Edwards: raise taxes for healthcare

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Canada has a public system and my company still gives me healthcare coverage over and above the public system.

Part of the rich and yet still complaining. Hmmmmmmm.

I complain because I know our system can be much better than it is...just like you.
I'm not alone, the number one campaign issue for Canadians is healthcare; ~50% of Canadians rank this at the top of their list time after time. Every election cycle, more money is thrown at the problem and the same problems exist.

In fact, 45% of Conservative voters in Canada rank healthcare as their number one issue.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds good to me. People making over 200K aren't even paying payroll taxes on half of their income, so they are in good shape to pay more income taxes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds good to me. People making over 200K aren't even paying payroll taxes onLet every person pay anextra half of their income, so they are in good shape to pay more income taxes.

Let every person pay 25% more tax on their income. - Put in place a national sales tax to fund it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds good to me. People making over 200K aren't even paying payroll taxes onLet every person pay anextra half of their income, so they are in good shape to pay more income taxes.

Let every person pay 25% more tax on their income. - Put in place a national sales tax to fund it.

wtf

You would tax married filing jointly top bracket at 60%? wtf is wrong with you?

(Married filing joint over $336,550 = 35% + your 25% = 60%)

 

[wazzledoozle]

Tax and spend is bad?

I guess youre a big fan of Spend and Spend, ProfJohn? ****** the budget, we have a ****** military to buy more guns for.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds good to me. People making over 200K aren't even paying payroll taxes onLet every person pay anextra half of their income, so they are in good shape to pay more income taxes.

Let every person pay 25% more tax on their income. - Put in place a national sales tax to fund it.

Yeah let's tax the one thing driving our economy, consumer spending, at 25% :roll:
Got any other ideas for destroying this country?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Tax and spend is bad?

I guess youre a big fan of Spend and Spend, ProfJohn? ****** the budget, we have a ****** military to buy more guns for.

😕

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Right now this group makes (2004) $2.299 tillion in total income and is taxed at an average rate of 20%.
To pay for this wonderful John Edwards plan we would have to raise their effective average tax rate to 25%!!!! That is WAY beyond what the Bush tax cut amounted too.

What? You mean they have to pay the same tax rate that I have to pay? How dare they!

Effective tax rate is not equal to top tax bracket.

😕

Someone with taxable income of $336,550 or more pays $97,653 + 35% over $336,550.

This gives us a formula of:

T(t) = $97,653 + 0.35(t-$336,550)

So assuming t = $336,550, T = $97,653, i.e., an effective rate of

$97,653 / $336,550 ~ 29%

Assuming t approaches infinity,

T/t = 0.35

 

[ProfJohn]

For those of you saying we can stop spending money on the war and instead spend it on this remember that the war will eventually end, but a program like this will NEVER end. Unless you can find me one entitlement program that has gone away.

In fact once a program like this is in place they will seek ways to expand it to cover even more people. Plus once all these people who don?t have health care now get the ?free? healthcare from the government they will find all kinds of ways and excuses to visit the doctor driving up the cost of the program even more.
?Oh little Jimmy has a cough, I?ll take him to the doctor just to be sure everything is ok, after all it?s free?
And of course once the doctor prescribes her a cough medicine there will be an outcry that people need an RX plan now since they can?t afford the drugs they need to live.

And then let us not forget that these types of budget projections are pie in the sky projections. Remember Bush?s Medicare RX program that was going to cost $534 billion over 10 years? oh wait it?s going to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years? wow, only a 50% increase in cost. By 2015 it will cost over $100 billion a year to provide drug coverage to ONLY 41 million seniors.

Right now Medicare and Medicaid suck up nearly $500 billion a YEAR!!! Medicare alone was over $250 billion in 2004 and it only covered 41 million people.
And once we have this great ?free? government healthcare system companies will drop their medical coverage for lower income employees and send them into the new government program. Again causing costs of rise.

All this is just typical liberal promises. We will give you everything, and you won?t have to pay a penny. We can make the ?rich? pay for it all.

BTW: Let?s keep track of how many other programs we can pay for using the money we get from raising taxes on the top 5%.

 

[Strk]

At least he is being honest about it. I don't necessarily agree with his policy, but it's nice to see them say how he plans to do it. It beats hearing "conservatives" make their arguments, then spend, spend and spend some more.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209
😕

Someone with taxable income of $336,550 or more pays $97,653 + 35% over $336,550.

This gives us a formula of:

T(t) = $97,653 + 0.35(t-$336,550)

So assuming t = $336,550, T = $97,653, i.e., an effective rate of

$97,653 / $336,550 ~ 29%

Assuming t approaches infinity,

T/t = 0.35

I am not sure what you trying to show/prove.

But just go here link
and go to table 8 and there you get average tax rate. This is the percent of your money that you actually pay the government.
Now while your tax bracket may be 20% after all your deductions you may only be paying 15%.
Get it?
2004 top 1% paid 23% of their income in taxes
top 5% paid 20%

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Right now this group makes (2004) $2.299 tillion in total income and is taxed at an average rate of 20%.
To pay for this wonderful John Edwards plan we would have to raise their effective average tax rate to 25%!!!! That is WAY beyond what the Bush tax cut amounted too.

