A commentary by David Sirota on the wealthy paying a surtax for UHC

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If it's class warfare they want it's class warfare they'll get.

That explains the OP perfectly.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Clearly the rich getting richer, the middle class shrinking, and healthcare costs far outpacing inflation is a tenable situation that doesn't need the rich pitching in a little extra more. This is what republicans believe.

Oh, and your desire to bleed them dry stops right there, with healthcare?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski
Negative. 1 million people won't lose their Jobs as a result, because it's a BS number.

OK, let's start over and cut right to the chase here to see if your education was worth the money you paid. I'll walk you through this using direct questioning:

1) What are the most likely steps small companies will take in order to pay for the new 2% to 8% fines?
a. Job cuts
b. Increased prices consumers pay for their products/services
c. Decreased profits
d. Other reduced employee benefits
e. All of the above.

2) If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they
a. Suck it up and continue to offer coverage, or
b. Drop the coverage benefits, pay the new fines, save a few dollars, and force their employees to find a new form of coverage, thus increasing the number of persons enrolled in the "public option," which would dramatically increase the taxpayer costs for such a program.

These are easy questions.

Good luck.

Already been over this. "1 million lost jobs" is still BS.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
OK, let's start over and cut right to the chase here to see if your education was worth the money you paid. I'll walk you through this using direct questioning:

1) What are the most likely steps small companies will take in order to pay for the new 2% to 8% fines?
a. Job cuts
b. Increased prices consumers pay for their products/services
c. Decreased profits
d. Other reduced employee benefits
e. All of the above.

2) If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they
a. Suck it up and continue to offer coverage, or
b. Drop the coverage benefits, pay the new fines, save a few dollars, and force their employees to find a new form of coverage, thus increasing the number of persons enrolled in the "public option," which would dramatically increase the taxpayer costs for such a program.

These are easy questions.

Good luck.

Already been over this. "1 million lost jobs" is still BS.

My last post said nothing about "1 million lost jobs;" and, in any case, your "it's teh BS" is hardly a compelling argument to refute the predictions made by the three largest and most respected small business organizations in the country.

Whatever the case, please answer the easy and direct questions I posed to you above. If you can't find your preferred answer to either one, please feel free to add your own. What have you got to lose? (Besides the debate, of course...)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If it's class warfare they want it's class warfare they'll get.

It's never been anything else! And it has gotten exponentially worse in my lifetime. When I was a kid growing up in the 60's and early 70's there were very high marginal tax rates on the 1% er's and there truly was a middle class, middle class now is a myth. In 1973 the avg CEO pay for the top 200 companies was about 60x minimum wage by 2007 the same calculation yields 850x minimum wage, thats more than a 10 fold increase while minimum wage and your average corporate managers salary has gone up only 2x in that same time frame.

Just look at the salary increases over that time frame for atheletes, movie stars, politicos, etc... When I was in school I aspired to becoming a pro golfer and at the time the top pros made $200-$500k per year roughly a second or third place check for a single tourney today. How much do you think a young senator made in the 70's? I quarantee it's nowhere near the 2.7mil the Obamas reported as taxable income for 2007.

Reagans promise of "trickle down" economics by lowering taxes on the wealthiest was perhaps the biggest lie to the American public in my lifetime, and has lead to 30yrs of wealth redistribution from the middle class to the 1%'ers.
THE ONLY THING THAT PROMOTES "TRICKLE DOWN" IS PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES, PERIOD

If you progressively increase taxes on personal incomes, wealthy business owners will reinvest and expand with their proceeds building their business and the economy instead of taking huge personal incomes and paying ever higher taxes. History proves this nicely

Well said. The first clarification that jumps out at me is to note that even within the top 1%, the weighting is hugely weighted towards the top 1% of the top 1%, more than the lower parts of the top 1%. There are many more statistics to support your comments, such as the rich now getting a bigger share of the nation's income than any time since 1929, or the apparently unprecented concentration of income where since Reagan, the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten about zero of the economic growth after inflation.

