The Senate bill is mostly funded by the tax on health plans. $149 Billion vs. $54B from rich people.

[dkf]

Seeing that 1/5 of households earning $50,000 to $75,000 will be paying this tax, this is really a transfer of funds from the middle class to the lower-middle class, not very progressive if you ask me.

31,000,000 workers will be hit with this tax. My guess is the union workers will be footing a whole lot of this bill.

The Senate actually think employers will cut health care benefits and increase your salary. BWAHAHAHHAHA. And banks will start loaning to small business to grow this economy too. NOT.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/28/819878/-Health-Care-By-The-Numbers

[n2doc]

1. This really is political suicide.

The group being targeted are a major voting group, more so than those at the poverty level that are going to be helped by this. And they are not going to be happy with the Democrats when their health care costs skyrocket. And their plans shift to high deductible "income mining" ones.

They are already pushing the high deductible plans to state employees here in Georgia. The wave of the future- pay for "insurance" that only kicks in after your savings are drained.

[Faryn Balyncd]

63. If the Senate bill passes this will END the Democratic majority, plain & simple......

The GOP demagogues have won elections on nothing more than lies, hate, and fear.

Now the Democratic Senate is determined to screw the middle class and let the GOP have the best campaign issue they have ever had - - - which, if the Senate bill passes, will confirm all the stereotypes the GOP has tried to portray the Democratic Party as representing for years.

[vi5]

2. This is going to be very bad for me....

...because I have very good insurance through work which will be impacted by this, and also because I have a very sick son who needs a lot of medical attention and procedures each year, none of which are reckless or needless or gratuitous, but which now are going to cost my family a great deal more money out of pocket.

But make no mistake about it, if this were being leveled at me and it meant it was funding or helping to have a a robust public option or switch to single payer or medicare expansion and really good insurance options for a lot of people who don't currently have it and lower costs/competition for the private insurers I would be very happy about it and wouldn't complain a single bit and would gladly take that hit for the greater good. I always assumed and hoped that would be part of the deal.

But to bet hit with this, only to have the "reform" that we got from this and with all the loopholes and problems and industry giveaways and all that? No thanks.

[inna]

3. The harm this bill will do thanks to the excise tax on employer-provided insurance benefits is enorm

The Senate Bill Is Designed To Make Your Health Insurance Worse

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7338574&mesg_id=7339021

The sole defense of this massive corporate giveaway, formally known as the Senate health care reform bill, is that it would still do some “good,” helping millions of the uninsured. Unfortunately, the bill would dramatically worsen the quality of current insurance coverage for tens of millions Americans, thanks to the new excise tax on insurance plans. It is unlikely that any of the remaining “good” in this bill will outweigh the massive amount of harm.

The harm this bill will do thanks to the excise tax on employer-provided insurance benefits is enormous. The health care bill is designed with the goal of making millions of middle class Americans’ health insurance coverage much worse. That is not a bug, it is a feature.

The excise tax is meant to force your employer to cut back your insurance benefits, reduce your coverage, and increase your co-pays and deductibles. This is not the conclusion of partisan think tanks, bloggers, or activists, this is the conclusion of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They CBO concluded:

-snip-

To translate, they both conclude the tax will effectively force employers to scale back the health insurance benefits they offer in order to avoid the excise tax. This can be done by reducing what benefits the plan covers and/or increasing cost sharing (i.e. higher co-pays, higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket limits, and possibly lower annual limits). If you have a good employer provided health insurance plan, it will be dramatically scaled back. Contrary to Obama’s direct promise, you will not be able to keep the coverage you currently have, and that is by design.

The real problem with this excise tax on what are dubbed “Cadillac” plans is that it is not indexed to health care inflation. In the first few years, it will only affect high-end plans, but, after a decade, it would force employers to make the vast majority of employer-provided health insurance plans much worse. A decade after reform starts most Americans will have much worse health insurance coverage as a result.

Instead of paying for reform with a tax on the richest one percent of Americans, like the House bill, the Senate bill pays for reform by worsening the insurance coverage for the vast majority of Americans. Ruining the coverage of most working class Americans to get the money for a huge corporate boondoggle that will only enrich the insurance companies while not stopping medical bankruptcy in this country does not sound like a good trade.

