Obama Health Plan to tax the rich
jlew24asu
Posts: 10,118
lets just keep milkin em. its basically becoming a crime to be successful in this country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... care_N.htm
Under the House legislation, families earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would pay an additional 1% in income tax. The new tax would increase with higher salaries so that families earning more than $1 million would pay an additional 5.4%. The tax would apply to the top 1.2% of households in the USA, according to a House Ways and Means Committee document.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... care_N.htm
Under the House legislation, families earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would pay an additional 1% in income tax. The new tax would increase with higher salaries so that families earning more than $1 million would pay an additional 5.4%. The tax would apply to the top 1.2% of households in the USA, according to a House Ways and Means Committee document.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html
Small Business Faces Big Bite
House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.
The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.
Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.
Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.
The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.
"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."
is there any kind of credit if they do provide health insurance? while i think it should be a right to have it i think it's unfair to penalize smaller companies, especially with how rates just go up and up every year with less and less coverage, higher deductibles....and as Wendell Potter stated at the end of every year if that company had too many people actually use the insurance they raise the rates
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
the rich hire people to work. if you tax the rich they become hesitant to invest and will not hire people. it is a simple formula.
i had seen this all yesterday and was waiting for the inevitable thread.
that said, i am unsure of your logic here. the rich are being taxed as individuals, if they make over $350,000 a year. and then yes, companies are also taking a hit. however, just b/c someone is a rich individual, does not necessarily mean they are in a place of power for hiring people....and even if they are.....if they have a business and need workers, they are going to hire workers.....b/c they need them. now, will they hire less workers, will they outsource more.....idk, possibly. we shall see. it also may not necessarily play out in the negaitve for the country.
i remember when the first smoking bans were put in place and how bar and restaurant owners said how much it would cripple their businesses. it didn't.
so bottomline....we shall see..........
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I'm ok with it and I will be one of those people in a few years. I'm already shocked at my starting pay. I don't need that extra money and if it can go to ensure that nobody in this country has to go without food or a needed doctor's visit, I'm perfectly ok with that.
This, on the other hand is appalling, and a perfect illustration of why national health care is a good idea... we should stop burdening businesses with taking on the health care costs of their workers.
however, jlew is correct in saying you would have NO choice in the matter either. that much is right. i happen to agree with your line of thinking, and i know of many above those thresholds, i work for a good
# of em!......and while everyone likes to keep their $$$ earned, i also believe many believe in, and support, the greater good. i believe this plan looks at who will it 'hurt' less, to take more from their income, to fill in these healthcare gaps?
and hey, i am all for all of us chipping in and paying our fair share...towards universal healthcare.
i truly believe it would be the most cost-effective system with high-quality care IF done RIGHT. and it can be done, and it has been done, in numerous countries.
hell, i see from that interview of the cigna CEO stating that our current medicaide system, the government-run/funded healthcare system, has a higher rate of patient satisfaction than private insurance. (and yes, i know financially medicare is a mess....but again, it doesn't have to be....if we remove the 'for profit' nature from the healthcare industry) and yea...i've said all this before, ad nauseum, in the other healthcare thread....so i'll try and refrain this time around. at least some.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
what the fuck am i saying...........i will never have that much money.
what...? stolen...?
damn it, you mean the taxes I pay as a non-rich person is legitamet and taxes paid by the "rich" is stolen money...?
those poor rich folks... :roll:
nope, the money you pay is stolen as well. the vast majority of us are over taxed.
sorry for the source but its probably one of the only places to give an alternative view to the media love affair with anything Obama.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07 ... are-right/
The comprehensive health care overhaul being pitched by House Democrats could lead to a cost explosion in the long-term, a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office suggests.
Meanwhile, President Obama's vision for health care reform narrowly passed its first test Wednesday, as a Senate committee became the first to act on a bill aimed at overhauling the system.
In a party-line vote that reflected deep concerns over costs, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 13-10, with all Republicans on the committee opposing, to pass a $600-billion version that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans by requiring individuals get insurance and employers to contribute to the cost.
The bill would provide federal aid to families and individuals making less than four times the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four.
That's just the first hurdle for one of several bills, each with fluctuating cost estimates. For the House Democrats' version, the CBO estimate tagged the 10-year cost of the plan at just over $1 trillion.
"On a preliminary basis ... the proposal's provisions affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of $1,042 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019," the report said, citing additional expenses for Medicaid and other federal subsidies.
One Democratic aide said the bill would add up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But the CBO estimate showed that even if the price tag holds to $1 trillion, more than 80 percent of the costs will hit in the last five years. This indicates that after 2019, taxpayers could be hit with a rising tidal wave of health care expenses resulting from the shift in health care coverage from the private to public sector.
Amid those staggering estimates, advocates and foes of such a plan are facing off in a pitched battle on Capitol Hill, coinciding with the tame-by-comparison drama of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
"This bill has massive spending and massive tax increases to try to cover the spending in the bill," Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said at a press conference with other congressional Republicans Tuesday, complaining about a provision in the House bill to tax the wealthy. "Half of that will be hit on small businesses."
