[Echognome]

blackshoe, on Dec 23 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

What percentage of your income every year goes to pay taxes*? How does that compare to what you think it should be?

To answer the first question, it will obviously depend on what city you live in (since taxes vary down to very granular levels when you include things like sales taxes), what income you make, what income your household makes (if you file jointly), how many dependents you own, whether you own a house and are paying interest, etc. etc.

To answer the second question, what difference does it make? Can't I just answer that I think I should pay 0 taxes and have everyone else pay for me? Why should we care what people think their taxes should be individually? We should only care what they think collectively. The collective answer should depend on what benefits people are getting for their taxes and that goes back to public goods and, as Richard points out, an entire field of economics.

[Echognome]

blackshoe, on Dec 23 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

Something like 20 years ago, I first heard of "Tax Freedom Day", the day on which, if all your income to date that year went to taxes, you'd be free of paying them, and could spend your money on what you wanted to spend it on. At the time, "Tax Freedom Day" was in May - the 15th, iirc. Now it's sometime in July. What will you do when it gets to December 31st? Or January 1st of next year?

When it gets to December 31st, we should all go revisit the Laffer curve.

[jdonn]

I have to admit when it gets to January 1 I'll stop working. When it gets to December 31 I'll just assume everything is free and probably go shopping at the Armani store at Bellagio.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Dec 24 2009, 12:09 AM, said:

Something like 20 years ago, I first heard of "Tax Freedom Day", the day on which, if all your income to date that year went to taxes, you'd be free of paying them, and could spend your money on what you wanted to spend it on. At the time, "Tax Freedom Day" was in May - the 15th, iirc. Now it's sometime in July. What will you do when it gets to December 31st? Or January 1st of next year?

Curse the idiot Republicans who have drowned us in debt for 30 odd years and driven the economy into the ground...





http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3036

[Winstonm]

Quote

If more people have to buy insurance, and there is no public option to buy insurance, the private insurance companies will make a lot more money. That doesn't mean it was somehow bad or wrong to force more people to buy insurance.

I would feel remiss if I didn't point out how incredibly Obama-apologetic this sounds.


I will give Obama credit for being really good at politics - at making smoke and mirrors illusions of change appear to be real.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Dec 23 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Quote

If more people have to buy insurance, and there is no public option to buy insurance, the private insurance companies will make a lot more money. That doesn't mean it was somehow bad or wrong to force more people to buy insurance.

I would feel remiss if I didn't point out how incredibly Obama-apologetic this sounds.


I will give Obama credit for being really good at politics - at making smoke and mirrors illusions of change appear to be real.

Do you just always pick another slogan to support one of the 3 or 4 points you like to make, or do you actually disagree with something specific? Or do you just disagree with supporting.... anything that anyone ever does?

I didn't even use the word "Obama" or the word "change" in that quote, nor in the rest of the post that you didn't quote. If I did, I could have said something along the lines of Obama wanting there to be a public insurance option which would have cost the private insurance companies a great deal of money.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 23 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Quote

If more people have to buy insurance, and there is no public option to buy insurance, the private insurance companies will make a lot more money. That doesn't mean it was somehow bad or wrong to force more people to buy insurance.

I would feel remiss if I didn't point out how incredibly Obama-apologetic this sounds.


I will give Obama credit for being really good at politics - at making smoke and mirrors illusions of change appear to be real.

Do you just always pick another slogan to support one of the 3 or 4 points you like to make, or do you actually disagree with something specific? Or do you just disagree with supporting.... anything that anyone ever does?

I didn't even use the word "Obama" or the word "change" in that quote, nor in the rest of the post that you didn't quote. If I did, I could have said something along the lines of Obama wanting there to be a public insurance option which would have cost the private insurance companies a great deal of money.

I wonder if you actually believe what you are saying ... that's all.

[kenberg]

Taxes, health care, and a little about the war

I can use a couple of recent events to fairly well mark my view about taxes and such.

Event 1: I got something from the government telling me the cost of medicare next year. There will be a surcharge. Since paying the full cost is tough for some, they will get a break, and since the books have to balance (well, balance in some generalized sense) I have to pay more.

Event 2: I have no idea how this actually works but apparently medicare or maybe medicaid is set up so that some of the money comes from the state. A state can get an exemption from paying its share, and in order to get Sen. Nelson's vote, Nebraska gets an exemption. The entire bill goes to the feds. Again, if the books have to balance, then if Nebraskans pay less, I pay more. I am not sure I understand this correctly so as a factual matter I hold it open to correction, but to illustrate my views let's take it as approximately true.


So:

I am fine with Event 1. Of course I don't like paying more money but in so far as it is true that I am paying more so that some other less lucky folks can pay less, it's ok by me.


