Meet Charles Rangel, supply-sider [Archive]

View Full Version : Meet Charles Rangel, supply-sider

trumptman

10-26-2007, 11:47 AM

Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010781)

With one very revealing exception. Mr. Rangel does propose to cut the corporate tax rate, of all things, to 30.5% from 35% today. He'd "pay" for this by reducing business credits and deductions. This is revealing because it is a tacit admission that tax rates really do matter to investment choices.

Mr. Rangel has apparently been listening to the numerous American CEOs and economists who've been saying that the high U.S. corporate tax rate has been driving ever more of their business and capital offshore. Corporate tax rates have been falling even in Europe, and the U.S. now finds itself with nearly the highest rate in the developed world. So at least regarding corporate taxes, Mr. Rangel is an honorary supply-sider.

Clearly Rangel is just an anti-science nutjob. No one would ever propose lowering a tax rate because it would affect the rate of collection or decisions associated with that tax. People only propose to lower tax rates when they want to create deficits and prove they hate their fellow man.

Charlie, why do you help corporations hate America? We should be taxing you at 70-80% to insure our fellow humans get all the help we think they need.

Nick

Fellowship

10-26-2007, 12:28 PM

@_@ Artman

10-26-2007, 12:35 PM

As of last Tuesday, Japanese companies are making payments in yens - instead of dollars - for Iran’s crude oil. (http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/25-10-2007/99507-usa_economy-0)

The last week brought sad news for the White House. To begin with, Japanese companies agreed to make payments in yens for Iran’s crude imports last Tuesday. The Japanese had previously paid for Iranian oil in the U.S. dollar. In fact, Iran had earlier signed an agreement on the yen payments for its crude exports with a number of small-sized Japanese refineries. Two leading Japanese oil exporters of Iranian crude joined the agreement last Tuesday. Japan is one of the world’s major oil exporters. The country has sent a clear message to the global oil market by switching to the yen in its payments for Iran’s oil.

“The dollar isn’t a convenient currency for Iran’s oil receipts for political reasons. The dollar payments for oil are made via correspondent accounts at U.S. banks,” Nadorshin said, in an interview to Bigness.ru. “Keeping in mind that Iran is listed by the U.S. government among the countries of the “axis of evil,” the U.S. government is not only aware of those accounts, it can control them. The U.S. government even blocked certain accounts in the past,” Nadorshin added. From the technical point of view, it would be more difficult for the United States to block such accounts in a Japanese bank.

I have had some talks with a real life economist (they do exist!) and he initially said the petrodollar theory was bunk - any country can just trade its currency at the exchange. Then he did more research and said it is an issue, because by having oil only purchased in dollars, it meant all nations need dollars in their reserves. This is how we can continue to import more than we export.

If countries don't need dollars in their reserves, we are screwed. Hussein started selling oil in Euros 9 months before 9/11, but that is just a coincidence. It's also just lucky that Bush was planning the Iraq war before 9/11. What luck, to have something happen that let us get into Iraq to stop them from selling oil in Euros, and hey! we had the plans all drawn up!. Don't think the petrodollar theory is legit? When the US got control of Iraq, we immediately converted all Iraqi reserves into US dollars, and Iraq started selling oil in Dollars again, not Euros.

Very fortuitous.

Let's get one thing straight; if you still think that US' actions on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and indirectly China and Russia are out of security from nuclear weaponry, you're a sucker. OPEC dumping the dollar = crash of US economy. Cut all that bullshit about nuclear weapons in Iran, WMDs in Iraq. Proven time and time again that no such thing exists. It's an argument to distract from the real issues.

SDW2001

10-26-2007, 12:39 PM

Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010781)

Clearly Rangel is just an anti-science nutjob. No one would ever propose lowering a tax rate because it would affect the rate of collection or decisions associated with that tax. People only propose to lower tax rates when they want to create deficits and prove they hate their fellow man.

Charlie, why do you help corporations hate America? We should be taxing you at 70-80% to insure our fellow humans get all the help we think they need.