[amborin]

4. +1000

[dkf]

5. It figures this is the key piece "moderates" won't give up.

I shake my head.

[IndianaGreen]

21. so we should never cast a vote for any of those 'moderates'

who are really Reaganites with a D after their names.

[slipslidingaway]

74. kick nt

[senseandsensibility]

6. kick

This is unacceptable.

[Meshuga]

7. I am not one of those "kill the bill" or "public option or else" type of person

But I just wrote to my representative, Chris Van Hollen, here in Maryland (suburban DC) saying that I expect him to fight against this burden on the middle class or he will lose my support. Why should I go out to vote, volunteer, and donate money to a party that votes against my own interest and work in favor of the health insurance industry?

I consider myself a progressive Democrat and this is my attitude. So I wonder what middle class independents will have to say once this health care "reform" bill affects their existing coverage and premiums. It's going to be ugly.

[pundaint]

43. Does that mean you like the bill or that you are just easy?

I'm not a "kill the bill" type of person either, but I judge this bill to be a real step backwards, further institutionalizing the worst parts of the American healthcare delivery approach, costing way too much money, and leaving too many uncovered, with no incentive for insurers to try to attenuate costs, as their cut is on the total medical spending - whatever it is or grows to. And since I'm not easy, I want the bill killed.

[karynnj]

8. The vast majority of the excise tax would be on plans for the wealthy

The fact is that the top union plans are NOT NOW above $23,000. That means they are not taxed at all - the tax would be from the executive plans. The argument is that as the costs of plans continue to rise, they will be above it. Here, they are not considering that as over 90% of people will be insured, the loaded cost on all plans to cover the uninsured will decline. This and the other cost containment features may mean that the union plans' costs could never excede the limit.

No household pays that tax, the purchasor of the insurance does. I question in what year they expect that 1/5 of those households with $50,000 to $75,000 income will have plans worth more than $23,000. (Consider that a high % of households in that range are dual incomes - do you really think that employers would pay over half the salary for insurance?

[levander]

9. What they say in the article contradicts you

From the article linked to in the OP:

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

[Big_Mike]

30. And do not forget that a MAJOR part of this "reform" is that

the government dictates what is and is not covered by the insurers.

Only plans that meet the guidelines set forth in the upcoming governmental regulations may be offered to the public.

Let that settle for a minute or two.

This piece of garbage needs to be eradicated, a new bill written that actually does something positive for both the country and the individual.

What that may be, I do not really know. Mirror the military system or the VA would be my minimal suggestion.

But this creature must never be born nor should it ever be borne.

[Telly Savalas]

11. If almost nobody is impacted by the tax, how will it raise revenue?

[levander]

10. I'm for this tax...

Look, up to what Congress determines to be a "high premium policy", employers aren't paying taxes at all on any of that money. They're getting a tax break. Much more of a tax break than I would get for this. That means I'm subsidizing these people's health care via the tax system. Why should I subsidize their health care any more than they subsidize mine?

I'd be fine with it if the tax breaks were based on income. Where the less money you have, the more you get from the government (within reason of course). But, why should I have to subsidize these people's extravagant health care policies, regardless of how much they make?

[MadHound]

12. First of all, you're not having to subsidize these plans.

Second of all, a lot of these plans aren't as "extravagant" as you think. They are health care plans that are quite decent, ones that everybody should have, but they certainly aren't extravagant. Third, in the case of teachers and other such low paid professions, these plans are the part of their compensation that makes up for the crappy pay we get. Why do you want to punish these people, they are far from rich and the taxes that they have to pay on this are really going to be a burden. Fourth, this is another shot that the government is taking at the unions, since the vast majority of plans are ones that the unions fought long and hard to get. Why are you against the unions? Fifth, this is going to dramatically impact the middle class, making a certain percentage of them into the poor class. What, are you one of those leveler types who believes that everybody should be at the same, equal level of misery? Sorry, but that's not the real world. Sixth, why not simply tax the rich, who haven't been paying their fair share for decades now? It would make much more sense to tax them at a higher rate, a little socioeconomic justice.

