How much more of your income do you think should go to social programs?

[AreaCode707]

For those of you who would answer, "LESS!" enjoy reading the other answers in the thread; the question isn't for you.

For those of you that want to see an increase in social programs, health care for kids for example, how much more of your income do you think should be put towards that?

Do you already contribute that additional portion of your income to those causes? If not, why not?

I recognize that a lot of the answers will probably be, "these programs shouldn't be supported using more of MY income, but should be using more of the top tax bracket income." However, I could be wrong in my expectation for that and I'd be pleasantly surprised to find out if I was. I have a perception that many of the people who want these types of programs only want them so long as they don't have to pay for them personally. If I'm wrong, help change my perception; I'm open to the change.

 

[bamacre]

Yeah, I don't understand why someone wants higher taxes, just donate that portion of your income to private charities and/or the treasury.

 

[sandorski]

The question assumes that money given Charities/Orgs would equal the money given to Government for these causes. It would not, it would be Less. Take Health Care for eg, the amount of Taxes spent on it would (assuming similar results to other Public systems) be Less than what those people with Health Insurance currently Pay and it would cover 40+ millions more people. Higher Taxes in this case means Lower Expenditures, thus Saving the Tax Payer money and solving the huge issue of uncovered people.

What's not to like about that.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The question assumes that money given Charities/Orgs would equal the money given to Government for these causes. It would not, it would be Less. Take Health Care for eg, the amount of Taxes spent on it would (assuming similar results to other Public systems) be Less than what those people with Health Insurance currently Pay and it would cover 40+ millions more people. Higher Taxes in this case means Lower Expenditures, thus Saving the Tax Payer money and solving the huge issue of uncovered people.

What's not to like about that.

You didnt answer the question:



Topic: How much more of your income do you think should go to social programs?

 

[mugs]

Ever consider that maybe people don't want more of their income to be taken to pay for social programs? Maybe they want money to be spent on social programs instead of something else, like the hundreds of billions we spend on the military.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The question assumes that money given Charities/Orgs would equal the money given to Government for these causes. It would not, it would be Less. Take Health Care for eg, the amount of Taxes spent on it would (assuming similar results to other Public systems) be Less than what those people with Health Insurance currently Pay and it would cover 40+ millions more people. Higher Taxes in this case means Lower Expenditures, thus Saving the Tax Payer money and solving the huge issue of uncovered people.

What's not to like about that.

Fair enough. I won't try to craft a perfect scenario to answer your question because assuming real-world conditions introduces a complex set of problems, and assuming hypothetical tax-free conditions renders the intent of the original question moot.

Let's just talk about the difference in your take home pay now versus what you consider to be your appropriate take home pay with additional social programs in place. What is your before and after?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: mugs
Ever consider that maybe people don't want more of their income to be taken to pay for social programs? Maybe they want money to be spent on social programs instead of something else, like the hundreds of billions we spend on the military.

Mm, very good point, and good answer to my question. Does that mean that you do not think social programs are worth any additional dollars from your income on top of the expenditures already going to other sources?

I don't have any stats readily at hand on what percentage of tax income is spent on military expenses; do you? Assuming that was applied to social programs, do you think additional money to support those programs would be needed? How much of your income would be an appropriate addition from your perspective?

I realize I'm asking a bunch of hypothetical questions there that don't have any solid numbers behind them, making it a very weak question. If you have any data to shore it up or tear it down, I'd welcome it.

 

[theeedude]

I would be willing to pay 10% more in federal taxes for universal health care. A lot of that would be offset by employers having reduced benefit costs and being more profitable resulting in better pay long term, and also reduction in state/local taxes due to reduced costs to the states.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would be willing to pay 10% more in federal taxes for universal health care. A lot of that would be offset by employers having reduced benefit costs and being more profitable resulting in better pay long term, and also reduction in state/local taxes due to reduced costs to the states.

Thankfully HRC wasnt elected, so we dont have to worry about that.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would be willing to pay 10% more in federal taxes for universal health care. A lot of that would be offset by employers having reduced benefit costs and being more profitable resulting in better pay long term, and also reduction in state/local taxes due to reduced costs to the states.