Nick

The real story is not being reported. This tax increase will be MASSIVE. The 4% surcharge is not on taxable income, it's on ADJUSTED income. And it's on those making $150,000 or more a year (single) and $200,000 for married couples. That's really not that much money. $200,000 could be a teacher making $75,000 and an executive making $125,000. That's upper middle class, but not rich anymore in my opinion. So these people are going to pay the top marginal rate of 35% or whatever, plus 4% on the top of their ADJUSTED income. That means tax deductions lose a lot of their value.

The corporate tax thing is a red herring. Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporations will just pass the cost on to their customers, which is what really hurts the economy. I don't see it having much positive impact.

Here are some other provisions :

Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.

The proposal also imposes $9.4 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes on lawyers, accountants and others who currently avoid them by organizing as a partnership

It would also raise $4.3 billion in taxes from investors by requiring stock purchase prices to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service beginning in 2009 and all other types of securities beginning in 2011.

None of those are my concern though. This is not the real bill. This is, in fact, a trial balloon for a tax bill when and if a Dem takes control of White House. In 2010, the "temporary" tax cuts will expire, raising taxes on tens of millions of Americans. Marginal rates will go up, as will capital gains. Breaks such as 100% equipment depreciation will expire. Hundreds of other breaks will expire. The overall tax burden on the middle class will go up dramatically. AND, we'll have the Rangel provisions as well. President Clin-Bama will apologize profusely and say he/she has no choice. Mark my words.

BRussell

10-26-2007, 12:47 PM

The real story is not being reported. This tax increase will be MASSIVE. Now wait a second. My understanding is that this was supposed to be revenue neutral. Remember that his plan proposes that the AMT goes away completely.

Republicans are, of course, proposing that the AMT goes away without making up for the lost revenue, so I guess in that sense it is a tax increase over what Republicans are saying. Then again, talking to Republicans about taxes is like talking to creationists about biology.

SDW2001

10-26-2007, 12:56 PM

Now wait a second. My understanding is that this was supposed to be revenue neutral. Remember that his plan proposes that the AMT goes away completely.

Republicans are, of course, proposing that the AMT goes away without making up for the lost revenue, so I guess in that sense it is a tax increase over what Republicans are saying. Then again, talking to Republicans about taxes is like talking to creationists about biology.

Well, for on I don't support Pay-go rules, but let's put that aside. Revenue neutral or not, it's still a tax increase on those hit with it. As I said though, the AMT is not the real story. The real tax increase is coming in 2009.

BRussell

10-26-2007, 12:59 PM

Well, for on I don't support Pay-go rules, but let's put that aside. Of course you don't, because tax cuts pay for themselves.
Revenue neutral or not, it's still a tax increase on those hit with it. As I said though, the AMT is not the real story. The real tax increase is coming in 2009. And who put into place that tax increase?

segovius

10-26-2007, 01:21 PM

Meanwhile The Congressional Budget Office today announced (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/24/wh-not-worried/) the “total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism" - it appears to amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017.

Oh and there's also $705 billion in interest to add on to that little sum.

Still, there is no need for concern about anything. The White House says so:

It’s just a ton of speculation. It’s a hypothetical … What I can tell you is I’m not worried about the number. What I’m worried about is making sure that the president gets what he needs in order to provide the safety and security for the country.

trumptman

10-26-2007, 01:53 PM

You seem to be ignoring the biggest tax of all...

The falling US $

Take a view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUVWIugwHeQ&mode=related&search= of this and be warned it may educate you of how serious the US $ issue really is.

Mark Haines of CNBC asking Warren Buffet:

Mark: You know, I've got to ask you a question because I really want to hear the answer and I know you ducked it. What do you think is the best currency in the world right now to own?

Warren: (Pause.) I don't think it’s the U.S. Dollar. (Laughs.)

Mark: O.K.

Warren: That's as far as I'll go. (Laughs.)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21435354

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:FXE

http://www.kitco.com/

Not enough is being said about the falling US $. All the rest is just silly compared against this story...