In a fundraising appeal titled "Hillarycare revisited," the Republican National Committee warned about "Obamacare" and said the government "already runs car companies, banks and mortgage companies. Republicans believe that the last thing the American people want is government telling them when and where -- or even whether -- they can get medical treatment for their families."
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats -- though hardly in lockstep over how to achieve reform -- are escalating their call for action against a tightening timetable.
Obama, who warned Congress not to delay upon returning from his latest overseas trip, gave another pep talk to Congress on health care reform Wednesday afternoon. He said the "status quo" was unsustainable and called on Congress to "buck up" and pass legislation.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, gave a similar assessment.
"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," he said."We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. With the Senate Finance Committee still struggling to reach consensus on its own bill, that timetable could slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.
Obama's political organization is launching a series of 30-second television ads on health care, which will begin airing Wednesday in Washington and on cable TV nationally. A version will run on local stations in eight states -- Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska and Ohio -- to prod senators to back the health care effort. They will run for two weeks.
In the ads, private citizens describe problems they've had with the medical system and say it's time for action. The sponsor is Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, which has become part of the national Democratic Party. The group would not reveal the cost.
All involved were mindful of the dwindling days before Congress leaves town. Obama wants legislation through the House and Senate before then to slow rising costs and extend coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans.
Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. The CBO estimated that the plan would reduce the number of "nonelderly" uninsured by 37 million over 10 years.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support.
The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer.
The Finance Committee was striving to produce a bill by the end of the week, though the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., acknowledged it would be a challenge to meet Obama's timeline.
if/when that happens...feel free to say i told ya so...and i am sure we'll all agree! however, if our world doesn't implode....do please realize your pov is not the absolute word on what will, or will not, occur.....;)
given that we as a country have some of the lowest taxes in the world........i am unsure what you mean there?
i may not agree as to WHERE my funds go, and i sure could think of a lot better uses for a lot of it - such as universal healthcare - but yea......we're not necessarily 'overtaxed'....at least on income.
my property taxes are insane tho!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
great, let's stop paying taxes and disband the government...those fuckers keep stealing from me...
are you new here?
personal tax rates are not the most, no. but certainly not the lowest.
as for corporate rates...highest in the world.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 22917.html
mine too. I also live in Chicago, with has the highest sales tax in the country. :evil:
overreact much?
I'll take lower taxes and less government anyday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSe3C5vMafM
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
why?
so you can SPEND, SPEND, SPEND.....and pass on the costs to the next administration?
i mean, let's be realistic. bush enters office with a budget surplus, a pretty sizable one...and in eight years gets us into a war no one wanted and trillions in debt. at least obama trys to come up with ways to FUND the things he wants to SPEND on.....and i'll take funding for healthcare over a war any day of the week and twice on sunday.
jlew, really?
i thought where i lived had the highest sales tax, it did for awhile anyway.
and you clearly illustrated one of our fundamental differences, less tax and less government involvement is always your goal. my goals are not so clear-cut. i'm all for less tax in theory, but i also do believe our government should fund a great many programs, including healthcare....so i just can't make those sweeping statements.
btw - if you read my post...i did not say we have THE lowest income tax, just some of the lowest.
i think you do that often with my posts....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
and yea...that's the other thing. this is far from a done deal.
also, it is a concern that we may well end up with some half-assed plan for healthcare. i hope not, but it's a possibility. in trying to still cow-tow to the healthcare industry, instead of a complete overhaul - we could wind up with a badly placed band-aid. however, i want to try and remain optimistic for the time being.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22979.html
Chicago to Have Highest U.S. Sales Tax; Enrolled Bill Shenanigans
by Joseph Henchman
Early Saturday, the Cook County Board voted 9-8 to raise their sales tax by a percentage point, to 10.25 percent, making it the highest in the country. The tax increase, which is estimated to raise an additional $426 million per year and will close a budget deficit and fund 1,100 new (patronage?) government jobs, goes into effect in November.
Board President Todd Stroger had wanted a 12 or 11.25 percent rate but came up a vote shy, and is now seeking an increase in other local taxes; in return for relenting on the sales tax, he agreed to give up total control over jobs at county hospitals (the new board will only be 9/20ths controlled by him). Opponents say the county is mismanaging the $3 billion in revenue it already collects.
Interestingly, the official record will say that Cook County's budget was passed at 11:55 PM on Friday night, not early Saturday morning at about 1AM when it actually was. That's because officials stopped the clock used for timekeeping as their way of complying with a law requiring them to pass the budget by midnight. Politicians get away with these shenanigans because of what's called the "enrolled bill rule"—essentially, judges who enforce such deadlines are obligated to accept the time stated in the record prepared by government officials, no matter how much evidence may prove it to be false. The application of the rule in such situations usually deprives the taxpayer protection of all effectiveness.
i didn't doubt you.....and hey, i am happy to pass the mantle!
i do still believe my county in NY has one of the higher sales taxes (8.65%) and our property/school taxes have always been well within the top costs in the nation as well. i love where i live, so yea.....but that truly sucks. that said, i need to go on the porch and obsess over scoring philly 2 tix, so i leave the MT to you all.......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I sure hope it doesn't put them on the streets!