Sorry, but your ideas on this issue are all bad.

[karynnj]

16. Levander is right

if he/she pays for her/his own insurance. The fact is that currently the employer takes the cost of this as a tax deduction and the recipient pays nothing.

In addition, can you point to a plan that teachers have anywhere that is currently above $23,000? Or any union for that matter? When the idea was first out, with a threshold of $25,000 - that the unions agreed not to fight - the media spoke of it hurting the unions, but none found an example near $25,000. The closest was either Time or Newsweek which spoke of a plan slightly over $20,000. The plans this primarily targets are the $40,000 plus plans of executives.

The analysis showing teachers etc affected by 2016 assumes costs rise as they have in the past. With near universal coverage, the embedded cost of paying hospital costs for the uninsured (about $1,600 per policy) should be greatly lowered. If, the costs raise as predicted, that threshold can be changed via reconciliation as it would be budget related.

The reason it not the tax on the wealthy is in the Senate bill is because there were conservative Democrats who had already ruled that out. We needed every Democrat on this - that is just fact. The fact is that Bill Bradley, who was a liberal, was the first to introduce this and at the current time and current costs, it does not affect union plans.

[levander]

26. karynn, see post #9 in this thread...

I can't verify the accuracy of the quote I put in there, but it disagrees with you that this isn't a tax on the middle class.

[karynnj]

31. I saw that and I have seen that there is near universal union opposition

I think that the unions are being used here. I have searched many times and I have yet to find any example of a union plan that will be affected now. There argument, and the one in the op, is based on analysis that one union site sourced to Mercer Consulting. (http://www.usw.org/media_center/news_articles?id=0464) The numbers from that analysis seem to be the basis for this.

The question I have is how they modeled the likely price increases in the plans. I have not been able to find anything online about their assumptions. The assumptions used, given the enormous changes to healthcare, are important. If they simply used the historical series to compute the annual increases, they are ignoring the likely decrease caused by removing most of the cost in every policy that pays for the uninsured.

Now, I can see why the unions are taking a stand. They likely fear that the threshold can be lowered once it is in there and they know the Republicans want it at zero. But the limit now apparently does not affect them. The affect though is that it would put a ceiling on the total amount for a policy - $23,000. This is nearly twice the cost of the average plan.

[levander]

35. As to price increases...

If they simply used the historical series to compute the annual increases, they are ignoring the likely decrease caused by removing most of the cost in every policy that pays for the uninsured.

Did you see the letter the CBO wrote to Evan Bayh? Their estimate was that for most people, premiums would remain the same. There'd be a small percentage, like 10-15 million Americans in the individual insurance market (one of which being me ;( ) who would see a 10-15% increase in their premiums. Now, there are income-based subsidies in the bill which make insurance more affordable. But, subsidies don't reduce the actual cost of the insurance, they just shift the cost to rich people. Which isn't a bad thing, it's just that it doesn't reduce cost.

You saw some of the fruckus over the Center for Medicare Services report? It was in there that the Reid bill actually makes costs for health care go up faster.

You've seen those charts that compare how much the US spends on health care vs. how much other countries spend? And, our costs are only spiraling upwards. To me, that's why the health care problem in the U.S. doesn't just affect the uninsured, it affects everyone. This bill helps with the 2nd most important problem by getting 30 of the 40 million uninsured insurance. But, it makes the main problem, cost, worse. And, that's why I hate this bill. Even though by the positioning of all political actors of significance, it looks like it's gonna pass, I just find it hard to believe it will. It just seems too surreal.

[dkf]

62. My employer gives me health credits which i use to pay for my insurance. These credits ARE TAXED

So i get personally taxed on the amount my employer pays for my health insurance. I'm not sure how many employers do this but you may be all wrong in your assumptions.

[levander]

27. This is how I'm figuring I'm subsidizing these plans...

We all put money into a pot. But, you put lesser percentage of your income than I because you have better health insurance than I do. So, I'm paying a larger percentage than I otherwise would. Why should I have to pay more because you have better health insurance?