I am not at all fine with Event 2. I do not wish to pay more, living in Maryland, so that someone can pay less based on the fact that he lives in Nebraska. To the extent that anything at all like what I describe is true, I find it outrageous. I repeat that I am open to factual correction here, but it does illustrate what sort of payments I find acceptable and what I do not.


As I said earlier, I see the health care reform as something that will not be helping me individually, and I think it is not going to be much (if any) of a help in the nations finances. If it helps folks with limited means get better health care then that is definitely in its favor. It was once advertised as something that would also help keep costs down. That seems to be of only historical interest.

Should I believe that it does help the strugglers? Scam artists often try to appeal to our wish to get rich quick, they are generally a joke, but we need also be wary of those who enrich themselves promising to do good works for others. Money given to charity does not always reach the people that are in need. Sometimes it is scam, sometimes incompetence. So it is fair to take at least a skeptical, wait and see, approach here. I hope the bill stands up to scrutiny, but there has been a lot of pushing and shoving, and insurance companies have people paid full time to make sure that they come out fine. I lack such assistance.


Here is how I form my views on quite a few issues: I know that I lack the expertise, the time, and often the interest to learn in great detail exactly what is best. So I listen, and see how things stand up on review. I will switch over to the war to illustrate, using an example I mentioned earlier. In his speech, Obama described the deployment of troops as taking place in the first half of 2010. It now turns out, I think everyone agrees, that no such thing is possible. What am I to think. A guy spends months reviewing a situation of life and death, one that has grave national importance, prepares a speech with the help of well-paid advisers, and then screws this up? Should I believe him on anything?

If I am asked to help someone, one of my most hard and fast rules is that when they describe the situation, then it had damn well better be the situation. On health care, and on the war, we shall see.

[Chas_P]

Quote

I am not at all fine with Event 2. I do not wish to pay more, living in Maryland, so that someone can pay less based on the fact that he lives in Nebraska. To the extent that anything at all like what I describe is true, I find it outrageous.

Apparently some state attorneys general agree with you.

http://www.politico....1209/30949.html

[andrei]

cherdanno, on Dec 23 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

In Germany, we pay a little bit more in taxes ...

is it twice more "a little bit" ?


ok, maybe twice more is as exaggeration, but "a little bit more" it is too.

edit again: it seems that twice more might be quite accurate:

a 75000 euros/year will pay 33% income tax
a 75000 US/year will pay 20% income tax

if you factor in the sales tax, 19% versus 4%-8% you are getting there ...

This post has been edited by andrei: 2009-December-24, 09:49

[cherdanno]

andrei, on Dec 24 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Dec 23 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

In Germany, we pay a little bit more in taxes ...

is it twice more "a little bit" ?


ok, maybe twice more is as exaggeration, but "a little bit more" it is too.

edit again: it seems that twice more might be quite accurate:

a 75000 euros/year will pay 33% income tax
a 75000 US/year will pay 20% income tax

if you factor in the sales tax, 19% versus 4%-8% you are getting there ...

Lol, maybe you should start by comparing similar incomes, instead of comparing a 75k $ salary with a 105k $ salary.
You might also be aware that the German income tax offers a lot more tax exemption. And if you start factoring in VAT, you might also want to add in corporate taxes.

For 2007, the percentage of the total tax revenue as part of the GDP was 36% in Germany and 28% in USA, according to OECD figures.

Edit: I guess I should have added that even though I trust the OECD to try to come up with comparable numbers, it is really impossible to compare. At which point does the premium for an extremely heavily regulated not-for-profit mandatory health insurance become part of the tax revenue? Where is the line between tax exemptions and subsidies? Still "twice more" is beyond what we call reality, and "twice as much" also ridiculous.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Dec 24 2009, 08:28 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 23 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Quote

If more people have to buy insurance, and there is no public option to buy insurance, the private insurance companies will make a lot more money. That doesn't mean it was somehow bad or wrong to force more people to buy insurance.

I would feel remiss if I didn't point out how incredibly Obama-apologetic this sounds.


I will give Obama credit for being really good at politics - at making smoke and mirrors illusions of change appear to be real.

Do you just always pick another slogan to support one of the 3 or 4 points you like to make, or do you actually disagree with something specific? Or do you just disagree with supporting.... anything that anyone ever does?

I didn't even use the word "Obama" or the word "change" in that quote, nor in the rest of the post that you didn't quote. If I did, I could have said something along the lines of Obama wanting there to be a public insurance option which would have cost the private insurance companies a great deal of money.

I wonder if you actually believe what you are saying ... that's all.

Why would you wonder that?

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Dec 24 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

I am not at all fine with Event 2. I do not wish to pay more, living in Maryland, so that someone can pay less based on the fact that he lives in Nebraska. To the extent that anything at all like what I describe is true, I find it outrageous. I repeat that I am open to factual correction here, but it does illustrate what sort of payments I find acceptable and what I do not.

