I think Hillary just got a lot easier to beat...

[JuanCarlos]

The problem with that idea (although I like it in principle) is that most Americans do not pay taxes. And I'm not referring to people who get a refund.

Most Americans are so far under the minimum amount for filing that they pay nothing.

Is this true? As in, do you have some kind of source on this? I'm not finding anything current, though I've found data showing that in 1996 the median federal income tax paid (not counting Social Security, federal payroll, and the like) was $2000 per household. With a median household income in the US of $40K+, I'm not seeing how a majority can manage to have zero federal tax liability.

Anyway, health care. All I'll say is that my experience with both the military and VA healthcare system makes me hesitant to let the federal government get more involved in healthcare than absolutely necessary; I've not been impressed thus far. Granted, VA/military healthcare is much better than no healthcare (I've been down that road too), but if that was the best available? *shudder*

After reading a little about this current proposal, I'm still not impressed. But, at the same time, I don't exactly have a better idea, and while it might not be popular around here I think it's better than the competing plan of pointing and saying "sucks to be poor."

 

[grymster2007]

sucks to be poor

Sucks even more when at my expense, they're much richer than their wallet might suggest.

 

[BillCA]

One thing not touched on is the quality of service you can expect from a government run, government-approved system.

A friend was in New Zealand some years ago. Papers down there were headlining the failure of their socialized medicine programs. In one case, a man lived near the county line and had a desperate need of open heart surgery. The government rules said he had to get treatment in his own county facilities -- which was a 4 hour trip each way. But his county's heart surgery facility was booked solid for the next six months. He applied for an exemption to allow him to cross the county line, drive 30 minutes to another city who's facilities were under-utilized for his surgery. Some bureaucrat thumbed through his rule book then used his big rubber DENIED stamp with red ink. He appealed. Three months later, the appeals board ruled he could go to the other county. But it was too late. He died of a massive heart attack a week before. To add insult to injury, the gov't sent the widow a bill for NZ$120 for failing to schedule an appointment after the appeals board said it was ok. When told the man had died due to lack of action, their response was, when will you send the check?

 

[divemedic]

Is this true? As in, do you have some kind of source on this?

Yes, it IS true. From the New York Times:

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

From the Tax Foundation

From the Congressional Budget Office

The top 50% of all wage earners in the US pay 96.7% of all taxes. The top 25% of wage earners pay 84.6% of all taxes.

 

[Fremmer]

I just remembered: doesn't Romney have a health insurance proposal for mandatory health insurance?

Come on, Romney supporters, tell us how Romney would respond to the debate question, and give me some hope!

(see, I'm probably wrong about Republicans not having a proposed solution. wrong again! )

 

[JuanCarlos]

Yes, it IS true. From the New York Times:

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Math is not your strong suit. If we assume that "most" implies at least a majority (it does), that quote doesn't say what you seem to think it says. If among the bottom 40% of income earners (which are not a majority of income earners to begin with) they "typically" pay no federal income tax (implying that some do pay income tax) I fail to see how this implies that a majority pay no income tax. You've just shown that maybe 38% at best don't. And that might be a stretch.

I'm kicking myself for not saving that link, because now I can't find it. Anyway, as of 1996 apparently the median income tax (note, this is only income tax) paid by households was $2000. This means (by the definition of the median) that half of all households paid less, and half of all households paid more. In order for "most" households to pay no income tax, the median tax paid would have to have been 0$.

This link states that a median-income family of four will pay 6.8% if its income in federal income tax (again, not including other taxes). Assuming that these families are more likely to qualify for many of the larger breaks in federal income tax (home mortgage interest, dependents, etc.) this would also suggest that a majority of households in this country will pay more than 0% in federal income tax.

Looking to your own links, [http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf]this[/url] to the Tax Foundation seems to contradict you (or, in case you simply misunderstood The Tourist, him) as well. Page 42 states that the average effective federal income tax rate (ignoring all other taxes) for the second quintile is 2.78%, and the average for the third quintile is 4.96%. Considering that the median household would fall in the middle of that third quintile, I'm still not seeing how it's mathematically possible for "most" households to have zero federal income tax liability.

