A comparative analysis of US Health Care

[jiminnm]

According to the IRS, for 2007:
The top 50% of taxpayers paid 97.1% of income taxes
Top 25% paid 86.6%
Top 10% paid 72.2%
Top 5% paid 60.4%
Top 1% paid 50.4%

Oh, we tax income in this country, not wealth. If we taxed wealth, there probably wouldn't be much.

[Lorax]

According to the IRS, for 2007:
The top 50% of taxpayers paid 97.1% of income taxes
Top 25% paid 86.6%
Top 10% paid 72.2%
Top 5% paid 60.4%
Top 1% paid 50.4%

Oh, we tax income in this country, not wealth. If we taxed wealth, there probably wouldn't be much.

Problem is, the top 50% of taxpayers represent a tiny percentage of the total population. And according to your "IRS" figures, the "Top 1% [[of taxpayers, presumably) paid 50.4%" of [[presumably) the 97.1%?

If we did tax legacy wealth at the 91% rate we did under Republicans in the 50's, then we'd be able to pay for all sorts of social programs, including Medicare for all. Go figure!

[ccbatson]

A straw man argument. Progressive taxation is unfair and stifles economic growth at the same time.

[Lorax]

I could almost agree with you, Batts, almost.

As long as entitlements are funded, the military [[sanely with oversight), then I don't have a problem with a flat tax- with one added codicil:

Tax corporations at a new rate, yet to be determined. A lower rate perhaps for setting up shop in the US, and at a higher rate for importing goods from over seas.

Seems fair to me.

[ccbatson]

That is the worst possible provision...eliminate corporate taxes as they are nothing more than hidden consumer taxes by virtue of being passed along.

[Lorax]

Someone has to pay for the environmental damage corporations leave behind.

[jiminnm]

Lorax, disengage your fingers and engage your brain. The top 50% of taxpayers means just that, the top 50% of tax returns filed [[41 million returns or so of the 82 million returns filed), paid 97.1% of income taxes paid . The top 1% means just that, the top 1% of tax returns filed paid 50.4% of income taxes paid. It has nothing to do with legacy wealth, it is about income in the year being taxed.

If you doubt the IRS statistics I cited, you are free to go to the IRS web site [[ http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...=98123,00.html) and produce info to refute the numbers. I know you usually make things up and post them as fact, so the real facts must be difficult for you to deal with.

I agree that corporations should be taxed a new rate - the rate should be zero. Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from us on behalf of the government.

[elganned]

Since the tax is on income, one can by extension suppose that the top 1% paid 50.4% of taxes because they made 50.4% of the income for that year.

Seems fair to me.

[Lorax]

Lorax, disengage your fingers and engage your brain. The top 50% of taxpayers means just that, the top 50% of tax returns filed [[41 million returns or so of the 82 million returns filed), paid 97.1% of income taxes paid . The top 1% means just that, the top 1% of tax returns filed paid 50.4% of income taxes paid. It has nothing to do with legacy wealth, it is about income in the year being taxed.

If you doubt the IRS statistics I cited, you are free to go to the IRS web site [[ http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...=98123,00.html) and produce info to refute the numbers. I know you usually make things up and post them as fact, so the real facts must be difficult for you to deal with.

I agree that corporations should be taxed a new rate - the rate should be zero. Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from us on behalf of the government.

This, from the master of of the made-up "facts?"

I was only asking since the original description was confusing, now clarified.

I never questioned the figures, only that you're hiding behind the fact that only 82 million pay taxes in a nation of 310 million people. This unto itself is unsustainable.

However, your assertion that legacy wealth was part of this, it was not. That is and has been a separate discussion. My assertion is that we need to return to a 90% marginal tax rate as we enjoyed under Eisenhower. Even up through Carter we had a 75% marginal rate.

Bottom line is, the rich are getting richer, and keeping that wealth. It hasn't benefitted the nation in any measurable way. There is no excuse for billion-dollar paychecks, and indeed, no need for billionaires. They produce nothing with their surplus wealth, only gamble with it. I give you the most recent economic collapse as evidence of this.

[oladub]

Lorax, Just an idea but instead of a 91% tax on the better off, how about an excise tax on unnecessary big ticket items. I think its a slightly better way to rearrage the deck chairs. Democrat Bill Gates has created thousands of jobs that wouldn't have been possible if the federal government had been gobbling up 91% of his profit. However, if an excise tax were placed on, for instance, cars over $30,000, houses over $500,000, boats over $5,000. It would almost exclusively affect the rich without hampering their ability to expand their businesses.

I realize that any tax increase will hamper the economy but I am trying to come up with a tax increase that will not prevent the rich from creating domestic jobs. I also support import taxes, and an early exit from the WTO and NAFTA.

My guess is that the only way the government can any longer get out of its bipartisan financial hole is by a radical devaluation of the dollar and paying off government debt with cheap dollars like Roosevelt did. We are past the point of where tax increases and fudging government statistics are going to do much good. There is no political appetite to scale back on entitlement programs or the military either. Argentina will be our text book on how to devolve from prosperity.

[rb336]

I realize that any tax increase will hamper the economy but I am trying to come up with a tax increase that will not prevent the rich from creating domestic jobs. I also support import taxes, and an early exit from the WTO and NAFTA.

the first comment is an assumption without basis in fact. in the 50s and 60s, there was strong growth, including growth in wages for workers, [[something that hasn't been seen in real terms since the introduction of voodoo economics, except for two years under clinton) and a 90% top marginal rate. of course, we also protected manufacturing jobs via tariffs

[Lorax]

I agree with much of what both of you say, and I think we can all agree that we are really just rearranging the deck chairs, but to that point, repealing or letting expire the Bush tax cuts, and increasing the marginal rate even 10 points would do more to pay for health care reform, shore up Social Security and Medicare, etc.