What? You mean they have to pay the same tax rate that I have to pay? How dare they!

Effective tax rate is not equal to top tax bracket.

😕

Someone with taxable income of $336,550 or more pays $97,653 + 35% over $336,550.

This gives us a formula of:

T(t) = $97,653 + 0.35(t-$336,550)

So assuming t = $336,550, T = $97,653, i.e., an effective rate of

$97,653 / $336,550 ~ 29%

Assuming t approaches infinity,

T/t = 0.35

eh

$188,451 - $336,550 = 33%
>$336,550 = 35%

This is EARNED INCOME. Not sure where you got your figures, but the top end of the 28% bracket ends at $188,450....

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what you trying to show/prove.

But just go here link
and go to table 8 and there you get average tax rate. This is the percent of your money that you actually pay the government.
Now while your tax bracket may be 20% after all your deductions you may only be paying 15%.
Get it?
2004 top 1% paid 23% of their income in taxes
top 5% paid 20%

I'm trying to figure out how he's coming up with his numbers.

When you average numbers, the average number is never smaller than the smallest number being averaged. That is pretty obvious.

Now looking at the tax rate schedule for 2004: link to pdf

According to your link:

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $328,049) earned approximately 19 percent of the nation?s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 36.9 percent of all federal income taxes.

This puts top 1% into the top tax bracket. Since we don't know the breakdown of how many people filed single, married filing jointly, etc., we should assume every filed in such a way that minimizes the amount of taxes paid. Whether they actually did or didn't or how much they actually made is irrelevant as we're only finding what the minimum should be.

From the tax rate schedule:
Single filers paid at least: 92,592.50 / 319,100 ~ 29%
Married filing jointly paid at least: 86,328.00 / 319,100 ~ 27%
Married filing separately paid at least: 43,164.00 / 159,550 ~ 27%
Head of Household paid at least: 89,753.00 / 319,100 ~ 28%

Therefore, the average tax rate for the top 1% should be at least 27%.

I'm wondering how they came up with 23%. 😕

 

[pauldovi]

Now I don't know that much about taxes (I don't pay them yet). However, I do know this:

A capitalistic society (The one the Founding Fathers created) rewards hard workers and punishes those who are lazy. A capitalistic society brings out the best of people, because they have a motivation to be the best. The downside to our society is that those who are lazy suffer. And there must be poor people in a capitalistic society. It is a fact.

So lets touchdown with reality.

What happens if you start feeding an animal? It stops finding it owns food and just comes to you for it.

Guess what guys. If you give the poor everything they need, they are not going to get any better. They are just going to suck it down and ask for more.

I don't know why everyone hates the rich so much. Are you envious of their success? Get over it. Maybe if you worked a little harder you would have as much money as they do.

The governments job is not to provide for you.

I find it really hard for me to write down what I think on this topic. See, to me, the facts are overwhelming. They are just so clear to me, I find myself having trouble explaining them.

Amazing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds good to me. People making over 200K aren't even paying payroll taxes onLet every person pay anextra half of their income, so they are in good shape to pay more income taxes.

Let every person pay 25% more tax on their income. - Put in place a national sales tax to fund it.

Yeah let's tax the one thing driving our economy, consumer spending, at 25% :roll:
Got any other ideas for destroying this country?

And the "wealthy" do not spend.

You want to penalize people, then let everyone feel the pain, why select a special group.

If you want to spend the $$ to help the people, then let the people that it will help participate in the costs. They then may have a little more concern in what a handout is.

Otherwise you are just playing robin hood and pulling a socialism end around.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209
I'm wondering how they came up with 23%. 😕

Go to the link I posted.
It shows that the top 5% made 2.2 trillion in 2004.
And they paid $475 billion taxes.

That means their 'real' tax rate was just over 20% of their income.

Now they may fall into the 29% or 33% bracket, or whatever it is. But that is the tax rate after all their deduction.
So let's say a guy makes $100,000
You would think he has to pay $33,000 the top rate of 33% (what is the correct top rate nowdays? 29%?)
But instead he only pays $20,000.
That means he has $13,00 worth of deductions.

Make sense?

The effective rate (called average rate on that chart) is the rate that people actually pay. For instance the bottom 50% pay like 3% as an average rate. But there is no such thing as a 3% rate. It is that after all their deductions that is all the income they have left to pay taxes. (In reality many of the bottom 50% pay no taxes, or even get money back from the government giving them a negative tax rate)

We could make all of this a lit simpler by throwing away the current system and going to a progressive flat tax system.
With rates ranging from 5% to 25% depending on income and all that. And people below a certain rate pay no taxes at all.
Get the same amount of money, but no IRS system to deal with, and a LOT harder for the 'rich' to hide money through deductions.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: pauldovi
The governments job is not to provide for you.