As for these union health plans not being extravagant... I've had a union health plan, then I lost that job and went and created my own little business and had to go on an individual plan. Good lord the difference! I don't even have chiropractic coverage now. I had to go to the chiropractor last year and paid out of pocket, even though I had insurance and didn't know it wasn't covered till after I had already received some treatment. It's possible you're plan as a teacher isn't that extravagant (even if it does have chiropractic coverage), but then you're plan wouldn't be hit by this new tax anyway.

As for making up for crappy pay, have you considered the idea of encouraging your union to bargain based on the idea that you'll give up the lavish health insurance because of the new taxes in favor of other benefits? Even if that doesn't work, I still don't see why I should subsidize your health insurance just because you have better coverage than I. It was an unfair rule to being with that the unions took advantage of. I don't have any problem with that. They were just playing by the rules. But, to hold us all captive to these old rules because you benefit from them, it's no different than all the rest of the disgusting special interest work that has weakened this bill so severely.

The rest of your post, that I want to punish the unions, it will send them into being poor, it's all inane. You're just started ranting about anything later in the post.

[freddie mertz]

14. Then you should have voted for McCain, It's HIS plan.

Obama opposed this tax in the campaign and in the debates.

Then he "changed his mind."

A change we were not asked to believe in.

[karynnj]

17. NO IT ISN'T McCain's plan

McCain's plan removed the tax credit at dollar one, not at $23,000. Even plans from major companies like AT&T, which had great insurance, did not hit this level.

Obama campaigned against a change that would have affected EVERY person who has employer paid insurance.

[levander]

25. McCain's plan was ridiculous...

It cost even more than Obama's. During the campaigns, the estimates were that Obama's was over a trillion, but McCain's was over 2 trillion. And despite McCain's plan being so much more expensive, it didn't even offer guaranteed issue. He wanted to throw those with pre-existing conditions in state high risk pools, where they pay twice as much for insurance and we still have to live with the threat of our insurance company finding a way to cancel our policy.

I basically think McCain didn't put much thought into his plan because health reform isn't as big a deal in the Republican party. But, due to public opinion of moderate Republicans and more importantly independents, he basically had to have SOMETHING. So, he threw together a plan who's main intent was to not touch any of the third rail issues involved in health care. I really think McCain's health care plan was just political cover.

I supported (and still do!) the Healthy Americans Act. It was written by the Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, had widespread bipartisan support, eliminated the employer health insurance tax exemption in favor of an individual tax break, covered 99% of the nation (the Reid bill is only talking about 94%), and got a good fiscal score from the CBO without a hundred revisions like the Reid bill. In fact, it saved so much money by eliminating the employer health insurance tax exemption that the bill was able to completely eliminate Medicaid plus S-CHIP and just give lower income peoples subsidies so they could go and buy their own insurance. Note that if Medicaid recipients start making more money later, they have to go back and repay to Medicaid what they would have charged them in premiums. Medicaid is a horrible program.

You can read about the Healthy Americans Act here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

[freddie mertz]

13. We must try to get some of this removed in reconciliation.

Or else face massive consequences down the line.

[cornermouse]

15. kick

[busymom]

18. Actually, it is progressive really...

Those who earn more/have more give a little more to help those who have less. The rich give proportionally more than those with less wealth, but there is no reason that a household earning 50-75,000/yr (which is more than our family earned for
years)shouldn't be taxed on this.

That is what being a progressive is all about!

[TheKentuckian]

19. What would be even more progressive is not taxing those that make under 250k as PROMISED

and not pissing off the unions who trade wages for those "excessive" benefits?

[busymom]

20. That is not progressive, that is

redistribution, which I, as a democrat, do not support. I believe in paying taxes to benefit the greater good of soceity and not on a free ride or having those with more pay for me. I am proud to be a progressive and a tax paying democrat.

[burning rain]

55. If you oppose redistribution of wealth....

do you propose abolishing Medicaid, food stamps, and cash assistance? Those three things are certainly redistribution of wealth. What you're on about, sounds like McCain's talking points from the presidential campaign, "redistributor-in-chief." It's a right-wing tactic, attacking the poor as lazy and immoral and trying to set those who are better-off against them on the basis of greed and bigotry.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. So you don't take any deductions or credits for your children? eom

[vadawg]

36. brav fucking O, i seem to remember that promise over and over again

now it seems that anyone earning between 50k and 80k and above is now the worthless rich in the eyes of some, well dont be surprised if those people vote with their pocketbook come november.. see thats the problem when you start attacking people for making over a certain amount of money the line at which your fair game tends to slip a lot lower than first thought..

