AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

According to ican's most recent cut-and-paste, the proposed GOP health plan would cut insurance rates a maximum of 10 percent. That's a projection, not an actual hard figure.

Whoopee. Ten whole percent. Maximum. Only five percent for some people. Whoopee, again.

Based on actual numbers and fifty years of experience, the single-payer health systems of the other major industrialized nations cost HALF AS MUCH PER PERSON OR LESS as what we're paying. And their health outcomes are better. That's a savings of FIFTY PERCENT. That's real, it's not a projection.

And the Republicans MAY save 5-10%. Wowee. You go, GOP.

Public option. It's time to get started on something that actually might produce a sane health care system here.

"Whatever any of their fellow humans have" is extreme. Do you have any support for this contention?

Taxes Proposed to Pay for Health Care Reform

by Curtis S. Dubay November 20, 2009
WebMemo #2706
The U.S. Senate recently released its long-awaited proposal for a government-run hostile takeover of the entire U.S. health care system. Predictably, it includes a barrage of higher taxes to pay for the bill's immense price tag.

An important addition to the list of tax hikes included in the Senate bill was an increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax. The current Medicare tax is 2.9 percent, paid half each by workers and employers. The proposal in the Senate bill raises this to 3.4 percent for workers making more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for joint filers).

Under a long-standing principle, taxpayers pay the Medicare tax during their working years and receive coverage for hospitalization during their retirement. Using the additional payroll tax revenue from raising the rate to pay for a new, separate entitlement program would break the long-established tie between the tax and the benefits taxpayers receive for paying it.

Using new revenue from the Medicare tax to fund health care reform would be as illogical as raising the federal gas tax, which funds highway construction and maintenance, to pay for a new welfare entitlement.

Higher Taxes Than France
Higher Medicare taxes would push the top average marginal tax rate even higher than already scheduled. Currently, the top federal tax rate is 35 percent, but President Obama has proposed to allow it to increase to 39.6 percent.

In addition, the House of Representatives' version of health care reform includes a 5.4 percent surtax on incomes over $500,000 a year. All these increases, combined with state and local income taxes, would raise the average top marginal rate in the U.S. to over 52 percent. This would be higher than traditionally high-tax countries such as Italy, Spain, and even France.

A Growing List
Below is a list of the tax increases Congress and the Administration have proposed to finance health care reform. This list includes taxes in the bill passed by the House of Representatives, the bill the Senate is currently debating, and other taxes mentioned as a possible way to pay for health care reform.
• An income surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year,[1]
• An excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $21,000 for families,[2]
• An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,[3]
• A cap on the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance without offsetting tax cuts,[4]
• A limit on itemized deductions for taxpayers with a top income tax rate greater than 28 percent,[5]
• A windfall profits tax on health insurance companies,[6]
• A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,[7]
• An increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax to 3.4 percent for incomes greater than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married filers),[8]
• An excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages including non-diet soda and sports drinks,[9]
• Higher taxes on alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and spirits,[10]
• A tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage of up to 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income,[11]
• A limit on contributions to health savings accounts,[12]
• An 8 percent tax on all wages paid by employers that do not provide their employees health insurance that satisfies the requirements defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,[13]
• A limit on contributions to flexible spending arrangements,[14]
• Elimination of the deduction for expenses associated with Medicare Part D subsidies,[15]
• An increase in taxes on international businesses,[16]
• Elimination of the tax credits paper companies take for biofuels they create in their production process--the so-called "Black Liquor credit,"[17]
• Fees on insured and self-insured health plans,[18]
• A limit or repeal of the itemized deduction for medical expenses,[19]
• A limit on the Qualified Medical Expense definition,[20]
• An increase in the payroll taxes on students,[21]
• An extension of the Medicare payroll tax to all state and local government employees,[22]
• An increase in taxes on hospitals,[23]
• An increase in the estate tax,[24]
• Increased efforts to close the mythical "tax gap,"[25]
• A 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures such as Botox treatments, tummy tucks, and face lifts,[26]
• A tax on drug companies,[27]
• An increase in the corporate tax on providers of health insurance,[28] and
• A $500,000 deduction limitation for the compensation paid by health insurance companies to their officers, employees, and directors.[29]

More to Come
The full list of taxes proposed to pay for health care reform is provided because taxes currently left out of the Senate or House bills could reappear at any point. For instance, the tax on cosmetic surgery listed above (sometimes called the "Botox tax") was written off long ago as a laughable way to pay for health care reform. Nevertheless, it somehow found its way into the current version of the Senate bill.

As the legislative process continues and Congress's desperation to pass a bill increases, it could propose even more tax hikes to pay for its massive expansion of government size and power. The Heritage Foundation will update this list with each new proposal.