In other words, since Reagan, a rising tide has raised only the yachts.

But we ahve a very ignorant populace who doesn't understand the issues, unfortunately.

 

[miniMUNCH]

How we pay for UHC is becoming less and less of an issue for me with the UHC bill as much as clear lack of detail in the UHC bill.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Wreckem
long term financial burdens that the US cannot afford

Thank you for accurately describing our current health care system.

You are fucking moron that doesnt seem to give a shit about the long term numbers. Right now, the US is on a 30-40 year crash course to insolvency. Throw in the democratic plans for UHC and thats shortened to ~25 years.

Depends. HealthCosts in the status quo are also accelerating the crunch point. That's why Reform is so important.

Then wheres the reform? There is a proposal to insure almost everyone, but no proposal to lower costs. Why is that do you think?

The reform is going to be when people find out they have cancer in time to actually do something about it. Why is it all the righties were fine with Bush not vetoing any bills, cutting taxes and starting a war he couldn't pay for but now it's all about costs?? LOL, what a bunch of phoney phucks.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Craig234

For his part, Obama has responded with characteristic coolness -- and a powerful counterstrike. "No, it's not punishing the rich," he said. "If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that's part of being a community."

You just don't get it - the rich aren't part of the same community. The well-off have been moving to gated communities, away from the inner cities and other places where they have to deal with the lower classes, and have no stake whatsoever in the lives of the lower classes. Just because liberal politics holds as an article of faith that the rich *should* feel some moral obligation to assist the poor via higher taxes, etc; doesn't mean that they actually do have such an obligation.

Society determines the Obligations of its' members.

B_I_N_G_O

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Wreckem
long term financial burdens that the US cannot afford

Thank you for accurately describing our current health care system.

You are fucking moron that doesnt seem to give a shit about the long term numbers. Right now, the US is on a 30-40 year crash course to insolvency. Throw in the democratic plans for UHC and thats shortened to ~25 years.

Depends. HealthCosts in the status quo are also accelerating the crunch point. That's why Reform is so important.

Then wheres the reform? There is a proposal to insure almost everyone, but no proposal to lower costs. Why is that do you think?

The reform is going to be when people find out they have cancer in time to actually do something about it. Why is it all the righties were fine with Bush not vetoing any bills, cutting taxes and starting a war he couldn't pay for but now it's all about costs?? LOL, what a bunch of phoney phucks.

We weren't, that's why many of us stopped voting Republican. Notice how Republicans are now a super minority? That's not because "righties" were fine with what Bush and the rest of the Republican party did over the last 8 years...

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Phokus
Clearly the rich getting richer, the middle class shrinking, and healthcare costs far outpacing inflation is a tenable situation that doesn't need the rich pitching in a little extra more. This is what republicans believe.

Oh, and your desire to bleed them dry stops right there, with healthcare?

AHAHAHAHA, 'bleed them dry', got anymore hyperbole?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
OK, let's start over and cut right to the chase here to see if your education was worth the money you paid. I'll walk you through this using direct questioning:

1) What are the most likely steps small companies will take in order to pay for the new 2% to 8% fines?
a. Job cuts
b. Increased prices consumers pay for their products/services
c. Decreased profits
d. Other reduced employee benefits
e. All of the above.

2) If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they
a. Suck it up and continue to offer coverage, or
b. Drop the coverage benefits, pay the new fines, save a few dollars, and force their employees to find a new form of coverage, thus increasing the number of persons enrolled in the "public option," which would dramatically increase the taxpayer costs for such a program.

These are easy questions.

Good luck.

Already been over this. "1 million lost jobs" is still BS.

My last post said nothing about "1 million lost jobs;" and, in any case, your "it's teh BS" is hardly a compelling argument to refute the predictions made by the three largest and most respected small business organizations in the country.