Fellows

Actully I don't ignore it. I just wrote about it on my blog roughly two days ago.

Five Things You Need to Know about the Dollar. (http://trumptman.blogspot.com/2007/10/five-things-you-need-to-know-about.html)

I can't type every word written on these here internets Fellowship. :lol:

You are right though that inflation is a stealth tax increase no matter the person or party that brings it about.

As of last Tuesday, Japanese companies are making payments in yens - instead of dollars - for Iran’s crude oil. (http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/25-10-2007/99507-usa_economy-0)

Let's get one thing straight; if you still think that US' actions on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and indirectly China and Russia are out of security from nuclear weaponry, you're a sucker. OPEC dumping the dollar = crash of US economy. Cut all that bullshit about nuclear weapons in Iran, WMDs in Iraq. Proven time and time again that no such thing exists. It's an argument to distract from the real issues.

If you think BRIC ROW or anyone else can save the planet when the U.S. falters, you are wrong as well. The EU is already screaming about currency manipulation from China, trade deficits and the rise of the Euro...

Doesn't that sound a little familiar?

The real story is not being reported. This tax increase will be MASSIVE. The 4% surcharge is not on taxable income, it's on ADJUSTED income. And it's on those making $150,000 or more a year (single) and $200,000 for married couples. That's really not that much money. $200,000 could be a teacher making $75,000 and an executive making $125,000. That's upper middle class, but not rich anymore in my opinion. So these people are going to pay the top marginal rate of 35% or whatever, plus 4% on the top of their ADJUSTED income. That means tax deductions lose a lot of their value.

The corporate tax thing is a red herring. Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporations will just pass the cost on to their customers, which is what really hurts the economy. I don't see it having much positive impact.

Here are some other provisions :

Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.

The proposal also imposes $9.4 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes on lawyers, accountants and others who currently avoid them by organizing as a partnership

It would also raise $4.3 billion in taxes from investors by requiring stock purchase prices to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service beginning in 2009 and all other types of securities beginning in 2011.

None of those are my concern though. This is not the real bill. This is, in fact, a trial balloon for a tax bill when and if a Dem takes control of White House. In 2010, the "temporary" tax cuts will expire, raising taxes on tens of millions of Americans. Marginal rates will go up, as will capital gains. Breaks such as 100% equipment depreciation will expire. Hundreds of other breaks will expire. The overall tax burden on the middle class will go up dramatically. AND, we'll have the Rangel provisions as well. President Clin-Bama will apologize profusely and say he/she has no choice. Mark my words.

While I understand your technical points here, the big picture point would be to note that all taxes, no matter how targeted whatever else they claim to be, end up being paid in some fashion by all of us. The AMT follows the history of all taxation in the U.S. It was a tax on the super-rich. It became a tax on all of us, now it is claimed we can change it back to a tax on the super-rich which will really become.... yeah a tax on the rest of us.:lol::lol:

I prefer to note that taxes alter behavior. The claims of BRussell and others is that tax policy has no effect on behavior which is why it is impossible for taxes to pay for themselves or not. No one would ever be more willing to report at 10% tax as opposed to evade at an 80% tax rate. That is all just mythical, handwaving, anti-science nonsense.:rolleyes:

Now wait a second. My understanding is that this was supposed to be revenue neutral. Remember that his plan proposes that the AMT goes away completely.

Republicans are, of course, proposing that the AMT goes away without making up for the lost revenue, so I guess in that sense it is a tax increase over what Republicans are saying. Then again, talking to Republicans about taxes is like talking to creationists about biology.

It is claimed to be revenue neutral, but in reality it will likely fall short and the "wealthy" will become all of us. The AMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax) was supposed to "get those rich bastards" who managed use so many deductions that they avoided taxation. It wasn't supposed to be a major revenue source but a quick fix to the exception to the rule. How did getting 155 families become a surtax on all income above certain amounts and tax "credits" to certain people?

The exception to the rule becomes the rule. That is the truth of all taxation. The AMT which originally applied to 155 now applies to millions and so any "fix" must now redistribution income among millions to be "neutral" since the government can't let go of that teat.