No Time for Tax Hikes
Raising taxes at any time is economically harmful, but doing so during a severe recession is reckless. The higher taxes in the health care plans would depress economic activity and delay recovery. When the recovery does finally come, it would be weaker than it would have been without all the tax increases. In the long run, economic growth would remain lower because of these damaging tax increases.

Instead of rushing through a badly conceived health care bill and raising taxes to pay for it, Congress should focus first on economic recovery by increasing the incentives to work, save, invest, and take on new economic risk. Congress can do so by dropping all talk of tax increases and extending permanently the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.[30] That is the only way to pull the economy out of the "Great Recession" and get unemployed Americans back to work.

Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Raising taxes at any time is economically harmful

ican has never provided facts or evidence in support of anything he says except cut and paste that doesn't really provide any answers for the question being asked.

Where is your evidence?

They keep using the words "redistribute wealth," but has not provided how and what. It's simply because they have no understanding of our Constitution or how a democratic republic works in the real world.

Where is your evidence?

"We" elect the officials who make the laws and legislation to spend taxpayer money, which is approved by the president - who is also an elected official.

Where is your evidence that these laws and legislation to spend taxpayer money by giving it to people who are neither contractors of government or government employed/retired, is not limited by the Constitution and its 10th Amendment?

Where do these people get "redistribution of wealth" from this process?

Our evidence consists of CRA, FANNIE, FREDDIE, TARP and STIMULUS that have given significant amounts of taxpayer money to people who are neither contractors of government or among the government employed/retired. These gifts have caused significant increases in costs to the economy, and significant decreases in the number of people employed. The House and Senate drafts of Obama Healthcare specify significant increases in costs to the economy in the form of taxes/fees/charges/penalties on individuals, and on small as well as large businesses. If Obamacare is passed, these increases in costs to the economy will cause further significant decreases in the number of people employed.

ican et al has one idea in their brain about taxes and expenditures; they don't want to pay for anything, but agree to the increase in our deficit that will eventually impact our economy in negative ways - which they also don't understand. Those with the biggest net income after taxes should pay less taxes, because it's okay for our children and grandchildren to pay all the spending now going on. They want the rich to get richer on the backs of our children.

A lie, pure and simple

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A lie, pure and simple

Where is your evidence, Cyclop?

...
Raising taxes at any time is economically harmful, but doing so during a severe recession is reckless. The higher taxes in the health care plans would depress economic activity and delay recovery. When the recovery does finally come, it would be weaker than it would have been without all the tax increases. In the long run, economic growth would remain lower because of these damaging tax increases.

I refer you to the decade of the 90's, in which tax raises were not in fact harmful to economic activity in this country in any meaningful way.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I refer you to the decade of the 90's, in which tax raises were not in fact harmful to economic activity in this country in any meaningful way.

Where is your evidence, Cyclop?

German taxes payable when purchasing a property are as follows:

German Transfer Fees. The transfer of German real estate is subject to a real estate transfer tax (RETT) of 3.5 % on the purchase price of the property.

VAT is charged at the standard rate of 19% (as from 2007) or a reduced rate of 7%. The transfer of real estate is not subject to VAT, however, it is possible to ‘opt to tax’ depending on the purchaser’s VAT status.

Ongoing property taxes payable in Germany are as follows:

German Income Tax rates vary between 20% - 42%, however non-residents are subject to a minimum rate of 25%. The Tax Office (Finanzamt) estimate the tax liability for the current year based on the final payment for the previous year and require you to make quarterly payments of tax in March, June, September and December.

The final tax liability is determined by filing an Income tax return, which must be filed by the 31May.

Non residents are subject to German withholding tax on income from rental or leasing of certain property.

The withholding tax rate is 25% (of gross income without deduction for costs). Non-Residents can avoid withholding tax on rents if they register with the German tax office and elect to be taxed on net rents after costs at rates varying from 15%-42%, similar to residents.

The tax rate for an individual in 2009 is between 5% - 40% There are reduced rates of tax for certain income earners.
Japan corporate tax in 2009 is currently fixed at 30% and, again, there is a reduced rate of tax for certain corporations it is important to point out that the effective tax, for individuals and corporations, is higher as a result of the other local taxes that exist in Japan.

(18.10% of income)

Further information: Rate schedule (federal income tax)

Assuming other factors are constant, if ITR were decreased but FS were increased enough, the economy would be worse off. Also assuming other factors are constant, if ITR were increased but FS were decreased enough, the economy would be better off.

Assuming other factors are constant, if ITR (icome tax rates)were decreased but FS (federal spending) were increased enough, the economy would be worse off. Also assuming other factors are constant, if ITR were increased but FS were decreased enough, the economy would be better off.

OK.. lets assume that total government spending stays the same and government deficit spending stays the same and tax rates decrease.

Oh.. that would be mathematically impossible.

Conclusion. Other factors can't stay constant so any claim based on them remaining constant is pure fantasy.