Whatever the case, please answer the easy and direct questions I posed to you above. If you can't find your preferred answer to either one, please feel free to add your own. What have you got to lose? (Besides the debate, of course...)

They don't have an answer to #2. The talking points have not yet hit the net. Give it a day or two.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski
Negative. 1 million people won't lose their Jobs as a result, because it's a BS number.

OK, let's start over and cut right to the chase here to see if your education was worth the money you paid. I'll walk you through this using direct questioning:

1) What are the most likely steps small companies will take in order to pay for the new 2% to 8% fines?
a. Job cuts
b. Increased prices consumers pay for their products/services
c. Decreased profits
d. Other reduced employee benefits
e. All of the above.

2) If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they
a. Suck it up and continue to offer coverage, or
b. Drop the coverage benefits, pay the new fines, save a few dollars, and force their employees to find a new form of coverage,
These are easy questions.

Good luck.

You guys that want to protect the small businessman that can't afford to provide ins. for his workers conviently overlooks the fact that the current pratice of allowing this is a huge part of the problem in healthcare costs. We ALL pay for these peoples healthcare through higher taxes(medicaid) and higher insurance premiums(uncovered care passed on in the form of higher prices from medical providers and hospitals).

Tell me again why these guys should profit while I pay for the healthcare of their employees?

And I see today in concessions to your concerns they have agreed to increase the exclusion to companys with payrolls over $500k🙁

And your #2 is also bogus

If we believe your assumption that emplyers will abandon their insurance coverage forcing millions into the public plan, which is quite a stretch and pure unfounded speculation. The second part of your point makes absolutely no sense.

"thus increasing the number of persons enrolled in the "public option," which would dramatically increase the taxpayer costs for such a program."

If the number enrolling in the public plan was a nice round 1m, that would be 8 billion per yr in revenue to the plan from the employer imposed penalties(1mm x $8000). Where is this dramatic increase in taxpayer costs going to come from? Even if the healthcare outlays exceed the 8 billion in plan revenue the reduction in uncovered care and mediaid that these 1mil people would have consumed under the current scheme would more than offset it. I would actual expect that over time this would significantly reduce the medicare/medicaid taxes we all pay.

The whole idea that covering 1mm people that are currently receiving health care on my dime, by charging thier employers $8k apiece is going to cost me more in taxes makes me :laugh:

More baseless scare tactics

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they...

You don't get it, larger companies are already looking for a way out of employer-sponsored healthcare -- that's what makes the congressional objectives so pointless. When it comes to the bottom line, the current programs that you value so much are not sustainable.

New Urgency in Debating Health Care

Notice the date: April 2007...and the recommendation of MacDonald from IBM:

"He called for a national debate on such topics as maintaining existing employer-subsidized health care, with ?some level of umbrella coverage over that, some level of a single payer system.?

That debate has yet to take place. Then we have this from last November - Employers Offer Workers Fewer Health Care Plans

Do you want to bet what most workers across the country will see in the Open Enrollment packs this fall? Major corporations may not be making public statements now; they are waiting to see what, if anything, Congress does. If Congress doesn't step up and deliver real reform though, we will see lower and lower coverage from major employers: fewer traditional insurance programs and more HSAs.

That would be no different from what happened after the failure of the Clinton program, when corporations discontinued retiree coverage by the droves and started ratcheting up copays.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Evidence not found. No one EVER payed 90% taxes....and I dont think life was any better 50 years ago either....

Well you see that's what happens when you speak/write without knowing what you are talking about. The marginal tax rate for the top income bracket was indeed 90% for over a decade.

And while the country had a lot of work to do 50 years ago, it was in fact the golden age of economic expansion: one in which the rising tide lifted all boats. The employer-paid insurance benefits that everyone holds so dear, became common in the 50s. The entire infrastructure that is now crumbling around us -- e.g. schools, roads, etc. -- was built during that period...from the proceeds of that 90% tax rate.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
You are fucking moron that doesnt seem to give a shit about the long term numbers. Right now, the US is on a 30-40 year crash course to insolvency. Throw in the democratic plans for UHC and thats shortened to ~25 years.