[busymom]

39. Crack me UP

50-80K IS an good income. Many families earn much, much less.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the people earning 50-80 are going to vote with their pocketbooks come november, so will the people earning 100-150 and 200-250.

The thing is...when we tax at higher levels, ALL people being taxed can afford less...they buy fewer cars, less expensive homes, less furniture, computers... and they also stimulate the economy less!

People here go apeshit over the "rich" without thinking that HELLO...in the eyes of some poor workers scraping by on minimum wage and working 60 hours/week...THEY just might seem rich.

It is a progressive tax, people, which means that it will impact those of us in the middle class too.

Or...were you just hoping for a redistribution of wealth?

I, for one, don't take handouts from my neighbors!

[vadawg]

40. nope im just pointing out the fact that it looks like a major campaign promise is about to go

i seem to remember another president who paid for a campaign promise about taxes, be interesting to see just how much people think that anyone who makes more than they do should pay.

[busymom]

44. I know....

He campaigned on one thing and then did another...I guess at the end of the day, there is no such thing as real change when it comes to politics.

[vadawg]

45. yup well you live and you learn, will be interesting to see if there are any ads ala bush senior

and the no more taxes stuff...

[Hello_Kitty]

58. More excellent talking points from you.

You gonna take that act down to your local Dem office and make phone calls to independent voters selling this bill?

[busymom]

64. Well, Obama seems to be doing just that.

[spoony]

70. You've used that "redistribution of wealth" nonsense a few times now

And you're really beginning to sound like you fell out of the O'reilly Factor or something.

[mkultra]

72. then your a conservative

because taxation does not limit spending. Those dollars taxed are spent by the government just like dollars not taxed. Studies show that tax monies circulate even faster and further because they are spent before they are earned.


try reading a book that doesn't start with the letter B

[IndianaGreen]

22. Union workers gave up pay raises to keep health benefits

If Bush had pushed for this crap of HCR, you would all be screaming foul.

[levander]

23. Times change, it's not the 1950's any more...

You expect the world to stay stagnant because your union made a really good deal based on old rules.

Look, the companies who provide the lavish union health insurance policies aren't paying any taxes at all on them. And, many unions are getting much more extravagant health insurance than I. Which means that even though I make about what an average union employee makes, they're getting a bigger tax break than I. I end up paying more of a share of taxes because I'm basically subsidizing their health care.

Why should I subsidize that? Is there some national effort to encourage really expensive health care policies that I don't know about?

Look, I don't care how much health insurance unions get. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. But, the idea that unions should pay less taxes because they buy extravagant health care policies is silly. It's unfair. The entire employer health insurance tax exemption should be repealed and replaced with an individual one. That way, the tax breaks could be based on income and number of dependents, making it more targeted toward people who need the help. Not just subsidizing lavish union and executive health care policies.

Recognize what's fair for the country and move on.

Get your union to acknowledge the employers don't want to spend so much on health care because of new taxes, and try to give that up for other benefits.

Just stop trying to hold the country captive with out-dated policies because they benefit you.

Have you heard of all the damage the special interests have caused to this bill? It doesn't make your stomach turn? Unions arguing we have to keep subsidizing their health care is exactly the same thing these other special interests are doing to us.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Times change. Union workers will vote against those that raise their taxes

at a time when their incomes are going down.

[levander]

28. And, my next automobile is going to be foreign!

Demanding that the nation be shaped around old, unfair rules is just ridiculous. I'm kind of getting tired of my Mustang anyway. Have had my eyes on a Maxima for awhile! Maybe this political resentment is just what I need to pull the trigger...

[busymom]

32. Guess what!

Everyone's incomes are going down. My husband just took a 30% pay CUT and our healthcare benefits package just went up.

Everyone is hurting right now and for union workers to feel that they are somehow entitled to not have the same struggles as the rest of America is just ridiculous!