EDIT: I'll actually tone down that last statement, and instead challenge you to contradict my analysis. I'm confident you'll be unable to.

 

[Yellowfin]

We should employ the gold standard against Hitlary and her minions. It would have an effect on this scheme and others about like a .44 Mag on a watermelon. No unlimited made up money = no infinite spending insanity.

 

[divemedic]

You don't seem to understand the difference between median and average.

Median is the point where half of the sample pays more, and half pays less.

Average is the income made by one group, divided by the amount made by the whole.

For example:

In 2004, there were 130,371,156 returns filed, with a total income of $6,875,123 million.

The average income was $52,735 per filer. The median income was $32,140. We are talking about two different sets of numbers here.

If you look, you will see that the bottom 50% of wage earners account for 13.42% of the income, but only 3.3% of the taxes. The top 25% of wage earners account for 66.13% of the wages, and 84.86% of the taxes. Keep in mind that these numbers only count TAXABLE income. By the time you count give aways like the EIC, welfare, WIC, school programs like free lunch, and after care, the lower 50% approaches zero in real payment.

We are at a crossroads here, and by that I mean that we are nearly at the point where more people will be receiving money than paying. When that happens, you will never get the electorate in this country to reform taxes. Like the Titanic, the flood will be uncontainable as the majority votes for more and more benefits from the public larder, until runaway inflation finally collapses the dollar, and our economic ship heads for the bottom. I do not know if we have passed that point yet or not, but it is close.

ETA: Note that there were only 130 million returns filed, out of a population of 300 million. What taxes are the other 170 million people paying? Even out of the 43% of Americans who DID file, the majority paid little, if any, taxes.

 

[JuanCarlos]

You don't seem to understand the difference between median and average.

I understand it intimately. See the second paragraph of my last post, I actually defined it before you did.

EDIT: And actually, both are "averages." What you meant is that I don't know the difference between the median and the mean. I do. And actually, I think there are other methods of determining an average as well, but those are beyond me...stats was never my thing, and for anything I've done a median or mean was good enough.

By the time you count give aways like the EIC, welfare, WIC, school programs like free lunch, and after care, the lower 50% approaches zero in real payment.

...

We are at a crossroads here, and by that I mean that we are nearly at the point where more people will be receiving money than paying. When that happens, you will never get the electorate in this country to reform taxes. Like the Titanic, the flood will be uncontainable as the majority votes for more and more benefits from the public larder, until runaway inflation finally collapses the dollar, and our economic ship heads for the bottom. I do not know if we have passed that point yet or not, but it is close.

I'm not in disagreement with this. I'm in disagreement with The Tourist, who made the claim that we are without doubt already at that point, and that a majority of Americans actually pay zero in income taxes because they're under the minimum for filing (rather than their taxes "approaching zero" in "real payment" when handouts are factored in as you put it).

ETA: Note that there were only 130 million returns filed, out of a population of 300 million. What taxes are the other 170 million people paying? Even out of the 43% of Americans who DID file, the majority paid little, if any, taxes.

The other 170 million are likely paying sales and property tax (directly or indirectly), at the least. I'd not be surprised if many are also paying payroll taxes, social security taxes, etc. Also you can't exactly expect to get 300 million tax returns from 300 million people...between minors, unemployed students, joint returns, retired folks, etc. you're going to run into a lot of people who have very legitimate reasons for not filing an individual return. Many of these have very legitimate reasons for having little to no income and thus owing no taxes, and should not be included in The Tourist's assessment. Unless you're suggesting that my four-year-old niece should be paying her share.

Actually, that girl is a bit of a freeloader.