While we are discussing tax reform, we should reform our language and note that a tax "credit" that you receive, even when you paid nothing in is not a credit but a gift. It is nothing more than buying votes.

But noting that to Democrats is like talking to Communists about purges, they just don't see the problem.

Nick

BRussell

10-26-2007, 02:17 PM

I prefer to note that taxes alter behavior. The claims of BRussell and others is that tax policy has no effect on behavior which is why it is impossible for taxes to pay for themselves or not. No one would ever be more willing to report at 10% tax as opposed to evade at an 80% tax rate. That is all just mythical, handwaving, anti-science nonsense.:rolleyes:

Nick, I'd like to hear from one person, liberal or otherwise, who would disagree that taxes alter behavior. No one would disagree with that. I have certainly never claimed that as you falsely state. The only thing we science-y liberals constantly say about this issue is that 1) the entire lot of Republican politicians claims that tax cuts pay for themselves, but 2) that no serious person, Republican or Democrat, would ever believe such a thing, including Republican members of Bush's cabinet.

Taxes affect behavior. But tax cuts don't increase revenues. Taxes affect behavior. But tax cuts don't increase revenues. They are different claims. One is true, the other is false.

BRussell

10-26-2007, 02:27 PM

It is claimed to be revenue neutral, but in reality it will likely fall short and the "wealthy" will become all of us. Pay as you go. It's common sense.
The AMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax) was supposed to "get those rich bastards" who managed use so many deductions that they avoided taxation. It wasn't supposed to be a major revenue source but a quick fix to the exception to the rule. How did getting 155 families become a surtax on all income above certain amounts and tax "credits" to certain people? How? It's very simple: It wasn't indexed to inflation. You can dodge all you want, but in the end, there's a very simple, common-sense principle that is being advocated: Pay as you go. Evade and complain about liberal communists all you want, but in the end, this is all about whether you support being responsible with the books or not. Of course you don't, because if you say you do, you reject the most basic principle of Republicanism, and for a Republican voter, that's just too big of an inconsistency to bear.

trumptman

10-26-2007, 02:54 PM

Nick, I'd like to hear from one person, liberal or otherwise, who would disagree that taxes alter behavior. No one would disagree with that. I have certainly never claimed that as you falsely state. The only thing we science-y liberals constantly say about this issue is that 1) the entire lot of Republican politicians claims that tax cuts pay for themselves, but 2) that no serious person, Republican or Democrat, would ever believe such a thing, including Republican members of Bush's cabinet.

Taxes affect behavior. But tax cuts don't increase revenues. Taxes affect behavior. But tax cuts don't increase revenues. They are different claims. One is true, the other is false.

They can increase revenues if you are past the point to where the fines, fees and professionals you must pay outweigh the costs of the taxes themselves. Then people will simply choose to forgo paying the taxes and risk the retribution.

One of the behaviors that are effected is the choice to comply or avoid the tax. You refuse to admit that. If your choice is a 78% confiscatory income tax rate here, or find some way to get your interests abroad, etc. then you do that. The reality is that Charles Rangel is proposing a 30% corporate rate because given the choice between 35% or moving business abroad, people move which means an effective 0% tax rate with regard to the U.S. government. You give them a comparable rate, and they stay which leads to a higher rate of return.

Taxes are no different than any other supply and demand curve. You want the government to undertake certain actions. We all do and conservatives should be much better about articulating this. (Newt is for example) You are willing to pay a cost or demand to get that service or action. If there is too much cost or too little return on the the cost, you start getting into attempts to avoid or forgo the cost.

We can argue that the present rate can be raised with no change in behavior and you would probably be right to some degree. I mean we are talking about 35% versus much higher historical rates. However to deny the past is to repeat it. This 4% surcharge will alter some behaviors. It will net some increase less than 4% in return because of those altered behaviors. We just have to balance the two.

So can tax cuts pay for themselves from when dropping from 35 to 33%? Perhaps not. Can they pay for themselves when dropping from 83 to 35%? Probably because there were likely massive avoidance actions taking place in the second example.

