Tax the wealthy to keep everyone healthy

[stephanie]

just wow..the commies are coming out in the open now with the little Marxist as President.

It's what the House of Representatives wants to do to pay for healthcare. It's a good idea, and a great slogan

By Robert Reich

July 16, 2009 | It's the most blatant form of Robin Hood economics ever proposed. The universal healthcare bill reported by the House Tuesday pays for the health insurance of the 20 percent of Americans who need help affording it with a surtax on the richest 1 percent.

I don't recall the last time Congress came up with such a direct redistribution. Occasionally Congress closes a few tax loopholes at the top and offers a refundable tax credit to workers at the bottom, or it creates a poor people's program like Medicaid, paid for out of general revenues from a progressive income tax. But to say out loud, as the House has just done, that those in our society who can most readily afford it should pay for the health insurance of those who cannot is, well, audacious.


There's another word for it: fair. According to the most recent data (for 2007), the best-off 1 percent of American households take home about 20 percent of total income -- the highest percentage since 1928. Yes, I know: Critics will charge that these are the very people who invest, innovate and hire, and thereby keep the economy going. So raising their taxes will burden the economy and thereby hurt everyone, including those who are supposed to be helped.

But there's no reason to suppose that taking a tiny sliver of the incomes of the top 1 percent will reduce all that much of their ardor to invest, innovate and hire in the future. Yet if this tiny sliver means affordable healthcare for a far larger number of Americans, who will be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive, the positive effect on the American economy is likely to be far greater.

Don't believe critics who say the surtax will harm small business. According to the Center for Tax Justice, it would hit only 5 percent of small-business owners -- realistically defined as taxpayers for whom small-business income makes up at least half of their adjusted gross income (from schedule C businesses, partnerships, family farms and Subchapter S corporations).

Besides, only the profits of a small business would be taxed. The owner of a small business deducts money paid to employees as compensation, as well as operating costs. So, for example, a couple whose income comes entirely from a small business would have to earn more than $350,000 in business profits -- after paying all their expenses, including salaries -- before the surcharge would affect them at all. And if they earned more, the surcharge wouldn't reduce their incentive to hire more employees because they pay employees with pre-tax income. And not even purchases of equipment to expand business operations would be affected because most small business owners can write off up to $250,000 of the costs of such equipment immediately.

A surtax is easy to administer. And the whole idea is easy to understand. Tax the wealthy to keep everyone healthy. Not even a bad bumper sticker.


from..
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...thy/index.html

[Insein]

But there's no reason to suppose that taking a tiny sliver of the incomes of the top 1 percent will reduce all that much of their ardor to invest, innovate and hire in the future. Yet if this tiny sliver means affordable healthcare for a far larger number of Americans, who will be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive, the positive effect on the American economy is likely to be far greater.

That is their mentality right there. Any means is justified as long as we "save the poor" so to speak. They mesmerize people by saying its a noble cause and then steal the money right in front of the same people that supposedly will benefit. They will get Health care that will be substandard which might be a step above waiting in line at the ER. Yet the cost to the rest of us will be enormous. Don't think they will stop at the wealthiest 1%. When they need more money, they will move on to the next 10%, then the next, then the next and so on and so forth until everyone that works is paying for everyone that doesn't. So where will the incentive be to work?

[Little-Acorn]

By Robert Reich

July 16, 2009 | It's the most blatant form of Robin Hood economics ever proposed.

Trust a Clintonista like Reich to even get the description wrong.

Contrary to the popular sound bite, Robin Hood did not "rob from the rich and give to the poor".

Read the actual Robin Hood legends. It turns out that the people Robin Hood took the money from were... government tax collectors and treasury agents!

Robin Hood was disgusted with the way the government of his time, wrung every last penny from everyone, to pay for various schemes (sound familiar?). SO he made a practice of accosting tax collectors on their way home with people's money, takig that money away from them, and riding into the villages the tax collectors had just come from. There he would give the money back to the people it had been taken from... people who had earned it, by farming or making clothes or whatever.

Robin Hood was a conservative. Perhaps the first widely-documented one in Western history.

He later branched out and began raiding government treasuries, and intecepting treasury agents who were hauling "goivernment funds" from one place to another, again giving the money to the people who had earned it.

It's a far cry from the present liberals, who are taking money from the people who earned it, and giving it to government for their various schemes.

Robin Hood became a hero, and deservedly so... by being the OPPOSITE of today's tax-and-spend liberals.

[gabosaurus]

You earn more, you pay more in taxes. Nothing wrong with that.

[Nukeman]

You earn more, you pay more in taxes. Nothing wrong with that.

but that is the way it CURRENTLY is. but they are wanting to TAX the rich EVEN more. while the poor still pay NOTHING. That is hardly fair........

[Little-Acorn]

Has anyone kept track of the number of times "the rich" have been tapped to pay for the latest new scheme from liberal politicians?

[Mr. P]

You earn more, you pay more in taxes. Nothing wrong with that.

Right, how's that California Government budget going? Last I heard they were bankrupt, no? Ya think it might be cuz people are leaving the state of socialism? The producers are not producing? Think about it Gab.

[Mr. P]

Has anyone kept track of the number of times "the rich" have been tapped to pay for the latest new scheme from liberal politicians?

Class warfare is a firmly entrenched Dem tactic..it works well on the mindless.

How many times have you heard the dems claim: "they'll take yer social security away if they pass this"? We'll see the same IF health care ever gets passed.