What about federal grants like the Pell Grant or subsidizing student loans?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I think every time ProfJohn posts about how the Dems want to increase taxes and spending he should have to reasonably justify the trillions spent in Iraq over the past 4 years. Sound good? I'm really sick of him criticizing spending that will help millions of americans while he sits there and is fine with / oblivious to the spending that is killing americans and lining corporations' pockets.

couldnt have said it better.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I think every time ProfJohn posts about how the Dems want to increase taxes and spending he should have to reasonably justify the trillions spent in Iraq over the past 4 years. Sound good? I'm really sick of him criticizing spending that will help millions of americans while he sits there and is fine with / oblivious to the spending that is killing americans and lining corporations' pockets.

couldnt have said it better.

If P&N had a working search system you would find that I have complained about Bush and his spending time and time again.

Take away the Iraq war and to much spending and Bush would be a very successful President.

Also, as I said before the difference between a $100 billion a year on Iraq and $100 billion on this health care program is that eventually the war will be over. This health care program will NEVER end, it will only grow and grow like every other entitlement.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yeah.. tax and then use the money for something instead of using money you don't have and cutting taxes while increasing the deficit to new levels...

And whatre you worrying about Edwards for? He has NO power.... Stop going apesht over EVERY SINGLE THING that NO CONSEQUENCE democrats say.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you saying we can stop spending money on the war and instead spend it on this remember that the war will eventually end, but a program like this will NEVER end. Unless you can find me one entitlement program that has gone away.

Your short sighted, narrow assumption misses a lot of reality. One of the costs of this misbegotten war of lies you've ignored is the long term costs once it's over. For example, in a paper presented, last month, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes presented a paper at a meeting of social scientists about the cost of treating injured soldiers. This paragraph from the abstract from her paper should give you some figures to think about:

This paper analyzes the long-term needs of veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and the budgetary and structural consequences of these needs. The paper uses data from government sources, such as the Veterans Benefit Administration Annual Report. The main conclusions of the analysis are that: (a) the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is already overwhelmed by the volume of returning veterans and the seriousness of their health care needs, and it will not be able to provide a high quality of care in a timely fashion to the large wave of returning war veterans without greater funding and increased capacity in areas such as psychiatric care; (b) the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is in need of structural reforms in order to deal with the high volume of pending claims; the current claims process is unable to handle even the current volume and completely inadequate to cope with the high demand of returning war veterans; and (c) the budgetary costs of providing disability compensation benefits and medical care to the veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of their lives will be from $350 - $700 Billion, depending on the length of deployment of US soldiers, the speed with which they claim disability benefits and the growth rate of benefits and health care inflation. Key recommendations include: increase staffing and funding for veterans medical care particularly for mental health treatment; expand staffing and funding for the ?Vet Centers,? and restructure the benefits claim process at the Veterans Benefit Administration.

That's a half trillion dollars or more we'll be paying to care for the American casualties from the Bushwhackos' folly.

And that's before you count all the lost productivity from all those dead and wounded. 🙁

When are you going to wake up, smell the coffee and figure out that you're backing a gang of criminal losers? :roll:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I think every time ProfJohn posts about how the Dems want to increase taxes and spending he should have to reasonably justify the trillions spent in Iraq over the past 4 years. Sound good? I'm really sick of him criticizing spending that will help millions of americans while he sits there and is fine with / oblivious to the spending that is killing americans and lining corporations' pockets.

couldnt have said it better.

If P&N had a working search system you would find that I have complained about Bush and his spending time and time again.

Take away the Iraq war and to much spending and Bush would be a very successful President.

Also, as I said before the difference between a $100 billion a year on Iraq and $100 billion on this health care program is that eventually the war will be over. This health care program will NEVER end, it will only grow and grow like every other entitlement.

Well, yeah, but those are the major problems with him -- making him quite bad. You can use that on pretty much any president. Hell, you can use that exact phrase with LBJ (who, when you think about it, is freakishly close to Bush in overall policies)

 

[totalcommand]

Hey ProfJohn, where does he say that he'll solely use tax increases to pay for the healthcare?

I think ending the war in Iraq will save us well over 100billion a year by itself.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Canada has a public system and my company still gives me healthcare coverage over and above the public system.

Part of the rich and yet still complaining. Hmmmmmmm.

I complain because I know our system can be much better than it is...just like you.
I'm not alone, the number one campaign issue for Canadians is healthcare; ~50% of Canadians rank this at the top of their list time after time. Every election cycle, more money is thrown at the problem and the same problems exist.

In fact, 45% of Conservative voters in Canada rank healthcare as their number one issue.

Excuse me.

Do you have the majority of your citizenry with no health care like the U.S.?

Every Canadain has health care, there is no problem.

Only whiners that don't realize how good they have.

Try coming down here and having no insurance.

 

[Aimster]

Many people say Edwards lost because of his wealth and how he obtained it.

I see by him going after his very own (rich) that he might win some new votes.

- So now maybe he will win his home state?