Saying it doesn't apply right now doesn't mean it can't ever apply. Try a tax rate of 100% and see if people cough up the entire GDP with no avoidance.

BTW, I think you should acknowledge me as supreme master of the universe and let everyone know about the massive crush you have on me.

Nick

trumptman

10-26-2007, 03:03 PM

Pay as you go. It's common sense.

Not pay as you go. As you note, there is always a "catch" they they conveniently didn't think out the first time and that manages to net more of us over time. This is why Social Security went from a 1% super rich tax to roughly 13% of everyone up to a set income amount. Each time it doesn't generate what is needed, they "reform" it, conveniently leave in an "oppsie" and then we watch as all of us become "rich" when we need more revenue.

This AMT certainly has done more than grab the money of those 155 families.

How? It's very simple: It wasn't indexed to inflation. You can dodge all you want, but in the end, there's a very simple, common-sense principle that is being advocated: Pay as you go. Evade and complain about liberal communists all you want, but in the end, this is all about whether you support being responsible with the books or not. Of course you don't, because if you say you do, you reject the most basic principle of Republicanism, and for a Republican voter, that's just too big of an inconsistency to bear.

It "conveniently" wasn't indexed to inflation. Now we "conveniently" need to tax everyone above a certain level to recoop the revenue we "conveniently" got use to coming in and now need to "conveniently" keep up our spending.

Pay as you go is sound, but what must be noted is that just because we can pay doesn't mean we need to go spend that money, especially when we are continually reconfiguring taxes to keep revenue that should have been unexpected, yet we still have massive deficits.

What you refuse to stop evading is the fact that once the government gets a source of revenue, justified or not, it can never cease to need that revenue and the spending associated with it. We now have to reconfigure NOT just because it now affects millions instead of 155 families, but because we cannot forgo the revenue.

Note that again, we cannot forgo the revenue.

Let me state that a third time. We cannot forgo the revenue.

If this tax "reform" brings in less revenue than expected, as all "reforms" have done in the past, then we will have to "reform" it again to increase revenue.

Spending less, that is never a consideration and it should be. It is the second half of that pay-go equation.

We could reconfigure the AMT so it affects less than 200 families again and index it to inflation. That would be a reform with no quotation marks needed. We could take the revenue from that and using Pay-Go, not commit to spending more than is brought in by that AMT. We cannot do that. We now have to tax millions instead.

Nick

BRussell

10-26-2007, 03:17 PM

Nick, I agree with everything you've said in your past two posts. :D

Jubelum

10-26-2007, 05:25 PM

Smaller government is cheaper. Taxes are lower. Let's start there.
Big government needs big taxes, and growing government requires growing taxes.

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that if there was a smaller government, we'd all be doing better... but nothing will stop those who think the government should have the right to take everything in order to give everything.

I think it is interesting for a party to be advocating "paygo" now when they were part of raiding socialist security receipts for over 40 years. :lol:

SDW2001

10-26-2007, 08:07 PM

Of course you don't, because tax cuts pay for themselves.

That depends on how one looks at it. Initially, they don't. But they do help stimulate the economy and expand the tax base, often having an positive impact on overall revenue. I just don't agree that a tax cut must be offset by a tax increase somewhere else. Government should learn to do with less. Of course, it never does.

And who put into place that tax increase?

I assume you're taking a shot at Bush here. But if the cuts are allowed to expire, it will be Democrats that allow them to do so.

Aries 1B

10-26-2007, 09:42 PM

Nick, I agree with everything you've said in your past two posts. :D

What in the hell is going on here?!

V/R,
Aries 1B

midwinter

10-26-2007, 11:18 PM

What in the hell is going on here?!

V/R,
Aries 1B

A reasonable discussion among a bunch of 30-somethings?

Fellowship

10-26-2007, 11:24 PM

A reasonable discussion among a bunch of 30-somethings?

Wow... I love you guys!

