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

[garbon]

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

WASHINGTON – 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!

[Valmy]

The American people fail again.

[Zanza]

What's the problem with this?

[Ed Anger]

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.

Whew.

[garbon]

Whew.

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.

[Ed Anger]

Now that part would suck.

[garbon]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.