Why do I care? Because discussing what (if any) social programs we should adopt does not benefit from exaggerating such things. Which is why claims like "most Americans pay no income taxes" irk me...because I see little evidence this is actually true. Or when people complain about "welfare queens" sitting on their butts pulling checks for years on end and "squeezing out more kids" so their payments go up. Unless I'm mistaken, this is not the way things tend to work anymore; 1986 called, they want their rhetoric back.

 

[divemedic]

Actually, my ex wife is a perfect example of "welfare queen," (the reason why we divorced) as are a significant portion of the people in the area where I run EMS calls.

The ex remarried about 6 years ago, and neither her, nor her husband, are employed (and haven't been for at least the last 2 years) Instead, they collect various forms of government assistance, including disability. They both hurt their backs in separate incidents a year apart, hired a contingency attorney who used a chiropractor to testify to their disability, and now they have a house, and 2 cars, all of it paid for by govt handouts. I have the kids (she threw them out of the house when the welfare benefits gave out. I got to pay for the teen years and college- she didn't have to pay child support because of her disability.)

Many people do the same thing around here. As a paramedic, I go into a lot of homes. Homes where people are on medicaid and get better benefits than I do, but they have a car (with shiny rims and a booming stereo), $200 Nike sneakers, a cell phone, and a big screen TV.

 

[kart racer]

Ask the people in the UK and Canada how well their systems work.It's not my responsibilty to take care of a bunch of illegal immigrants or anyone who is to lazy to get off their butt to go to work.

I know there are some people who are truly unable to work and can't afford insurance.If the gov't would stick to what is in the constitution and stay out of everything else-private enterprise,the free economy would correct itself.

If you don't believe free enterprise works,explain how the USA,became the world's greatest super power,economy,etc..in the short amount of time it did.

 

[JuanCarlos]

(she threw them out of the house when the welfare benefits gave out. I got to pay for the teen years and college- she didn't have to pay child support because of her disability.)

This would suggest that the previous system of "just sit back and collect checks, which get larger with more kids" is no longer around. You mention disability, and yeah I guess as long as there exist any systems somebody will find a way to game them. But really it sounds like you just run EMS calls in a crappy neighborhood.

Anyway, I only bring it up because the whole "squeeze out more kids" argument has already been made in this very thread:

Last, find the lazy lay-a-bouts who whine, suck off the public payroll, drink up thier welfare checks, pop out kids for more handouts, and tell them - 1 year to get a job, be productive, or be deported to Mexico.

Actually, we give them two years (consecutive). And they have to work part-time during that two years to draw benefits in most states (barring, I suppose, a disability). I think the closest thing we have to this mythical indefinite per-kid handout is WIC...but there are enough restrictions that I don't think it fits the picture he and others paint. I think they're alluding more to the old welfare system.

Ask the people in the UK and Canada how well their systems work.It's not my responsibilty to take care of a bunch of illegal immigrants or anyone who is to lazy to get off their butt to go to work.

Like I said, you need not look across our borders; I think most people who have experienced the VA or military healthcare systems will agree that we don't want the government running things. "Better than nothing" is not a huge compliment.

Not as an insult to any doctors or other personnel involved in either system; the problem isn't generally at the individual level.

 

[divemedic]

Of course I run calls in a crappy neighborhood. You don't think the lowest 50% of wage earners live in South Beach, do you?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Of course I run calls in a crappy neighborhood. You don't think the lowest 50% of wage earners live in South Beach, do you?

Touche!

But then, I don't think "most" people live in the 'hood either, and not everybody in the 'hood is collecting fat government checks.

Anyway, I'll probably leave it at that for now (at least between us)...I'll be interested to see if The Tourist opts to defend his previous statement that "most" Americans pay zero federal income tax. My only guess is that he's going by actual individuals, rather than households. Which I guess is one way to go, if you're trying to distort things to fit your worldview. But retired folks no longer earn income, but likely paid federal income tax when they did. Non-working spouses in single-income households contribute to the household through (unpaid) labor, and thus the head-of-household's tax paid should cover them. And my niece tried to get a job down at the mill, but they told her she had to wait a decade or so to come back...some kind of silly law about employing children or something.