I knew there was some common sense in PO

Fellows 8-)

SpamSandwich

10-26-2007, 11:27 PM

No one would ever propose lowering a tax rate because it would affect the rate of collection or decisions associated with that tax. People only propose to lower tax rates when they want to create deficits and prove they hate their fellow man.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fellowship

10-26-2007, 11:30 PM

Actully I don't ignore it. I just wrote about it on my blog roughly two days ago.

Nick

Please excuse my overlooking your blog. It is good to discuss matters such as these with such up to speed, in the know people who pay attention. Keep up the good work Nick.

Fellows

Northgate

10-27-2007, 09:15 PM

And it's on those making $150,000 or more a year (single) and $200,000 for married couples. That's really not that much money.

So then you'd support the SCHIP expansion?

And I agree with you. If you live in California (and other major metropolitan areas) $150K a year is really not that much money.

Jubelum

10-27-2007, 11:16 PM

So then you'd support the SCHIP expansion?

"expansion" :lol:

I just hate it when a program to get health care to poor kids ends up covering upper middle class adults. Dang the luck...:rolleyes:

SDW2001

10-28-2007, 12:32 AM

So then you'd support the SCHIP expansion?

And I agree with you. If you live in California (and other major metropolitan areas) $150K a year is really not that much money.

Oh stop. It's not enough to be "rich." Its plenty not to need free health care for kids.

Northgate

10-31-2007, 01:11 AM

Jubelum

10-31-2007, 02:43 AM

My wife and I are middle-class. I work for a small privately owned company, run by fervent Republicans. They offer absolute zero health insurance. Therefore I am currently uninsured.

If I had kids I would like to know that the richest nation on the planet could offer some type of insurance to cover then. Not me. Not my wife. My children.

Why is that so fucking evil?

It's not evil, its a matter of responsibility- but NOTHING GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT IS FREE. It must first be taken from someone else to be given to you. Frankly, it will not stop at kids, once every child has it... it will continue on, expanding and growing like the rest of these social programs. That is what the whole SCHIP episode has been about. If taking care of poor kids was really the issue, Pelosi could have reauthorized the old 1997 SCHIP program, with the expansions that Bush agreed to. It's just the latest re-tread of the "for the children" demagogue. The best part is, that we'd all have a moral obligation to start smoking "for the children." :D

In regards to the sittyashun...

1. Just because your employer does not offer it does NOT mean that you cannot get it. Think self-reliance. Make some calls- children are not that expensive with private insurance. My sister does exactly that, and it is reasonable. You are not entitled to have other people provide for your children's needs. With all due respect, that is your job, not ours. If you are not making enough or demand health insurance, its a free market- YOU are in control of your situation. Shop your formidable skill set and logic skills (which I know you have) to new employers. Try entrepreneurship. Invent something. Take charge. There is no better place on earth to better your lot than here... almost anyone can do it. This nation is full of wide-open opportunity, not perpetual soup-lines. Real empowerment comes from within the individual, not from getting the government to redistribute for your benefit.

2. re: employers... Have you thought about WHY your employers do not offer it? Could it be the tax load? Have you ever owned a business and experienced corporate taxation? I own a company and provide health insurance... but new corporate taxation here in Texas (brought to us by that "corporate-hack" Republican majority) means either people are getting laid off, or benefits are going to shrink. That's not my choice, I can either stay in business, or start cutting. The benefits I've gladly provided to people in your exact situation for years and years are being reduced for one reason- the STATE is taking money out of my company's "social program" to pay for theirs.

3. Do you want this totally "free" (to you) or do you want a government subsidy? Do note that, for someone making $150k a year, their child could be insured for a little under 3% of their gross monthly income. They damn sure can afford to buy it themselves and their children.

4. Finally- we're not long for that whole "richest nation" thing, if we continue mortgaging our future solvency to provide for the entitlement Christmas list of today.

tonton

10-31-2007, 03:59 AM

My wife and I are middle-class. I work for a small privately owned company, run by fervent Republicans. They offer absolute zero health insurance. Therefore I am currently uninsured.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers comparing companies with Democratic heads vs. Republican heads and how much insurance and other benefits are offered beyond what is required by law. I bet I know how it would look.