Thanks for a succinct and clear answer. Would you be willing to give an idea of what your current tax percentage is, just for reference? If not, that's fine.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would be willing to pay 10% more in federal taxes for universal health care. A lot of that would be offset by employers having reduced benefit costs and being more profitable resulting in better pay long term, and also reduction in state/local taxes due to reduced costs to the states.

The problem it will take a lot more than 10% of taxes of those who actually pay them. Half the population would not pay a dime towards UHC the burden would fall on the rest of us. A starting point would probably be 20% for those who actually pay income taxes. A 20% tax would just destroy what is left of the middle class. It would make big business happy as they could pocket the money and blame the economy for the next decade to why wages not going up.

This government spends to much right now on social programs. We need to scale back all government spending before it is to late.

 

[fskimospy]

I also would be willing to pay 10% (or more) for a UHC system in this country. I am also for increased spending on other social programs, and one of the primary places I would find that would be by gutting the DoD budget. Currently we spend about 30% of all taxes on defense and homeland security, some $800 billion a year all told. I would consider additional taxes in the future for expansions of higher education for more people, things like that, but we have a ridiculous amount of good cash being soaked up by the DoD right now that could be put to much better use first.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: mugs
Ever consider that maybe people don't want more of their income to be taken to pay for social programs? Maybe they want money to be spent on social programs instead of something else, like the hundreds of billions we spend on the military.

Good post. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, they just approved yet another US military base in Italy to add to the list of 800+ US military installations around the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would be willing to pay 10% more in federal taxes for universal health care. A lot of that would be offset by employers having reduced benefit costs and being more profitable resulting in better pay long term, and also reduction in state/local taxes due to reduced costs to the states.

The problem it will take a lot more than 10% of taxes of those who actually pay them. Half the population would not pay a dime towards UHC the burden would fall on the rest of us. A starting point would probably be 20% for those who actually pay income taxes. A 20% tax would just destroy what is left of the middle class. It would make big business happy as they could pocket the money and blame the economy for the next decade to why wages not going up.

This government spends to much right now on social programs. We need to scale back all government spending before it is to late.

Stop making shit up. UHC would not destroy the middle class, it would not be paid for entirely through some income tax, and if the businesses are just going to pocket the savings then that's an easy pool of tax revenues that we can use to pay for UHC. I mean, considering how UHC is massively more efficient than the system we use now, and how businesses were just going to keep it and screw over the middle class anyway, we could fund it entirely through an increased business tax. How about that quest?

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would be willing to pay 10% more in federal taxes for universal health care. A lot of that would be offset by employers having reduced benefit costs and being more profitable resulting in better pay long term, and also reduction in state/local taxes due to reduced costs to the states.

The problem it will take a lot more than 10% of taxes of those who actually pay them. Half the population would not pay a dime towards UHC the burden would fall on the rest of us. A starting point would probably be 20% for those who actually pay income taxes. A 20% tax would just destroy what is left of the middle class. It would make big business happy as they could pocket the money and blame the economy for the next decade to why wages not going up.

This government spends to much right now on social programs. We need to scale back all government spending before it is to late.

Stop making shit up. UHC would not destroy the middle class, it would not be paid for entirely through some income tax, and if the businesses are just going to pocket the savings then that's an easy pool of tax revenues that we can use to pay for UHC. I mean, considering how UHC is massively more efficient than the system we use now, and how businesses were just going to keep it and screw over the middle class anyway, we could fund it entirely through an increased business tax. How about that quest?

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

Medicare and its what 60 billion a year in fraud it losses? If the shitty medicare system is your proof of how great government healthcare is then I can only laugh.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

Medicare and its what 60 billion a year in fraud it losses? If the shitty medicare system is your proof of how great government healthcare is then I can only laugh.

How about VA?