In America, we all should be chipping in for the greater good. To just tax the rich is stupid.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. WTF??

In America, we all should be chipping in for the greater good. To just tax the rich is stupid.

(facepalm)

:wow:

[inna]

66. facepalm indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7387970

[vadawg]

37. lol i hope you are willing to pay a lot more in taxes as well, or is it just people who make more

money than you who whould pay, it always seems to be only people who make more than the poster who should pay more....

[busymom]

46. I'm sure I'll have no choice...and it totally

sucks. Bush threw this country into a recession and now obama is also throwing bad money after good. I don't want my children to be heavily burdened by a weak economy and ridiulous debt. So yes, I will pony up...and no, I'm not happy about it. Think of the freaking awesome health care system we could have here for all of the money we have wasted in Iraq. It's a crying shame...and sadly, it has hurt every single american...not just the rich.

[spoony]

42. What rock flipped over and unleashed these union-hating numpties? nt

[busymom]

47. Union members

put out the vibe that they are special and are not subject to what the rest of us have to suffer through...which is increased costs, reduced benefits and pay cuts. I don't have a union to go to and neither does my husband. We can't go on strike, have a union involved in contract negotiations, etc. We are ... the rest of America...

[cornermouse]

49. If you don't have a union, whose fault is it?

Your thesis appears to be that union members should be dragged down to your level instead of you and your company being pulled up to union level wages and benefits. Dragging people and unions down is how we got here in the first place.

[busymom]

50. Your thesis

appears to be that union members deserve to be held to a different standard than other hard working people.

[cornermouse]

52. Your thesis appears to be "drag 'em down".

Is the democratic party going to become anti-union next?

[Hello_Kitty]

59. Apparently

Anti-union and anti-middle class.

[spoony]

67. Crap, someone took the corporate line, didn't they?

Instead of blaming the people with the money bags for mistreating non-union workers, you lash out at the unions. Seen it often, it's just what they want you to do, look at other workers as your enemies instead of organising yourselves. Sounds like you've been put through some training where they showed you an anti-union propaganda film or something.

[pundaint]

41. It sooooo depends on where you live. If an average residence is half a million

70K is nowhere near rich.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. Exactly. And people with higher incomes tend to live in higher cost areas

[boppers]

29. When did the rich become the middle class?

1/5th of wealthier-than-average households will be paying this tax.

Simple math: 75% of the US population makes less than $50,000.

By any reasonable estimate, the top 25% percent of *anything* is not the "middle".

The top 25% are the ones getting taxed, and not getting subsidies.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. When did $50K a year become rich?

There was a time when DUers made fun of people who made that much thinking they were in the top 1% of income earners and voting Republican because they thought they'd get tax breaks.

If 75% of Americans - some of the hardest and most productive workers in the world - are making less than $50K it's because Americans aren't being paid enough, not because $50K is a fortune.

Un-fucking-believable what has happened to this place. Next thing you know DUers are going to start agreeing with the idiots who think reducing the minimum wage will create jobs.

[vadawg]

38. you do realise that to some people its always been rich, even if you earn a little mnore than them

then you dont deserve it, thats the problem with all the rhetoric about going after the so called rich and top percentages it always slips down the scale to include anyone making more than anyone else, im just glad that most of my income stream and retirement is non taxable,

[busymom]

48. 50-75k is the average salary range for most households in america

with 3-4 people living in the home.

http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20090315/bci_data/median_income_table.htm

Of course, it is dependent on the state. Cost of living varies from state to state, of course.

So...it's not rich by any stretch, but it is rich in comparison to families of 4 living off of two parents earning slightly above minimum wage.

At the end of the day, we believe in progressive taxation, am I wrong? I had no idea DU supported the idea of income redistribution....take from the rich, give to the poor and the middle class?

I chip in and pay my taxes with the understanding that even though I am middle class, as a member of society I have a moral responsibility to contribute to the greater good.

[boppers]

53. How many US households have 3-4 wage earners in the home?

Yes, rich households are, uhm, making money.

Er...WRT your statement:
"I had no idea DU supported the idea of income redistribution....take from the rich, give to the poor and the middle class?"