Northgate, why don't you get private insurance? I have insurance from my company, but if I didn't, I would certainly buy an inexpensive private policy.

tonton

10-31-2007, 04:03 AM

Oh stop. It's not enough to be "rich." Its plenty not to need free health care for kids.

Agreed. But (recalling another PO thread), where do you define the cut-off?

trumptman

10-31-2007, 10:06 AM

tonton

10-31-2007, 12:57 PM

Jubelum

10-31-2007, 02:49 PM

Except that employers get better insurance deals than individuals do.

Not always. There are also groups you can join as an individual or family that are not employer-based.

SDW2001

10-31-2007, 08:30 PM

Agreed. But (recalling another PO thread), where do you define the cut-off?

I don't remember what I said before on that topic. I guess I would say any individual making $250K and married couples making $400K. That's not middle class anymore in my book. But $200K for married couples is. That could easily be two teachers at the top of their scales (in this area), or hell...two really successful carpenters. People in trades can make that kind of money....I've seen it.

But the real question is "do these people pay too little in taxes now?" I don't think they do. That's not enough to REALLY avoid taxes like the super-wealthy do.

BRussell

11-01-2007, 03:43 AM

I don't remember what I said before on that topic. I guess I would say any individual making $250K and married couples making $400K. That's not middle class anymore in my book. But $200K for married couples is. That could easily be two teachers at the top of their scales (in this area), or hell...two really successful carpenters. People in trades can make that kind of money....I've seen it.

But the real question is "do these people pay too little in taxes now?" I don't think they do. That's not enough to REALLY avoid taxes like the super-wealthy do. Either they DO pay too little, or we spend too much. If it's the latter, then tell us what to cut. But one or the other has to be true.

Northgate

11-04-2007, 02:57 AM

I don't want to sound like I am ganging up on Northgate because he was willing to share and that is very cool. I just wanted to point out that the money that would have been paid to provide health insurance is either going into the pocket of the owner or into the pocket of the employee. It doesn't disappear into thin air.

North, does your wife's employer off health iinsurance? Does she work for what amounts to a small business as well?

Finally North, if you are being compensated at a rate lower than is typical for your profession because the money is going into the pocket of the owner, in otherwords your salary is the same as your peers, but they are given health insurance, then let the market do its thing and seek some other prospects. Now the opposite of that, if you are being paid more in salary due to the fact that your employer is just paying you more in salary and avoiding the hassle of providing insurance, then you can seek the insurance yourself. It might even save you on your taxes.

Nick

The FoxWorld division of 20th Century Fox was just dismantled in August and my wife lost her job. And, as everyone knows, Hollywood has just shut down due to the writer's strike. So finding comparable work has been difficult. And because my wife has editing skills, she's been hired by my currently employer on a freelance basis. Ergo no insurance for either of us.

The owner of the company I work recently said that the second biggest expense next to payroll for any business is health insurance. We are a company with only about 10 full time regular employees (which includes me as I was their very first employee three years ago) and the other 20 are freelance and/or temporary. And because they're regular full time employees number so few the discounts aren't that great.

When I took the job with them I was promised regular salary increases as well as insurance as soon as they could afford it. I've received neither even though the company has grown 300% since it's inception in 2004.

Needless to say, I've had to start looking around at the market for work elsewhere. Which is sad, because these people are my friends. And I've very much enjoyed working there. And, of course, the moment I decided that I must move on and look for work where insurance and a higher salary are offered, the industry is on the verge of couble shutdown (writer's strike now with a looming SAG strike in June) and jobs have disappeared.

So my wife and I are barely making ends meet. The cost of living here is astronimical. But this is where we're both from, this is the industry we're both trained to work in, so we can't just pack and move to Atlanta or Witchitah or Omaha.

My one and only argument is that we would be the ideal candidates for SCHIP if we had kids. And that's why I sympathize with working families who make too much money for medicare but not enough money to afford it on our own.