The military budget needs to be halved. Since the A-bomb we really don't need to spend so much on infantry or materiel. Cutting the waste is an ongoing concern, and never seems to get done. Only budget cutting will stop the waste.

The wealthy don't create jobs with surplus wealth, this is well known. We are living through the results of untaxed legacy wealth now. Legacy wealth is gambled with, or sitting in off-shore tax evasion havens accumulating interest.

As I have said many times, the answers are all around us, it will take an unselfish [[choke) politic to make the hard choices and suffer the electoral consequences down the road, and Obama and the sitting congress aren't willing to do it, apparently.

[jiminnm]

Once again Lorax, you engaged your fingers without engaging your brain. I cited 82 million tax returns filed. That's tax returns, not people. since the average household is somewhere around 3-4, that pretty much covers everyone in the US [[except for the several million who aren't required to file a tax return). Your reference to 82 out of 310 million is meaningless.

If you can find anything that I have posted as fact that wasn't, please indicate it. I've pointed out numerous instances of yours.

[jiminnm]

You're wrong elganned, the top 1% paid 50% of taxes but had only 23-26% of income [[stats aren't clear on the IRS site).

[Lorax]

Once again, Jiminy, your assumptions assume too much.

What you do fail to mention, is that the vast majority of taxes are paid by an ever shrinking middle class, or what passes for one today. That definition changes for the worse as time goes on.

The rich have at their disposal many avenues to tax evasion, and those abilities have been strengthened since Reagan took office. Corporations as well have avoided their patriotic responsibility to keep jobs in America by going for the cheapest labor, thinking somehow we will be able to buy the goods they produce without an income.

Halliburton even moved their headquarters from Texas to Dubai to avoid paying taxes- after the Bush Crime Family awarded them no-bid contracts to the tune of billions in taxpayer's money. So much for patriotism.

[elganned]

You're wrong elganned, the top 1% paid 50% of taxes but had only 23-26% of income [[stats aren't clear on the IRS site).

Still seems a large disparity to me. Still don't see the problem.

[ccbatson]

Yes, there is a problem, the opposite of what you believe it to be. The premise of this confiscatory taxation that the liberals hold is that the government is doing its' benefactors a favor by allowing them to keep any of their own property. The opposite is true and the basis of our founding.

[rb336]

Real life case in point; 70 year old with polycystic kidney disease, is currently on his second transplant, had a 5 year stint with hemodialysis, is on very expensive immunosuppresant meds, has had multipe end organ damage accrue over the 40 years since reaching end stage renal failure including vascular and cardiac disease requiring CABG twice, and an AAA repair. Has osteoporosis and has had a hip fracture with hemiarthroplasty.

He currently is unable to work, gets around mostly in a wheelchair, but has a relatively satisfying quality of life.

His health? horrible. His outcome? Fairly poor. The quality and availability of health care for him? Orders of magnitude better than anywhere else on this planet. There is no doubt that he would have died after prolonged suffering decades ago if he were the victim of a universal health care system.

BTW, this is not Obama's crony getting special favors...just a regular guy.

and where, pray tell, did he get his insurance? and what is your basis for your "no doubt" comment? you really have none, and you have no substantive argument to refute what DOZENS of studies have shown - our system is great for those who can afford it, but it sucks for working class and middle class families, to say nothing of the poor

[rb336]

Yes, there is a problem, the opposite of what you believe it to be. The premise of this confiscatory taxation that the liberals hold is that the government is doing its' benefactors a favor by allowing them to keep any of their own property. The opposite is true and the basis of our founding.

yeah, it is nothing like what both Madison and Jefferson proposed - an income tax that would rise geometrically with wealth to prevent the establishment of a permanent monied aristocracy. They were, of course, defeated by the wealthy aristocracy of their day

[Lorax]

Yeah, and it's been an uphill battle eversince.

Trying to convince the moneyed interests of any era that living in a Democracy is what we are suppose to be about has been challenging to say the least.

That's why they turn every trick in the book to evade, legislate against, form lobbying efforts against any measure that would fairly distribute wealth in this country.

They have largely been successful, unfortunately.

The rich need to establish their own oligarchy somewhere where they can live in peace and harmony.

Problem with that, is they still need indentured servants to clean their toilets, scrub their dirty panties, and clean up the dog barf, since they are above all that.

It's so hard finding good help these days.

[ccbatson]

"Fairly distributing wealth" is for Russia, Cuba, etc...NOT HERE.

[Lorax]

"Fairly distributing wealth" is for Russia, Cuba, etc...NOT HERE.

Sorry, you need to read more of Jefferson to get the gist.

Russia and Cuba were/are communist, not socialist or democratic. It may have been called the USSR, but like the so-called "socialist" Nazis, it was a misnomer. Rather like Bush being a "compassionate conservative" which as we know was a load of crap.

[ccbatson]

Communism is the eventual destination of socialism.

Explain "misnomer" please. Remember that the essence of the definition of the word socialism is government controlling the means of production.

While you are at it, explain fascism in the same context.

[elganned]

"Fairly distributing wealth" is for Russia, Cuba, etc...NOT HERE.

Fairly distributing wealth is for any country that concerns itself with the welfare of its people--all of its people, not just the rich ones.

[elganned]

Communism is the eventual destination of socialism.

And totalitarianism is the eventual destination of capitalism.