 

[Modelworks]

I think we need to do more enforcement on how the actual money is being spent.
I have a cousin that works for DSS. She says that while their are a lot of children that get medicaid, they don't use it. Most of the parents of these families only bring their kids to the doctor if something is wrong. They are from the generation that if it doesn't hurt then nothing is wrong. So things like vision , dental, physical illness are not treated until it becomes a problem. Those conditions cost much more to correct than preventative medicine would have cost. Currently there is no law in the state saying if you get medicaid you have to have regular checkups. A child can go 10 years and never see a doctor unless they are hurt. I think requiring kids to see a doctor on a regular basis in order to receive medicaid would go a long way.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

Medicare and its what 60 billion a year in fraud it losses? If the shitty medicare system is your proof of how great government healthcare is then I can only laugh.

This is like the war of the black guy avatars. One of you guys needs to change your avatar so I can follow who's posting what!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

Medicare and its what 60 billion a year in fraud it losses? If the shitty medicare system is your proof of how great government healthcare is then I can only laugh.

You do realize that even if that number is taken as fact (and it's highly disputed), that would mean about an 8% yearly loss on fraud. That's certainly far too high, but when you take into account medicare's vastly lower expenditures on administration (about 5% as compared to 17%), it's STILL more efficient than HMO's.

So even in your worst case scenario, it's still better. Still laughing?

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

Medicare and its what 60 billion a year in fraud it losses? If the shitty medicare system is your proof of how great government healthcare is then I can only laugh.

You do realize that even if that number is taken as fact (and it's highly disputed), that would mean about an 8% yearly loss on fraud. That's certainly far too high, but when you take into account medicare's vastly lower expenditures on administration (about 5% as compared to 17%), it's STILL more efficient than HMO's.

So even in your worst case scenario, it's still better. Still laughing?

If the fraud is that high with a limited number of patients that number will only skyrocket adding the rest of the citizens and illegals. I can only imagine how high fraud would get if you add few hundred million people to the plan.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Except big business will have a ton of losses to write off for a very long time. They can take that money and laugh all the way to the bank while the middle class is forced to pay for the health care of all.

Like this corrupt government is ever efficient. The public school system is proof of that. I and millions of middle class people will pay more for less. Rationing boards will deem who is worthy and not worthy of care.

I would be willing to pay twice of what I pay now for health care for UHC or about 0.5% of my salary.

How is the middle class forced to pay for anything? Since there is no plan for UHC on the table we can structure it any way we want. You seem to think that businesses won't pass on the savings from UHC to their employees, so if that's the case we can just replace their current health care contributions, etc. with taxes. Shouldn't that take care of your complaint?

As for your ideas that government can't run anything efficiently, medicare itself is considerably more efficient than its private counterparts, and every other nation on earth with a UHC system runs theirs at anywhere from about 50%-80% the cost per capita of ours. Massively more efficient.

Your complaints are simply ideological in nature, and so you search for reasons to justify the position you already hold as opposed to a sober judgment on the merits. Sure UHC has problems, but they are problems the rest of the world has been able to deal with and I certainly don't think that they are beyond our capacity.

Medicare and its what 60 billion a year in fraud it losses? If the shitty medicare system is your proof of how great government healthcare is then I can only laugh.

To play devil's advocate here, much of that fraud is committed by the (insurance and otherwise) companies that provide healthcare. If you had a national health service type of UHC, you cut that overhead out completely. You would only be left with medical supplies and pharmaceuticals. Allowing the gvt to negotiate with these companies would further reduce costs there, too. Considering the amount of bloat that the private system we have now includes, it is no wonder those kind of fraud rates exist. The problem with your argument is that Medicare is forced to go through this bloated, corrupt, and inefficient system to provide service, which is one of the things that UHC (in many forms) is aiming to remedy. Apples and oranges.

 

[MovingTarget]

Back to the original topic, I would support up to 10% for an UHC system and more educational opportunity for all. Of course, like many have said, we could cut down a whole lot of other spending to do this without taxing ourselves any more. Whatever happened to that 'peace dividend' that we heard about post WW2 and post cold war? That could've gone a long way in both those areas.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Back to the original topic, I would support up to 10% for an UHC system and more educational opportunity for all. Of course, like many have said, we could cut down a whole lot of other spending to do this without taxing ourselves any more. Whatever happened to that 'peace dividend' that we heard about post WW2 and post cold war? That could've gone a long way in both those areas.

We can have both the Great Society and the War in Vietnam. - Lyndon Johnson