some scientists are questioning that advice. The reason is that vitamin D increasingly seems important for preventing and even treating many types of cancer. In the last three months alone, four separate studies found it helped protect against lymphoma and cancers of the prostate, lung and, ironically, the skin. The strongest evidence is for colon cancer. Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone, and supplements are problematic. So the thinking is this: Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse. No one is suggesting that people fry on a beach. But many scientists believe that "safe sun" — 15 minutes or so a few times a week without sunscreen — is not only possible but helpful to health. One is Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine and nutrition who laid out his case in a keynote lecture at a recent American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Anaheim, Calif. His research suggests that vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one caused by skin cancer."
USATODAY.com - Vitamin D reserach may have doctors prescribing sunshine (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-21-doctors-sunshine-good_x.htm - broken link)
Tanning salons are a needless luxury and should, like tobacco and booze, be subject to increased taxation.
So, using your analogy we should increase the beer tax on all businesses that sell beer around college campuses.
Beere drinking is a luxury and we all know college students drink far more than any other group. Any time a frat party buys a keg there should be an additional tax above the regular tax.
Exactly. And the reason the tax is in there, is because going to a tanning salon is dangerous to your health, just like smoking. These people are much more likely to get sick in the future (skin cancer) which will be a burden on our system - a burden we all end up paying for. So why shouldn't they pay more into the system? They cost more to take care of because of a voluntary (and stupid, and vain) choice.
..and eating fast food, or any pre-packaged food, or using a cell phone to include texting (studies are coming out saying cell phones emit radiation waves that cause cancer, you know), or using a microwave, or wearing high heels, or sitting at a computer for too long...
Seriously, how far can one take it? And what happens when something you enjoy is taxed for the benefit of your "health"?
How about a little personal responsibility? Or is that a dated concept?
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.
