[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

I don’t know if Brian does. I know I do. Because I do it. I pay for a very decent small group Aetna HMO with a $15 co-pay. But even if i went to their lowest co-pay of $10, only those older than 59 would cost more than $8500 a year. 55 to 59 years old would cost $8,364 per year. (I’m looking at their renewal rate tables from 7-1-09 as i type.) Even with a 1.1 modifier, only those over 54 would be more than $8500 a year.

I’m pretty sure large group plans would be cheaper.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

I don’t know if Brian does. I know I do. Because I do it. I pay for a very decent small group Aetna HMO with a $15 co-pay. But even if i went to their lowest co-pay of $10, only those older than 59 would cost more than $8500 a year. 55 to 59 years old would cost $8,364 per year. (I’m looking at their renewal rate tables from 7-1-09 as i type.) Even with a 1.1 modifier, only those over 54 would be more than $8500 a year.

I’m pretty sure large group plans would be cheaper.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

I don’t know if Brian does. I know I do. Because I do it. I pay for a very decent small group Aetna HMO with a $15 co-pay. But even if i went to their lowest co-pay of $10, only those older than 59 would cost more than $8500 a year. 55 to 59 years old would cost $8,364 per year. (I’m looking at their renewal rate tables from 7-1-09 as i type.) Even with a 1.1 modifier, only those over 54 would be more than $8500 a year.

I’m pretty sure large group plans would be cheaper.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

I don’t know if Brian does. I know I do. Because I do it. I pay for a very decent small group Aetna HMO with a $15 co-pay. But even if i went to their lowest co-pay of $10, only those older than 59 would cost more than $8500 a year. 55 to 59 years old would cost $8,364 per year. (I’m looking at their renewal rate tables from 7-1-09 as i type.) Even with a 1.1 modifier, only those over 54 would be more than $8500 a year.

I’m pretty sure large group plans would be cheaper.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CardiffBaseball]I would like to know how a flat tax is regressive? Most proposals exclude a certain amount of income automatically making it progressive.

Let’s say we had a 20% tax on all income over 50K.

[/quote]

In which case, you have a regressive tax on all income over $50,000, because a greater burden, relative to resources, is placed on those with incomes, say between $50,000 and $150,000 than those with income over $250,000, since basic needs are still being met at marginal income above $50,000, but not above $250,000.

It would be less regressive than say a VAT, but regressive, nonetheless.

[Author]

Posts