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.
Obamacare isn't a tax? Sure it is. How much money will one employee cost an employer on January 1, 2014?
I've been asking that question for 3 years now, and no one on Planet Earth has yet been able to answer it. You might consider that is part of the problem. It might be cheaper for employers to dump health care benefits and pay the Obamacare tax.
Quote:
Together, Medicaid and private health insurance spending contribute to an overall acceleration in projected national health spending growth to 7.4 percent, which is 2.1 percentage points faster than would be expected in the absence of health reform (Exhibit 3).
Accordingly, prescription drug spending growth is projected to reach 8.8 percent in 2014, 4.7 percentage points higher than in the absence of health reform (Exhibit 4).
Likewise, spending on physician and clinical services is expected to grow 8.5 percent, or 3.2 percentage points higher than in the absence of reform. In contrast, spending on hospital services is projected to grow just 1.0 percentage point faster than in the absence of reform, reaching 6.7 percent
In 2014, prescription drug spending growth is expected to increase sharply, to 8.8 percent. This acceleration is mainly the result of an expected increase in the use of drugs by people who are newly insured; those who move to a more generous, subsidized insurance plan; and those who benefit from the narrowing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage gap. Without these effects of the Affordable Care Act, prescription drug spending is projected to increase by 4.1 percent in 2014
By 2014, spending growth for physician and clinical services is projected to reach 8.5 percent, versus projected growth of 5.2 percent without reform (Exhibit 4).
They estimate that annual increases in health spending will remain relatively low—4 percent, on average—until faster economic growth resumes and the coverage expansions under the Affordable Care Act take effect in 2014. At that point, the authors project, health spending growth will accelerate, rising by 7.4 percent in that year.
yeah, lets just excoriate exxon for making 4 cents per gallon of gasoline sold WORLD WIDE, among all the other products they sell WORLD WIDE. the government makes more money off exxon in taxes than exxon stockholders do. and dont forget that if you have a retirement account, you likely own exxon stock, so you would probably want exxon to do well.
If you're going to be a Exxon defender you really should get your facts straight.
First, assuming that 4 cents is right, that is net profit, with billions paid out in wages, stock option, bonuses, perks (wife worked at BP, you wouldn't believe the perks) and other free wheeling spending to "launder out" profits. Working for an oil company is almost as lucrative as sub contracting work from them. You're 4 cents is after all their wild spending.
You're claim they paid any federal tax is pretty bogus. You and I paid that tax. The oil companies consistently claim they're paying that federal transportation tax. We pay it. Just like that sales takes that a store collects and turns over to the county, city or state. Something WE pay.
What about as a percentage of all earned and unearned income?
Why would you ignore the fact that a poor person is getting a $12,000 per year rental subsidy? And food subsidies, and other subsidies? Oh, probably because that would destroy your argument.
I've also proven that many poor pay no taxes at all, since they receive the Earned Income Credit and actually get a substantial cash bonus which means they pay no federal taxes, no State, county or city income taxes, no sales taxes and no gasoline taxes, and they still have money left over from their EIC cash. They only thing they do pay is FICA, but then that is an insurance premium, not really a tax.
Accurately....
Mircea
I don't ignore that fact, but a large majority of low-income renters do not receive rental assistance and pay inflated market rents.
Why are they inflated? Property taxes in many states are higher on rental property than on owner-occupied homes. In Michigan, homeowners receive an average property tax subsidy well over $1,000 per year. I lived in a house with an extra $1,200 property tax per year because it was a rental. Why does almost everyone ignore this fact?
Childless burger flippers who work full time pay taxes through the nose and have little to show for it.
"Does it really make sense to tax the rich even more"?
"EVEN" more? Even more than what--the measly 28% they get taxed now? Is this a serious question?? And what about all the deductions that tax bracket gets, that result in people like Romney and H. Clinton paying less tax then their own staff? Back in the day, their bracket was paying 70%+. Whaddaya say we nudge the top tax up to 50%, close all loopholes, and maybe eliminate a deduction or two so we can make sure they pay their 50%? They get to keep the other 50%. That's a lot better than what those in the higher brackets were paying back when the country could actually pay its bills and had a strong middle class.
The question is "Does it really make sense to tax the rich even more?"
That's on the revenue end. The bottom line is that revenue has to be large enough to fund the government. Oh you say, we should cut spending -- and then someone points to something like green energy as a big waste ripe for cutting. In terms of spending, the federal government is like a big insurance company, with an army. The only expenditures that make a difference are the big five -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. If one isn't going to slash heavily into any of those, you are wasting your time talking about spending cuts. If you think you can cut spending only, let's see. Do the NY Times budget puzzle: Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
On the revenue side, we tax the wealthy because, as Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is." It doesn't pay to tax the poor. Increasing the top marginal tax rate 4% raises $700 billion over 10 years. Alternatively, to raise $700 billion from the bottom 50% one would have to confiscate half of everything they own. The bottom 50% only earn 12.75% of national income, or $180 billion per year. To get $700 billion over 10 years from them one must tax their income at an effective rate of 39% more than today's rate -- after deductions! Considering that the bottom 50% spend almost all of their disposable income that's an impossible tax burden.
So, you have a choice, heavily tax the bottom 50% to an absurdly painful level or tax the top 1% at the same rates that already existed under Clinton.
NO-ONE....I mean NO-ONE should be paying more than 10-15% in federal taxes
if our government cant survive on 15%..then there is a problem
It's not a question of violating YOUR arbitrary maximum tax rate. It's a matter of what we want the government to do and how much that costs.
When FDR had to convert our military from the 19th largest in the world to one that could defeat the world's largest armed force, the German's; the Japanese and the Italians, taxes had to be raised to pay for that enormous venture. But if our parents and grandparents had your view that, "NO-ONE should be paying more than 10-15% in federal taxes," those of use that weren't exterminated would be speaking German now.
Another problem is that the 'projected' increases in tax revenues from increases in tax rates never materialize, and always come up substantially short of those projections, which might as well have been written in either pencil or invisible ink.
Remember what a fiasco the 'windfall profits tax' from a few decades ago turned out to be when the 'actual' revenue undershot the 'projected revenue by millions of dollars?
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.