I don't like that my tax dollars get spent on inane abstinence based education programs.

I think that we spend way too much money on defense and not nearly enough on foreign aid.

I think that we spend way too much subsidizing automobiles and don't fund public transport nearly enough...

Don't get me started on school funding.

***** happens
***** will continue to happen
Learn to live with it...

[kenberg]

Of course I live with it, what else. But I also note it, and it affects my views of whom I trust and whom I support. When polls find that Congress is not trusted, this sort of thing may have something to do with it. When polls show that people doubt that health care reform is in their best interest, this sort of thing may have something to do with it. I have no belief at all that the reform is in my best financial interest, the issue is who will benefit.

So far, the early beneficiaries of the health care reform bill are Senator Nelson and his constituents. I gather that the insurance industry is also doing ok. We can all hope that the long term effect will be favorable. Perhaps it will.

[PassedOut]

I think it will be quite interesting if this gets to the Supreme Court because there is so much existing disparity in the distribution of federal funds among the states. As with the present Nebraska payoff, the disparity takes money from the more productive states, known as the "blue states," and hands it out to the more dependent states, the so-called "red states."

For most of the republican attorneys general, this would be a classic case of "be careful what you wish for -- you might get it." My guess is that this uproar will die quickly once the red states realize that, if successful, they might not get to suck so much from the federal teat.

[kenberg]

I presented it as something that I was prepared to be factually corrected on, it seemed too bizarre to be true. So it's real! Somehow, no matter how cynical I get, reality has a way of making me seem naive.


With any large scale spending bill, there will be well-connected people with their hands in the government's, meaning our, pockets. Of course. But here I am, with nothing to gain from this bill, hoping it will help others, finding we have to pay off some slimeball senator in order to get it passed. It's probably best that I am not the president since my inclination would be to tell him to go ***** himself.

[spwdo]

you american people should realise that 12% of your medicost goes to administration due to the crazy system you developed. if only half of that money was recovered(lets say: all the medipeople now accepting, denying, checking, investigating sicks peoples helpclaim) then all the people now without insurance would have insurance.

What you rich folks with insurance do is think that your bill will go up if the guy next door gets a bargain on his insurance. you seem to forget that per person you spend as much as the next country where everyone is insured and noone goes bankrupt due to medical bills.

A belgian doctor went to las vegas on holiday, he got a heartproblem there, was brought to the clinic. spend there two days, returned home with a 76.000 dollar bill.

Sooner or later this will start to affect your tourisme, people slowly start to be afraid of visiting USA and having the bad luck of falling over a bananaleeve, breaking a leg and having to sell their home in their own country to pay for the medical bill.

Given my luck i wont be visiting america in this lifetime. Always wanting to see the grand cayon but what if i stumble over a rock and need plaster. Damm, i cant afford it. Lets go to paraguay instead.

[cherdanno]

You know, health insurance for travel is ridiculously cheap.

[mike777]

spwdo, on Dec 24 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

you american people should realise that 12% of your medicost goes to administration due to the crazy system you developed. if only half of that money was recovered(lets say: all the medipeople now accepting, denying, checking, investigating sicks peoples helpclaim) then all the people now without insurance would have insurance.

What you rich folks with insurance do is think that your bill will go up if the guy next door gets a bargain on his insurance. you seem to forget that per person you spend as much as the next country where everyone is insured and noone goes bankrupt due to medical bills.

A belgian doctor went to las vegas on holiday, he got a heartproblem there, was brought to the clinic. spend there two days, returned home with a 76.000 dollar bill.

Sooner or later this will start to affect your tourisme, people slowly start to be afraid of visiting USA and having the bad luck of falling over a bananaleeve, breaking a leg and having to sell their home in their own country to pay for the medical bill.

Given my luck i wont be visiting america in this lifetime. Always wanting to see the grand cayon but what if i stumble over a rock and need plaster. Damm, i cant afford it. Lets go to paraguay instead.

I do find it amazing that, we, the USA spends about twice the GDP as many other countries do for what seems worse and less than universal health coverage.

Note in the USA without universal health care coverage we are short over 16,000 primary care doctors. With universal health care coverage we are short many more doctors. Yet other countries have enough doctors to provide cheap reliable coverage for all....simply amazing!

As for your point about not checking up on health insurance claims, if other countries do not check and double check, how do they avoid massive fraud claims?
With our single payer system, medicare, we check and double check and still have massive fraud and waste.


In any event you guys do claim to get great health care at about 50% of our cost, somehow.

[Winstonm]

I am in a catch-22. I am in favor of a single payer system yet I do not trust this government to run it. Perhaps we should outsource single payer to a country who knows how to do it.