Only one problem with that plan: they’re already soaked.
Ladies and gentlemen, no matter how many Democrats tell you differently, and no matter how badly you may want to believe otherwise, this is the absolute, irrefutable truth:
Rich people pay a truly staggering amount of federal income tax. In fact, rich people pay almost all federal income tax.
To say otherwise is to lie. Period. If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken. Period.
I’ve hammered on this before. Look here. Or here. Or here. It keeps recurring because it’s such a useful canard for a big-government liberal to trot out. It gets a tax increase in the conversation without yelling and screaming, and class envy is its fulcrum.
Quoting an article on a “town hall” our esteemed president held yesterday:
However, Obama said some taxes would have to be raised, and the crowd applauded when he said he believes people with more money, like himself, ought to pay a heavier burden.
“We’ve got to get over this notion that we can have something for nothing,” Obama said. “That’s how we got into this deficit and this debt in the first place.”
Oh, we’ve definitely got to get over this notion that we can have something for nothing, Mr. President. Somehow I don’t think I mean the same thing you do, though.
Here are the facts on who pays federal income taxes:
- The top 1% of American wage earners pay more than 34% of all federal income taxes.
- The top 5% pay more than 54%.
- The top 10% pay more than 66%.
- The top 50% pay more than 96%.
Folks, how much more money do you think there is to go get?
Do you still believe the rich “don’t pay their fair share”? If so, why?
You might also like:
- Obama’s new story on government health care
I’m going to hit Obamacare again tonight. Apologies to those looking for something lighter, but I’m … - The herpes tax
Well, now. Look what the Obama regime quietly floated yesterday while we all spun our wheels on Soto… - Five questions for Obamacare supporters
Do you think a single person anywhere has read the entire, 1,017-page bill? Does it concern you tha… - “What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.” – Barack Obama
That’s what our esteemed president is telling us today. That’s how he’s explaining when he said “if … - No new taxes on families making less than $250,000 (well, unless we really need them)
During the campaign Barack Obama made many, many promises. He’s a hopey-changey guy, and hopey-chang…
I have historically been well above the top 50% income earners. (Unfortunately that is not the case now but hey poopie happens right?) I’m HAPPY to pay what I have had to pay thus far. I feel it is a FREAKING BARGAIN! I have great roads. Great schools (yeah, I home school but I’m THRILLED that schools are available to the degree they are). Great law enforcement. I don’t have ANY problems with paying more taxes and my taxes are not threatened to go up. Now, having said that, I’d like my government to be thrifty and I’m SURE they could do better but all in all, no bitching or complaining from me on the tax front.
HOWEVER. I am SUPER FREAKING pissed that before my husband died I was WORRIED CONSTANTLY about losing insurance. Now that he’s dead, it isn’t so much an issue. No pre-exisiting conditions to keep me awake at night. Now I have just have nightmares about other things. How lucky I am.
Health care needs to be reformed. I’m not saying everything Obama says is perfect but the system is not right. People need insurance NO matter what illnesses they have had. NO matter what. If they are willing to pay for it, it needs to be there for them.
My SIL can’t get insurance without a job. Because you can’t get affordable individual insurance when you have had breast cancer. No matter that she has been cancer free for over a decade. She had to pick her job based almost solely on health insurance options.
It is plain and simple in my world. Health insurance should have NOTHING to do with having a job. Having a public plan means that the unemployed/self-employed have an option.
I don’t want the government to run health insurance but I think the government offering a option for people like me who are self-employed or unemployed makes a lot of sense. If not the government then who?
And I’m happy to pay more taxes to make sure people like my husband and my SIL are covered. It is an honor to help them. They are people too.
Talk about one of the biggest myths of the current health care debate: “Health care needs to be reformed… the system is not right.”
Yes, it does need to be reformed. No, the system is not right. Contrary to what the Left would like you to believe, the vast majority of the Right does NOT think the system is perfect and should be left alone. They think the system is the best in the world (and I would agree), but certainly could be improved.
The overriding problem with Obama’s plan is that it is not a “reform” – it is a “rebuild,” and that is not necessary.
Chanda: I sympathize with your concerns. I agree that reform is needed. But why must the only option be a massive government program at a cost of several trillion dollars we don’t have?
If we were serious about helping people (and not concentrating control and government dependence, which is what it’s really about, else why the hurry to get it passed without reading it?), we’d be removing restrictions, not adding them.
I agree it’s a problem that you can’t get competitive insurance on your own. If we let companies truly go toe-to-toe for your dollar in a real market, we wouldn’t have a problem. Too, if we think about tort reform productively, and in a truly patient-friendly way, one of the biggest cost drivers will come down dramatically.
I’d like a world in which you–a healthy adult with four healthy children and high earning potential–could do just fine with a high-deductible catastrophic policy. You wouldn’t use your insurance day to day, because medical care prices would much more closely reflect their true costs, and consequently you’d just pay them. But you’d have protection if you needed expensive treatment.
Let’s look at that scenario and see what makes sense to get there.
“If not the government then who?” How about getting the government the hell out of the equation and seeing what private citizens can do for one another in a free market?
Finally, I’m curious: Is there a threshold at which you would complain about your taxes? How much higher would they have to go? How much more budgetary waste would there have to be? If you had a choice, would you (personally) give more or less to Social Security? Do you think the government can do more with your dollar than you can?
NHFalcon: Obama’s serious overplay of this issue has been a tremendous blessing. I hope we can get the conversation steered in a “reform, not rebuild” direction.
When I was a young newlywed, my husband and I opted to carry catastrophic coverage only. Back then, we had several options to choose from, most differed by the coverage kick-in amount. That’s the perfect solution for most healthy people. That option will be no longer available if this health plan is passed.
We also didn’t expect insurance to pay for every trip to the doctor anyway.
‘seester: Exactly. If you can get a kid in and out of an uneventful checkup for $20 or $30, you don’t need insurance for that. If you can get an antibiotic for an uncomplicated urinary tract infection for $5 or $10, you don’t need insurance for that.
There is ZERO true innovation being discussed at the national level. All proposed change assumes the omnipresence of what we have right now, and it’s more icing on a stale cake.
I don’t think Obama has the slightest interest in helping people. I think he wants to control people.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090816/US.Health.Care.Overhaul/
So, is the above good, bad, or other? I can’t really tell. My initial reaction is it’s good, but god knows I’ve been wrong before…
My dear Falcon: Face value is that it’s good, but what scares me about these people is that they’ve always worked best by incrementalism. Let them get a foot in the door and the rest of the elephant comes charging through shortly thereafter.
I carry the catastrophic right now because that’s all I can do. I lost my all-over coverage when I lost my job, and no WAY could I afford the COBRA on that. It’s okay; I’m healthy (knock wood) and my husband carries the kid on his plan anyway. I’m choosing to do this for financial reasons, but it works for me and depending on how the job situation rolls in the next year or so, I’ve little incentive for change.
The government can talk all it wants about “fixing,” “helping,” and “changing,” but the best thing they could do right now is get the hell out of the way. Enough debate has been raised and enough people are concerned that if the gov’t thugs stood down right now, the market situation could spur private insurers to really have to scramble to satisfy the end consumer.
But I’m as full of crap as the next person.
For reference, here are the problems in order of importance with our health care system:
1) people don’t take responsibility for their own health care
2) insurance should have NOTHING to do with health insurance
3) laws suits are amazingly out of control
I’ve copied this from your comment. I’ll put a >>> before my additions to be clear. 🙂
Chanda: I sympathize with your concerns. I agree that reform is needed. But why must the only option be a massive government program at a cost of several trillion dollars we don’t have?
>>> how much it costs is a separate question and needs to be debated carefully. I was speaking as a “rich” person and stating that not all them have a problem with “getting soaked.”
>>>Frankly I’d like it not to cost nearly as much as that. But I’d rather that than sit around doing nothing. Sometimes MOVING in ANY direction is better than sitting still.
If we were serious about helping people (and not concentrating control and government dependence, which is what it’s really about, else why the hurry to get it passed without reading it?), we’d be removing restrictions, not adding them.
>>> please be more specific about removing restrictions or adding them and how that pertains to this–I’m just confused.
I agree it’s a problem that you can’t get competitive insurance on your own. If we let companies truly go toe-to-toe for your dollar in a real market, we wouldn’t have a problem. Too, if we think about tort reform productively, and in a truly patient-friendly way, one of the biggest cost drivers will come down dramatically.
>>> Please clarify why you think they haven’t been “going toe-to-toe” up until this new government proposal? I’m missing something.
>>> isn’t tort reform just adding restrictions? Isn’t that just another flavor of government control? Isn’t that another way the government is manipulating a free market? Not that I disagree with tort reform but an argument about getting the government out of the equation doesn’t seem to make sense with that. Tort reform is a very valid subject that needs to be addressed but I feel that more fundamental to that is our societal mindset that 1) doctors are gods that can do no wrong and 2) that our health is not OUR primary responsibility. When you expect perfection from people and don’t get it, you get outrageous law suits. When people have no idea what their medical professionals are up to, you get outrageous law suits. There are also other reasons like loathsome lawyers but that is what tort reform is for. Tort reform is 3rd on my list and can happen still with the Obama plan.
I’d like a world in which you–a healthy adult with four healthy children and high earning potential–could do just fine with a high-deductible catastrophic policy. You wouldn’t use your insurance day to day, because medical care prices would much more closely reflect their true costs, and consequently you’d just pay them. But you’d have protection if you needed expensive treatment.
>>> Now that my husband is dead, we will do fine. But I still remember the worries. I have a high deductible plan that I frankly can’t even afford currently–but that is by choice. I am not going to the doctor when I really need to because it costs too much. And I’m getting a lot of push back from the doctors I do use because they don’t want to treat me when I REALLY need it because I didn’t seek treatment when I only sorta needed it. Even though the issues were entire independent.
>>> I think that EVERYONE should pay EVERY cent of their medical expenses from their own pocket so they can see just how much insurance and medical bills cost. My proposal is to disassociate insurance from employment. Period. I think ANYTHING moving in that direction is a step in the right direction. No I don’t think any plan that incorporates that is perfect but I think it is an improvement. Employers should have NOTHING to do with health insurance. That is the second fundamental problem with our system and an important hindrance to solving the first problem.
>>> If people had a clue how much they were really spending on health care, if skipping out on that dr visit for the common cold which NO doctor can really help were even a passing thought through most people’s minds, I think the cost of health care would reduce.
Let’s look at that scenario and see what makes sense to get there.
“If not the government then who?” How about getting the government the hell out of the equation and seeing what private citizens can do for one another in a free market?
>>> Nothing has EVER stopped that from happening yet and as far as I can see it hasn’t happened. If it hasn’t happened up until now, why do you think it will suddenly happen?
Finally, I’m curious: Is there a threshold at which you would complain about your taxes? How much higher would they have to go? How much more budgetary waste would there have to be?
>>> Yes, I’m sure there is a threshold. What that is, I don’t know. I have NEVER said I was ok with budgetary waste. Waste is evil and vile. And I KNOW that there is plenty of that. I worked for NASA you know. But to imagine that waste is ever 100% preventable is stupid. You have a guitar hero system. You didn’t need that. You could have lived without it. Waste is a part of EVERYTHING. I certainly never want to cut the government any slack on waste, but that is a different question. Change is needed. Waste should always be confronted. The question is: Is this change wasteful? And the answer of course will be yes to some degree. Is the level of waste unreasonable? And I don’t feel like it is. I use the word feel because I don’t have nearly the data I need to have to make that judgment. However, I value another option so highly that I’d be willing to pay an increase in taxes, even though I’m losing money at the moment which has NOT EVER HAPPENED to me in my ENTIRE LIFE. Moreover, it wouldn’t benefit a single person in my family currently. I just think it is that important.
If you had a choice, would you (personally) give more or less to Social Security? Do you think the government can do more with your dollar than you can?
>>>Do I think the government can do more with my dollar than I can? YOU F*CKING BETCHA I DO! It is called a military. It is called a public school system. It is called a transportation system. It is called a law enforcement system. We went to the MOON on tax dollars! And I’m F*CKING proud of the country we have built with our tax dollars! Do I think they can build an insurance option that might shake up the insurance industry enough to create some innovation in that industry? Hell yeah I think it is a possibility. Do I think they can totally screw it up and make a freaking mess of it? Well of course! I’m I at the point of anger and frustration and desperation that I’m willing to let them try and then deal with the problems if they mess it up. YEP I AM.
>>> You shouldn’t ask ME about SS because almost 100% of my income currently is coming from SS. It is enabling me to continue on the path of working for a startup company that is not yet funded instead of dropping it like a hot potato and getting a cog-job. It is allowing me to participate in innovation, creativity, and the free market in a more fundamental way than most ever get an opportunity. So yeah, I wish we had given more so I’d have more. SS is my personal HERO right now making this terrible time in my life a whole freaking lot less devastating. I can’t tell you how much that infrastructure has done for me. They were KIND and HELPFUL when your ever so beloved free market was screwing me up the arse. So, go ask someone else if you want an unbiased opinion. I’m thinking of getting a tattoo in their honor.
>>>Don’t think that I don’t value the free market system but I’ve had enough of the medical industry and the funeral industry for a lifetime. I wish they all would rot in hell. The government, the SS office, now that was a blessing immeasurable. Well, and my financial advisor. He rocks too. Nothing government there.
>>> This country freaking rocks, even with all of its problems. And our government is absolutely a large reason why it rocks. And people like you who are questioning and doubting the government are a LARGE reason why it works. So, while I disagree with you, I still REALLY appreciate every thing you say.
Exactly. If you can get a kid in and out of an uneventful checkup for $20 or $30, you don’t need insurance for that. If you can get an antibiotic for an uncomplicated urinary tract infection for $5 or $10, you don’t need insurance for that.
>>>I’m sorry but I’ve NEVER seen a healthy kid check up that cost $20-30. Mine cost $75 when I pay without my insurance contributing anything but helping me “adjust” the price. And that is $300 a year for me to go and let a doctor tell me my kids are fine when I know damn well they are fine without his help. That is a load of @#$%$%@$#%. Sorry but you’ve found one of my buttons. 🙂 Well checkups are a rip-off.
There is ZERO true innovation being discussed at the national level. All proposed change assumes the omnipresence of what we have right now, and it’s more icing on a stale cake.
I don’t think Obama has the slightest interest in helping people. I think he wants to control people.
>>> Show me ANY innovation that has occurred in the last decade. How long shall we wait for it to occur?
Chanda: Insurance companies being allowed to freely compete across state lines for your business would be a huge positive step. Not having to price premiums to account for astronomical malpractice insurance costs would be another (and wow, “loser pays” is still looking awfully good to me). In that regard, tort reform need not be adding restrictions.
I share your thinking to a degree on the coupling of health insurance and employment, but again, I think that’s a market decision.
Concerning waste: yes, I have Guitar Hero, but YOU didn’t pay for it. Don’t you think that’s a critical point?
I wasn’t clear asking you about your dollar vs. a government dollar. I agree that the government can defend you from foreign invaders better than you can yourself. I mostly agree on the space program, because there are military interests up there, and then you’re back to the first point–though I do believe you and I will see many more people in space in our lifetimes because of private industry than we will government.
I’m talking about purchasing something that you can get on your own, vs. what you can get from the government. Do you like your dollar in the Social Security system better than you do your dollar with your private investment counselor, for example? (Remember that Social Security is demonstrably bankrupt before you answer.) 🙂
I agree with you that this country rocks. However, I also think we got here because we have fostered a system in which an individual is free to pursue his/her self-interest, without the interference of the government. That notion feels increasingly quaint to me, as more and more people just stick their hand out whenever they hear “government.”
I don’t want to have a conversation about getting the most for my tax dollar. I want my dollar to never make the trip in the first place.
Falcon, It’s one itty bitty step. The other 800-900 pages of the bill setting up the ginormous bureaucracy needs to be addressed.
Why does gov’t want/need to regulate the number of residents a hospital can add to a program? Why does gov’t need to come up with the best practices for treating illnesses when the specialists in the field are already doing so, if not for a path for denying coverage? Why does this bureaucracy need to provide funding for “modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices?” Or for, “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.”
I am reading this bill. Much more than I can say for the congress-critters.
‘seester: I’m so glad you’re reading and sharing, even though you’re confirming my worst fears.
Folks, dig: the current bill is not about helping people. It is a massive power grab.
We will see more people in space by private industry BECAUSE the government took the initiative to go into space first. The lessons learned were HUGE and those private industries are standing on the shoulders of giants.
EVERYTHING can be gotten without a government. Our country’s defense can be done by the people directly. Space travel can be done by the people. Infrastructure can be done by the people. Law enforcement can be done by the people. EVERYTHING can be done without government. So what EXACTLY do we need a government for? What things should a government do and what should they not do?
Sometimes the government is the right entity to do things. When the group works better than the individual. And so what is the governments job? And what is the individuals job? When the free market IS NOT doing what we need it to do, then I think the government is the right organization to change the direction.
Here is what it would take to make a big change in the our health care in my opinion. A chubby middle aged somebody going to the doctor and the doctor says “I want to do this blood work on you” and the forty something (fs) says “hmmm, how much will that cost me?” And the doctor says “$102.” (Snort! Like he has any clue how much it will cost.) And fs says, “And what benefit will I get from this?” And dr says, “well, we’ll understand your cholesterol numbers and from that we can determine your risk of heart attack.” And fs says “But can’t we get really close to understanding that just by looking at my waistline?” (Which is THE BEST INDICATOR OF YOUR HEART ATTACK RISK.) And the doctor says, “well yeah we can just do that if you’d like. It isn’t all the data but it is pretty dang good. You know, let’s do this. Let’s get that waistline under control FIRST and then we’ll talk about what needs to be done from there.” And fs says, “OK I’ll start eating less and eating more fruits and veggies and I’ll start exercising regularly and after I’ve COMMITTED to MYSELF to take care of MYSELF then I’ll start considering what drugs would further improve my health.”
But you know that is not how it will go. The doctor doesn’t want to push the patient to accept responsibility for their health because 1) there is no profit there and 2) the patient might get their little feelers hurt and go someplace else that will try to give them the easy way out.
THAT is the fundamental problem with our health care. When the patient has to pay that $102 to SEE what the stupid test costs that will do NOTHING to substantially improve his health, THEN he’ll think, hmmmm why don’t I just EAT LESS and save that $102 to go buy the newest guitar hero?
But back to your points. Tell me specifically how being able to sell across state lines will make a difference. Texas is a HUGE state. California is a HUGE state. Arguably as large as many countries around the world. So if this is such a substantial problem, why do we see the same problems in the big states as the small states? I don’t think that has a flip to do with the problem. And I find it amazingly contradictory that you think the federal government telling the states how to conduct their business is a REDUCTION of regulation? The states should be able to govern themselves BEFORE the federal government no?
About SS:
All I know about SS is that if I had every dollar DALE gave SS back, I’d have a HELL of a lot less money now. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but the market hasn’t done very well recently. When I was first investing I recall my advisor showing me a beautiful graph (I remember it so well being the geek that I am) that said over ANY 10 year period–including the Great Depression–the market has never shown a loss. I gladly handed over my money and carefully picked investments and did my homework and patiently waited for it to grow. Well, now, he can’t show me that chart anymore because now he’d have to extend that to over 12 yrs. Interesting I’ve been substantially in the market for oh say 12 years. Odd little coincidence there huh. So, while I still am heavily invested in the market, and recovering nicely so far, I’m still much better off having given the money to SS “just in case” I needed it than I would be if I had invested it. So no. Your argument fails–in my case. I must admit I’m an unusual case, being a very young widow with very young kids and a husband that had contributed quite a bit over the years. But it isn’t called Social Security for nothing. My security was GREATLY enhanced by SS.
From another response:
Why does this bureaucracy need to provide funding for “modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices?”
I think that is fabulous if they are intending to promote breastfeeding. It is CHEAPER and BETTER by far than formula feeding for almost every single baby. The idea that we should wean our children at 6wks is ludicrous. I have no idea what they plan to encourage but I certainly think money should be spent on that!
Or for, “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.”
It is better for MOM and BABY. I know who gives a crap about them? Of course, if they plan to do it by education GREAT. If they plan to do it by laws, NO WAY. AND I find it amazingly ironic that if you breastfeed the way we are biologically MEANT to, the spacing between births is INCREASED. Lactation is a VERY natural family planning tool. I can give all kinds of statistics and my personal evidence if you really want that much detail.
The fact that I didn’t pay for your guitar hero isn’t the point. It is difficult to cut out all waste. We are humans for godssake not robots. But you know what I find MOST funny. I’ve worked for the government, universities, private industries and been self employed so I’ve seen a number of different working environments. THE TIGHTEST place by far was the government were they got almost NOTHING DONE. The most wasteful place was industry where they got some really freaking amazing crap done. The difference? Everyone spent all their time trying not to be wasteful. If the folks in the government just did their jobs and didn’t fret over every detail trying to be amazing stewards of YOUR tax dollar, they’d get something for it.
Those malpractice suits you find so terrible ARE free market. Lawyers aren’t part of the government. They are businessmen that are kicking butt. You can’t want free market and not want it at the same time. Regulations have their place or they don’t. Which is it?
Our government is incredibly competent. Not at all perfect but neither terrible either. Don’t MOST people trust their kids to be educated by that rancid government? You think their education is any less important they your health care? How can they be inept at one but satisfactory at the other?
At any rate, I’m stopping replying, though I’ll read any further replies out of respect. The reason I’m stopping is that I’ve learned that Obama is backing out of the public plan so now I’m against the proposal. That was imperative to me. And I’ve lost. I recognize defeat when I see it. Moving on.
Your massive power grab was sacrificed for smaller steps of progress. I’m disappointed but I’m waiting to hear how you’ll turn that action into a satanic ploy as well.
Chanda: I can relate to neither your trust of government, nor your belief that it is “incredibly competent,” nor your apparent belief that nearly anything is its business, nor your eagerness to have your taxes substantially raised.
Nevertheless, I will think about what you have said.
“I think that is fabulous if they are intending to promote breastfeeding. It is CHEAPER and BETTER by far than formula feeding for almost every single baby. The idea that we should wean our children at 6wks is ludicrous. I have no idea what they plan to encourage but I certainly think money should be spent on that!”
See, the problem here is the bill states nothing about the aims and objectives of these clauses. Suppose the government decides that weaning at 6 weeks is best and babies should go to day care? Who is deciding what “best parenting practices” are? Why is this the federal government’s responsibility anyway?
“THE TIGHTEST place by far was the government were they got almost NOTHING DONE.”
I don’t see how this supports an argument for more government interference. I certainly don’t think the government is going to suddenly become efficient as they spend a Trillion more dollars on this problem.