AP POLL: How to pay for health overhaul? Tax the rich

Started by garbon, November 17, 2009, 04:24:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

garbon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_taxes

QuoteWASHINGTON – Americans don't want to shoulder the cost of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul themselves. They think the rich should pay for it.

That's the finding from a new Associated Press poll, and it could be a boost for House Democrats, who have proposed taxing upper-income people to fund their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system. Their plan, which the House approved this month, would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The poll, conducted by Stanford University with the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, found survey participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress.

The options they don't like include taxing insurers on the high-value coverage packages derided by Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans." That tax approach, being weighed in the Senate, is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures. It has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.

Lawmakers also are looking at levying new taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. But the only approach that got majority support in the AP poll was a tax on upper-income Americans.

The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.

"You know, I mean, why not? If they have that much money, it should be taxed," said Mary Pat Rondthaler, 60, of Menlo Park, Calif. "It isn't the same way that the guy making $21,000 is."

Shocking! :lol:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Valmy

Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Zanza


Ed Anger

QuoteThe House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

Whew.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

garbon

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 05:00:02 PM
Whew.

Quotewhen the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.

:(
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Ed Anger

Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

garbon

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
What's the problem with this?

Because then the narrative is really "Those insurance companies sure suck, let's get the rich to pay for everyone's healthcare." Not surprising but lame.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
What's the problem with this?
It's easy to be in favor of public free money when it's always someone else providing the free money.  Could lead to increased demand for free money.

Maximum sustainable yield.  A 5.4% surcharge is probably not enough to send every American making 500K fleeing to the Bahamas, but it does make a difference at the margin and if repeated a sufficient number of times it makes a noticeable difference.

The principle of shared sacrifice for the common good.

Faeelin

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 05:13:04 PM

It's easy to be in favor of public free money when it's always someone else providing the free money.  Could lead to increased demand for free money.

Maximum sustainable yield.  A 5.4% surcharge is probably not enough to send every American making 500K fleeing to the Bahamas, but it does make a difference at the margin and if repeated a sufficient number of times it makes a noticeable difference.

The principle of shared sacrifice for the common good.

While that's true, I can't help but notice that taxes to seem to be at or near the lowest point in decades.

crazy canuck

I can only dream of tax surcharges kicking in at 500,000.

Here in Canuckistan our highest tax rate kicks in somewhere under 100,000.

We dont here much about middle class tax breaks anymore since middle class kicks in at around the highest tax bracket.

Zanza

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 05:11:34 PMBecause then the narrative is really "Those insurance companies sure suck, let's get the rich to pay for everyone's healthcare." Not surprising but lame.
I don't know any details about the healthcare debate, but it would certainly make sense to try to lower the costs first before covering them with higher taxes.

Josquius

Doesn't the US have really low taxes on the rich right now?
██████
██████
██████

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Faeelin on November 17, 2009, 05:16:11 PM
While that's true, I can't help but notice that taxes to seem to be at or near the lowest point in decades.
Ergo we should raise taxes on everyone to pay for it, progressively.

Zanza

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
I can only dream of tax surcharges kicking in at 500,000.

Here in Canuckistan our highest tax rate kicks in somewhere under 100,000.

We dont here much about middle class tax breaks anymore since middle class kicks in at around the highest tax bracket.
It's the same here. And as the tax brackets have to be adjusted for inflation by parliament (i.e. it's not in the formula itself), you have a slowly rising tax level for the middle class. Reforming that would be much more important to the productive mass of society than a debate about the marginal tax rate for the richest 1% or 2%.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:26:52 PM
It's the same here. And as the tax brackets have to be adjusted for inflation by parliament (i.e. it's not in the formula itself), you have a slowly rising tax level for the middle class. Reforming that would be much more important to the productive mass of society than a debate about the marginal tax rate for the richest 1% or 2%.

I agree.