Umm...we are actually on a medium term crash course to insolvency brought on by an inefficient health care model. Do you really think that GM and Chrysler were the only companies with severe health spending problems? Major corporations said in 2007 that, unless things change dramatically, our current model would affect the competitiveness of all US companies by 2012.

New Urgency in Debating Health Care

There are now savings that will be realized from the House Plan. Just more spending, that will ballon after the first ten years.

Assuming that you meant "no" savings, I'd agree with you about the current plans. They don't deliver anything for 4 years. How many companies will have to slide into bankruptcy before we as a nation realize that we don't need to patch up a broken, bankrupting model with expensive dysfunctional provisions? We need a completely new model if we want to avoid catastrophe.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Maybe these folks should kick in a little more instead of spending billions to defeat any form of healthcare reform

http://www.companypay.com/exec...-group-inc.asp?yr=2008

http://www.companypay.com/exec...lpoint-inc.asp?yr=2008

http://www.companypay.com/exec.../aetna-inc.asp?yr=2008

http://www.companypay.com/exec...humana-inc.asp?yr=2008

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Maybe these folks should kick in a little more instead of spending billions to defeat any form of healthcare reform

http://www.companypay.com/exec...-group-inc.asp?yr=2008

http://www.companypay.com/exec...lpoint-inc.asp?yr=2008

http://www.companypay.com/exec.../aetna-inc.asp?yr=2008

http://www.companypay.com/exec...humana-inc.asp?yr=2008

The income for the first person you link first, if the $9,000 per $1 million is accurate, would see their income go from $13,164, 529 to about $13,047,500. Oh, the horror.

Of course, that argument can't be applied ad infinitum, to where the cumulative effects get much larger, for just any 'good cause' program. But this is not much, for a critical issue.

 

[ilkhan]

I really hate to go back to such an old argument, but how many jobs do you provide in return for your ?$40k a year salary? Generally, the wealthy are wealthy because they provide a service to the economy. Jobs, capital, investments. Nobody (minus lottery winners, gamblers, smugglers/druggies) just becomes wealthy without doing something positive for society.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: ilkhan
Nobody (minus lottery winners, gamblers, smugglers/druggies) just becomes wealthy without doing something positive for society.

How many jobs did Bob Nardelli cut at Home Depot before they paid him millions to GO AWAY. How many pensions did TWA's Bill Compton liquidate before he took his golden handshake? And Stan O'Neal at Merrill Lynch -- he of the $159 million parachute? What exactly was the good he, or his traders, did for society...or even the company?

There are many, many hard working executives that deserve premium compensation for the jobs they do. It's simply not true though, that the compensation awarded by rubber-stamp boards has anything to do with the individual's worth to society.

 

[galperi1]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski
Negative. 1 million people won't lose their Jobs as a result, because it's a BS number.

OK, let's start over and cut right to the chase here to see if your education was worth the money you paid. I'll walk you through this using direct questioning:

1) What are the most likely steps small companies will take in order to pay for the new 2% to 8% fines?
a. Job cuts
b. Increased prices consumers pay for their products/services
c. Decreased profits
d. Other reduced employee benefits
e. All of the above.

2) If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they
a. Suck it up and continue to offer coverage, or
b. Drop the coverage benefits, pay the new fines, save a few dollars, and force their employees to find a new form of coverage, thus increasing the number of persons enrolled in the "public option," which would dramatically increase the taxpayer costs for such a program.

These are easy questions.

Good luck.

