[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[Author]

Posts