So, The Tourist, I challenge you to show me that the median household federal income tax paid in this country is zero. No including illegal immigrants; you said "Americans." I'd say in order for it to reasonable you'd have to exclude the retired (but hey, go ahead and include the disabled and unemployed)...but really, I'd be somewhat impressed if you could show it even including the retired.

 

[grymster2007]

So, The Tourist, I challenge you to show me that the median household federal income tax paid in this country is zero.

JuanCarlos,

You’re right about the median income tax being more than zero, but do you think that the income tax paid by say, the bottom 50% of wage earners covers their fair share of health insurance, plus all the other stuff individuals should be responsible for contributing to? DOD, FDA, DOI, DOE, DHS, ED, HHS, DOJ, DOL, Treasury. I’m not saying all these departments should exist in their current incarnation, but the fact is, many of the functions performed by them are requirements of the business of Federal Government. Would you agree, that for the share of these functions paid for by individual taxpayers, the vast majority of the burden lies on the shoulders of the top wage earners?

 

[JuanCarlos]

grymster2007, of course I would. Especially least as far as income taxes go (many in the upper portion of that bottom 50% still pay plenty in property tax, sales tax, payroll tax, social security tax, medicare tax, and a host of other taxes).

Doesn't mean I favor spreading false information to exaggerate the problem. I've heard the claim The Tourist made before, I'll likely hear it again. If you let people repeat lies often enough without correcting them, folks start thinking it's the truth. Heck, that's probably where The Tourist got the idea...I don't think he made this up on the spot to try and deceive people or anything. But what he said was absolutely wrong; common sense should suggest this off the bat, and the numbers simply confirm it.

Especially since, as you point out, the truth isn't substantially different...why go with the lies? Because they have greater rhetorical value. "Man, most of those poor people don't even pay taxes!" Demonize the poor so it's easier to justify to moderates the cutting of social programs. It's a lot more effective for gathering the troops than, "You know, in comparison to the benefits they receive many Americans don't actually pay all that much in taxes."

Plus, it's partly personal. I grew up in the bottom half of the ol' income scale...and down in the second quintile, where things really start to suck. We still paid taxes, including income taxes. Newsflash (to many): most Americans actually do. It may not be as much as you do, but it's also not "none." So enough with the hyperbole.

 

[grymster2007]

Well put JuanCarlos and not much there I can disagree with.

I also spent a fair portion of my life on the end that pays not so much in taxes, but we still paid. There are those that don't! Now that I'm paying more than my fair share (at least in my mind), I'd like to protect what's left and that seems harder to do with every passing day.

 

[xd9fan]

the picture of her on drudge (with this plan) could be her Howard Dean moment

 

[The Tourist]

The Tourist, My last post was vague.

No prob. Overall, I like the idea. It seems that we Americans are motivated better by tax cuts than by laws and harsh language.

Your idea has some very important merit.

I feel this way. Even if you are covered for anything or any service, you should pay something. Being 100% on the dole doesn't breed the kind of work ethic we really need as a society.

I'm pretty well off. But if I went to the grocery store and bought some essentials and gave the clerk a 100 dollar bill, I'd like my change back. If the young woman said, "Sorry, Tourist, we needed that money to pay for the groceries of the slug behind you," I'd be ticked.

Now, I pretty much sharpen for free when I see a veteran. It costs me nothing and than man has guaranteed me over five decades of freedom. I'll grant the same service to a subsistance hunter who needs a full larder to feed his kids. I'll teach an apprentice for free so he can earn an honest living.

All of these people respresent solid ideals for this country.

However, if you can buy cigarettes, liquor, and a wide screen TV to watch Oprah, trust me, you can find the money for a medical deductible.

 

[teeroux]

o that would be great its bad enough auto insurrance is run like legal racketering now heathcare insurace can to.:barf::barf::barf:


yeah after ists manditory who sets the price

the INSSURANCE COMPANYS:barf::barf::barf: