Governement Healthcare...

[DCJenn]

But- that argument doesn't work- because think back to residency or medical school or whenever you were poverty stricken- If you had been taxed an extra 1-3% it would have sent you teetering over the edge.

My budget can handle a 1-3% increase in my taxes. My budget can handle a bigger increase than that.

and I don't begrudge the plumber, the artist, the dog groomer on an increase in taxes. I think it IS fair. Rick and I made the choice to have 46 years of education bwtween us but don't think for a second that future income wasn't a part of the decision. I went to grad school because I wanted to make more money. Period. Not everyone can do that, not everyone wants to do that, and not everyone should HAVE to do that.

I don't want a plumber w/ an MBA. I want a plumber who knows how to fix my exploding toilet. And if I have to pay more so that he can see the doctor if the toilet explodes in his face, then that's as far as I can tell.

Jenn

What Jenn said. Progressive tax rates are based, among other things, on ability to pay. I think we've had progressive tax rates as long as we've had an income tax in this country (please correct me if I'm wrong). If we choose to earn a higher income, and are fortunate enough to do so, we can afford to contribute more.

[McPants]

I wonder if the two posters in this forum who are trying to label Obama as a fascist (or aspiring fascist) consequently regard every single country in Europe as governed by fascist regimes, given that they all have significantly higher levels of social involvement from the government's side than the U.S. will even if Obama manages to implement all his proposed changes.

A short answer will suffice, Abigail.

[PrincessFiona]

We aren't really hearing about a progressive tax here though. We are hearing about tax cuts for most followed by a tax increase for some. That is a slightly different idea.

Also, since the issues of tort reform and medical school debt appear to have never made it to the table, we are also still talking about many groups of physicians paying up to half of their income in liability insurance on top of tax increases and earning less while continuing to owe huge sums of money.

Back during residency and fellowship, we made choices too. We drove one car instead of two (I drove dh to work every day) and we chose to live in a small and not so nice rental property because it is what we could afford. Would a 1-2% tax have had us teetering over the edge?

No. That's the truth. Our financial life sucked, but losing an additional $30/month would not have sent us into bankruptcy. I believe that is true for most people and it is all about the choices that we have to make.

My brother, for example, spends more money on cigarettes each month than he would if his taxes were raised a little to pay for the health care that he sure as shootin is going to need with his 1.5 pack/day habit. It might mean opting to cancel a NetFlix subscription or going without a new music CD...but generally speaking, most people could and should fork it over. We have money in the middle class for our Hummers (and the gasoline to fill them), our trips to Target, annual Disney vacations (we know regular ol' folk that go every year), etc....

Personally, I think that someone earning 30,000/year could afford $30/month and someone earning 100k could afford $100/month, etc.....

Obviously, we will always have people in society living in shelters or drug rehab facilities who will not be able to pay in and I'm fine with that too...until they find jobs...and they should have to make a modest contribution too.

I think it is good for everyone to feel that they have a stake in this.

[Rapunzel]

Speaking as one who grew up in abject poverty (we were just having a discussion the other night with some neighbors who were shocked that I've never had a "vacation" in my entire life - never had the money) I think the progressive tax rates prevent those like myself and my family (well below the poverty level) from being able to improve our lot in life. The progressive tax actually kept my parents out of even the lower middle class because there is a definite point where you work more only to have it completely taken by the government (this mostly refers to people who are on the very edges of a tax bracket). In some instances the progressive tax punishes the poor and the middle class.

I'm fine with a flat tax. As someone who has been a 10% tithe payer her entire life I know what a flat tax is like. And, it's not really harder to pay it whether you're super poor (my life growing up) or solidly middle class (what I would call my life right now). So, I've got some actual experience in that area. And, I much, much, much prefer a flat tax.

And, I also think we need to go back to having to pay all of our income tax once a year from our own pockets. The current system of having it taken out of paychecks before it is ever seen leads to outrageous increases and government spending. There's much more accountability when people actually HAVE the money that they must then give up to the government in the form of taxes.

[Rapunzel]

I wonder if the two posters in this forum who are trying to label Obama as a fascist (or aspiring fascist) consequently regard every single country in Europe as governed by fascist regimes, given that they all have significantly higher levels of social involvement from the government's side than the U.S. will even if Obama manages to implement all his proposed changes.

A short answer will suffice, Abigail.

McPants, do you know what fascism is? I think you might be able to answer your own question if that were the case.

[PrincessFiona]

BTW, when I lived in Germany I worked as a dishwasher and later at the drive-thru at McDonalds. Both of those jobs were not high-paying, but I paid my health insurance tax every paycheck. I don't remember the exact amount, but it was more than 1 or 2% at that time. I never once regretted it or cursed the money lost because it provided me with health care insurance that I felt like I was paying for myself.

[Rapunzel]

My brother, for example, spends more money on cigarettes each month than he would if his taxes were raised a little to pay for the health care that he sure as shootin is going to need with his 1.5 pack/day habit. It might mean opting to cancel a NetFlix subscription or going without a new music CD...but generally speaking, most people could and should fork it over. We have money in the middle class for our Hummers (and the gasoline to fill them), our trips to Target, annual Disney vacations (we know regular ol' folk that go every year), etc....

My mil is a bilingual teacher (helps that she's a native Spanish speaker) in a very poor area. She has remarked to me how the families of her students so often spend all of their income on cars, televisions, booze, and what she calls "trophies" (items of conspicuous consumption to show off to friends and family). And, knowing the area in which she works, these are often the very same families that demand free healthcare as a "right".

Make a flat tax rate for all. Get rid of payroll taxes (income taxes removed so that the worker never registers the income as "his"). That right there would dramatically change the way everyone views so-called rights to welfare programs (such as socialized healthcare).

[McPants]

McPants, do you know what fascism is? I think you might be able to answer your own question if that were the case.

I do know what fascism is and did not pose the question to myself.

[Rapunzel]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.

It is the stringent economic control that has been pointed to as being in a fascist direction. Additionally, over the many years, the United States has tended more and more towards a strong, centralized government (with this particular president being no exception to that trend).

It's honestly a moot point what anyone here thinks of the governments of Europe. What matters is what we Americans think of, well, America and its current state as well as how we are trending.

[McPants]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.

It is the stringent economic control that has been pointed to as being in a fascist direction. Additionally, over the many years, the United States has tended more and more towards a strong, centralized government (with this particular president being no exception to that trend).

It's honestly a moot point what anyone here thinks of the governments of Europe. What matters is what we Americans think of, well, America and its current state as well as how we are trending.

So the answer is yes then.

[Rapunzel]

I do know what fascism is and did not pose the question to myself.

Well, your question is facile.

With fascism on one end of the scale and anarchy on the opposite any given government will have tendencies towards fascism.

[Rapunzel]

So the answer is yes then.

No, the answer is that you are not actually familiar with WHAT fascism is.

[McPants]

No, the answer is that you are not actually familiar with WHAT fascism is.

This is not true.

[McPants]

Since no single agreed-upon definition for the word "fascism" exists, wikipedia helpfully provides a selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

I provide this for anyone interested. Rapunzel's characteristically arrogant and condescending comments on what I know or do not know do not deserve further attention on my part. The reason why I posed the question above should be fairly obvious to anyone.