[Oriz]

While it might be disappointing that they have not found a way to make this work, I actually find it encouraging that they decided to hold off on it. It's a sign of responsibility and sensibility that if you can't do it right you just don't do it while you keep looking for ways to do it right.

[redguard57]

a large number of Vermonters are already working multiple, low-paying jobs to make ends meet.

Name a state where this does not happen.

[harpoonalt]

Originally Posted by redguard57

Name a state where this does not happen.

Sadly, a sign of the times.

[Sporin]

Originally Posted by redguard57

Name a state where this does not happen.

True enough, just pointing out that Vermonters are already stretched to the limit (low wages, high cost of living) and as much as universal healthcare appeals to them, they just can't afford the massive tax increases it would entail.

[cgregor]

As John Steinbeck said, "Socialism will never take root in America because the poor do not see themselves as oppressed, but rather as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Latest data shows that the average American household's income in the last decade went up $59. So, redguard's comment reinforces nationally what is observed in Vermont.

However, a look at Vermont tax data for 2012 shows that if the top 1.2% of were taxed at 50% of their Adjusted Gross Income (with all the breaks they have entitlements for), the revenue by itself would pay the entire cost of a single payer program-- and they'd still have an average income of over $256,000 to live on.

Now, I'm not saying they should bear the whole burden, but I am saying that there are ways of spreading the expense to make it happen-- $32 billion of untaxed private property, a payroll equity-based payroll tax, a tax to prevent Wall Street from sucking industries out of the state and small enterprise profits out of Main Street, and a review of the policy that allows corporations "representation without taxation" in the statehouse. All those could do a lot to make single payer health care happen.

[Oriz]

Do you seriously think ANYONE should be taxed at 50% of their income? I think that's insane. Sure, not all of them deserve to make what they make, but some do, and if you are an honest man working hard and that's how you got to making what you make, no government has the right to take half of that away from you. It's yours. You earned it. And you have no right to tell them, well, you don't really need ALLLLLL that, you're still making plenty.

[tickyul]

HUM, tough sell no matter how you slice it.

I read that the best estimates for revenue needed for single-payer in vermont is 2.8 billion! And the state usually takes-in 2.1 billion in tax revenue. I think a couple of very logical people looked at those numbers and said nope, cannot happen at this time!

[cgregor]

We have an attitude toward taxation similar to the one we have about the weather: it gives us something to safely complain about. The difference of course, is that we can't change the weather.

As for a 50% tax, if the people agreed to it, the people wouldn't have a problem with it. In contrast, when Julius Caesar's nephew Octavius was eliminating one of his triumvirate buddies (not Marc Anton; the other one) in Greece, both armies went about the countryside imposing an 85% tax to finance their dispute. There is something to be said about democracy!

Had the federal funding come through, Vermont's share would have been about $2.6 billion, and a single payer plan is expected to reduce costs over the next 4-5 years to $2.2 billion. Since Vermonters spend $2.7 billion, it would have meant a $800 per person reduction in combined medical/tax expenses. Given the legislature's inability to connect increased taxation to the public good,it's very unlikely to happen. Unless, of course, Vermonters get out of their deferential mode, which also is unlikely to happen.

Meanwhile, the medical coverage horror stories continue. God has a sense of humor; too bad that America has to be the butt of it....

[CoventryDude]

Originally Posted by cgregor

, a tax to prevent Wall Street from sucking industries out of the state and small enterprise profits out of Main Street,

Vermont does a fine enough job of keeping business out of the state all by itself...in other areas the jobs formerly held by low skilled workers have gone overseas (I guess Ross Perot was right)...in my home state of Rhode Island the once thriving jewelry industry has gone (with few exceptions) and there are a lot of folks working multiple low paying jobs to keep their kids housed.

[cgregor]

Wall Street does what it can to suck Vermont municipalities dry in the guise of endowing the state with another business. The usual dance is for the town to make all sorts of financial concessions in competition with other communities in order to attract the business, then stand ankle deep in the snow at the train station a few years later as the company gets pulled out and relocated somewhere else.

The political clout corporations have in the state is far out of sync with the amount of taxes they pay-- corporations pay only about one-third of the amount that households pay, yet the Chamber of Commerce and the 501(c)(4)'s they surreptitiously fund (Campaign for Vermont Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, to name a few) work ceaselessly to give them even more advantage. IBM, which swings the biggest stick in the state (at least up until its abandonment of its Essex Junction chipmaking plant last month to Global Foundries) is essentially a foreign outfit-- 40% of its employees live in India-- but it was treated like the Pope in the statehouse.

On top of that, Vermont lowered tax rates on corporations 40% between 1989 and 2003-- and now the Supreme Court has decreed, "One dollar, one vote."

Businesses like to depict Vermont as business-hostile because Vermonters for the most part still believe that workers should be treated with dignity, have safe workplaces and have a least a few hours every day for themselves and their children.

But the fact is that Vermont is extremely friendly to start-ups-- in a typical biennium, a billion dollars is dedicated to getting them going and helping keep them running; start-up businesses are given five years to start producing a profit, and in a typical year, they will be able to keep trying even though they report a quarter of a billion in negative income, thanks to the tax code.