Some examples:
Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Food Stamps.
Public Education.
Interstate roads.
Veteran's Hospitals.

[Hello_Kitty]

60. Great, so you're for taking the child tax credit away, right?

I mean, that $1000 per kid goes mostly to middle class families and they don't need it. Right?

[TheKentuckian]

69. Progressive taxation means that people's percentage of income to taxes

goes up on a sliding scale based on how much money they bring in. The thinking is that the higher the income the greater the amount of disposable income and the lower the income the closer to the bone a person will be which means they can afford only a smaller percentage of their money to go to taxes.

It is a form of redistribution and a good and sensible one, the poor and the middle classes spend a much greater share of their incomes on things like housing, food, utlities, and other nessicities than the rich and the wealthy. Heavily taxing lower income people literally takes food off their tables and keeps them in homes two sizes too small. Your interpetation of progressive seems closer to flat, which is not something we support.

To whom much is given, much is expected. The rich and the wealthy garner greater benefit from infrastructure, it enables them to attain the station they have. The workers provide the platform for fortune to be built.

[boppers]

54. There was a time when the top 25% didn't complain about taxes.

I have a car.
I have a TV.
I have cable.
I have a telephone.
I have running water.
I have electricity.

I even have food molding, rotting, going bad, in my refrigerator, because I haven't eaten it yet.

I am FILTHY, DISGUSTING, RICH, and I am a self-entitled asshole, compared to most of the world.

Here's a challenge: live on 10 dollars a day.

For a year.

I did it.

After you do it, too, you will see the world in a different way.

You too will see that you have been rich beyond the wildest dreams of most people.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. Oh yeah?! Well why don't you live on a DOLLAR a day now?!

:eyes:

Sorry, I'm not playing "Race To The Bottom" with you and if you don't realize there's a big fucking difference between someone making $50K a year and Paris Hilton you've got way bigger cognition problems that I can help. And having gadgets and a few luxuries is no substitute for financial security.

But hey, boppers, since you think guilt trips make such excellent talking points, why don't you go down and volunteer at your local Dem or OFA office? Make phone calls to people in the community and tell them just what you told me. See how well it goes over.

[boppers]

65. 1 dollar a day vs. 10, and 50K vs. 500K are the same?

That's Paris Hilton scale, equating 1:10 as equal... and I don't feel entitled enough to have "financial security", whatever the hell that is. Maybe it's something Paris Hilton has.

Certainly when most of the world doesn't feel entitled to clean water, I'm not going to pull the whole snobby "let them eat cake" attitude.

As far as spending more time on the phone, that's not such a bad idea, to let folks know that 25% of the population is mounting campaigns to deceive everybody else into thinking the the top wealth earners are going to suffer if the vast majority gets equal treatment.


edit: typo

[TheKentuckian]

71. Aside from being besides the point, I call bullshit

there is about no way you could house yourself on 3,650 a year in the US economy and no way you could stay fed and warm.

In any event, pat yourself on the head for proving you can live in the stone age because what we're about is a race to the bottom rather than lifting up those that are dispossesed.

[boppers]

73. Who said I could afford a house or apartment?

I lived in my 30 year old car and couch surfed. Ate a lot of ramen and leftovers.

As to "the point", rich people are complaining about being taxed, without having any idea how rich they are.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

51. And of course this will be seen as "redistribution of wealth" Socialism, etc. by Tea Baggers

and it will be hard if not impossible to dispute that point.

I'm actually all for redistribution in the form of cancelling the Bush tax cuts for the top and I am for Socialism when it comes to to Public education, public health, utilities, mass transportation, natural resources, social safety nets, etc.

I never thought that the Dems would be so suicidal as to launch this perverse method of funding HCR. And all because they were too timid to call taxes taxes and had to buy into the bs argument that it had to be deficit neutral from the getgo (really a cave-in to the Tea Baggers and Republicans who don't understand economics or governance anyway - every time they shouted about dificits, we should just play a giant video of Dick Cheney intoning "deficits don't matter").

[shadesofgray]

68. I remember when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making under $200,000.

Ha.

$50,000 is the new $200,000!