Ahhh... let's think about the alternative scenario where we do nothing and health care costs continue to rise at 10% a year what does said company do
a. increase price employees pay for insurance to offset the cost
b. decrease the benefits to employees to offset the cost
c. combination of a and b (which happened where I work)
d. decreased profits through absorbing the higher costs
e. increased prices consumers pay for their products/services to make up for the higher costs
f. All of the above

Sounds like a great alternative :roll:

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: ilkhan
I really hate to go back to such an old argument, but how many jobs do you provide in return for your ?$40k a year salary? Generally, the wealthy are wealthy because they provide a service to the economy. Jobs, capital, investments. Nobody (minus lottery winners, gamblers, smugglers/druggies) just becomes wealthy without doing something positive for society.

Sorry, Reagan used that argument to reduce taxes on the wealthy, and we have 30yrs of evidence that shows the exact oposite happens, the more income you let the wealthy keep the less jobs they create. Unless you talking about jobs in China or Mexico🙂

But my point wasn't to bash the wealthy, My point in posting those executive salary figures was to show how much we are paying middle men that produce nothing and provide no healh care they just collect money and pay it out, and ontop of these handful of executive salaries their companies make billions in annual profits and have armys of unnecessary administrators all of which comes out of our pockect.

And the really sad part if you look up the executive salaries and profits of the major hospital administrators and doctors groups like HCA (the people actually providing the care) and they don't even come close to the figures the insurance guys pull in.

Unfortunately I didn't provide any more jobs this year than I did last year because of the economy, but I did manage to pay $23k in insurance premiums for my family of 4, and $37k in taxes out of my $40k salary:laugh: and somehow I also paid the mortgage and put food on the table and bought a new bbq grill, I'm very frugal you see😉

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: ilkhan
Nobody (minus lottery winners, gamblers, smugglers/druggies) just becomes wealthy without doing something positive for society.

How many jobs did Bob Nardelli cut at Home Depot before they paid him millions to GO AWAY. How many pensions did TWA's Bill Compton liquidate before he took his golden handshake? And Stan O'Neal at Merrill Lynch -- he of the $159 million parachute? What exactly was the good he, or his traders, did for society...or even the company?

There are many, many hard working executives that deserve premium compensation for the jobs they do. It's simply not true though, that the compensation awarded by rubber-stamp boards has anything to do with the individual's worth to society.

As a hypothetical, could you have saved any of those jobs? Honestly?
Executives are paid well because the board thinks they can do better than somebody who would accept less. Might somebody else do better? Perhaps. But if the board knew who it was thats who they would hire.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Save us the lesson in capitalism😕 We get it, executives are special people with special skills and resources and deserve to profit handsomely nobody disputes that. The question is a matter of relativity, how much more than the average Joe are they worth? 100x? 1000x? 1000000x?

In 1973 the CEO avg pay of the top 200 companies was 60x minimum wage, in 2007 it was 850x minimum wage. And thats just a isolated snapshot of a larger problem.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The first clarification that jumps out at me is to note that even within the top 1%, the weighting is hugely weighted towards the top 1% of the top 1%, more than the lower parts of the top 1%.
.

If people really understood that a fraction of 1 percent of the population owns the majority of the wealth in this country maybe they would do something about it. I laugh at the wannabe wealthly with a medium 6 figure income, an ovesized custom Mc Mansion, 3 foriegn cars, a mountain of debt, and one catastrophe from the poorhouse. Even better are the fleetingly semi wealthy sports stars and celebubrats, just watch your latest cable reality series to see the lifestyles of the rich and stupid🙂 I particularly recommend "Hammertime" and "Gene Simmons, family jewels"

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Phokus
Clearly the rich getting richer, the middle class shrinking, and healthcare costs far outpacing inflation is a tenable situation that doesn't need the rich pitching in a little extra more. This is what republicans believe.

Oh, and your desire to bleed them dry stops right there, with healthcare?

AHAHAHAHA, 'bleed them dry', got anymore hyperbole?

Like he's got anything to worry about. Ever notice that it's the ass-kissing, wanna-be rich suck ups who doing the whining? The super rich pay lobbyists to whine for them, and these idiots on forums do it for them for free. Brilliant.