More Republican Congressmen Face Town Hall Backlash Over Tax Breaks For Wealthy And Medicare Privatization

[twa]

A quick yes or no question: Do you support Paul Ryan's budget and/or the GOP's efforts to "transition" Medicare to a voucher-funded privatized system?

vouchers yes, the budget I would have to examine more(I've been busy)

[DRSmith]

vouchers yes, the budget I would have to examine more(I've been busy)

What happens when those vouchers do not cover the cost due to the rapid increase in inflation connected to health care?

[Hitman21ST]

This is a new thread unto itself. But I will say that the wealthy have the sort of financial leverage which a poor person simply does not possess.

That's dumb reasoning. They're already paying more because they make more. Just because they can afford it, it should happen? That's punishing the rich because they're rich. They can also afford health care without insurance, so should we just deny them insurance "because they can afford it?"

It's encouraging people to earn less, so they're not taxed as much.

[DRSmith]

That's dumb reasoning. They're already paying more because they make more. Just because they can afford it, it should happen? That's punishing the rich because they're rich. They can also afford health care without insurance, so should we just deny them insurance "because they can afford it?"

It's encouraging people to earn less, so they're not taxed as much.

Only to people such as yourself others work hard because they enjoy the work take pride in their work and knowing a higher wage also alllows you more money as you are not taxed to the point where you keep the same amount of money as someone who make minimum wage.

[Hitman21ST]

Only to people such as yourself others work hard because they enjoy the work take pride in their work and knowing a higher wage also alllows you more money as you are not taxed to the point where you keep the same amount of money as someone who make minimum wage.

Excuse me? To people like myself? Since when do you know my work habits?

Again, why should I pay a higher percentage just because I make more? "Because I can afford it" isn't a valid reason, period.

[mardi gras skin]

What is the discrepancy between the amount people are expected to put in Medicare and how much they are expected to take out? I was just listening to newshour on PBS and I could have sworn they said something like $150,000 paid in and $550,000 paid out. Does anyone have those numbers?

If its anything along those lines, I would think Medicare benefits need to come down dramatically.

[DRSmith]

Excuse me? To people like myself? Since when do you know my work habits?

Again, why should I pay a higher percentage just because I make more? "Because I can afford it" isn't a valid reason, period.

No you just have more to lost if the country falls apart.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 09:19 PM ----------

What is the discrepancy between the amount people are expected to put in Medicare and how much they are expected to take out? I was just listening to newshour on PBS and I could have sworn they said something like $150,000 paid in and $550,000 paid out. Does anyone have those numbers?

If its anything along those lines, I would think Medicare benefits need to come down dramatically.

Or open medicare to all that way you young healthy people paying in who take little out

[twa]

What happens when those vouchers do not cover the cost due to the rapid increase in inflation connected to health care?

The same thing that happens when costs exceed revenue now,the govt ups spending or people do with less....why not assume they will up spending like normal?

If not costs are at least cut

[Hitman21ST]

No you just have more to lost if the country falls apart.

I'm already paying more by earning more. 20% of 100,000 is 20,000. 20% of 40,000 is 8,000.

Please, tell me again about my work ethic. I enjoy learning things about myself from people that have never met me.

[DRSmith]

The same thing that happens when costs exceed revenue now,the govt ups spending or people do with less....why not assume they will up spending like normal?

If not costs are at least cut

Then you have no read his plan since the vouchers only increase at the rate of standard inflation where the health inflation is raising much faster.

So when those people have less money what happens to you economy as less good and services are bought?

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 09:30 PM ----------

I'm already paying more by earning more. 20% of 100,000 is 20,000. 20% of 40,000 is 8,000.

Please, tell me again about my work ethic. I enjoy learning things about myself from people that have never met me.

You are the one who brought up earning less to avoid taxes so try your pity party on someone else.

Economies need money flowing and all that cutting corpotate and and high tax rates has done is hurt the economy as less money and less hiring has taken place.

[Hitman21ST]

You are the one who brought up earning less to avoid taxes so try your pity party on someone else.

Again, how does that say anything about MY work habits? Because some people might think that way and I point it out, all of a sudden I think that way? Nice try.

I'm pointing out flaws in that argument. You're trying to turn this into a personal vendetta against me.

"Economies need money flow." OK. So why give the people who can give the most money flow (aka the wealthy) a higher tax rate, thus giving them less money to put into the economy, thus lessening the money flow in the economy? Answer that one.

[DRSmith]

You want to take that posiion then you get thought of as you do you do not want anything said think before you post or speak.

There money is not flowing into the economy now the government takes that money and does not cut dmoestic spending the money flow, people have government jobs and spend money, people who need asistence get it and spend the money and government contracts help also.

[twa]

Then you have no read his plan since the vouchers only increase at the rate of standard inflation where the health inflation is raising much faster.

.

Like a plan ever stopped spending?....if it is unaffordable people need to do with less

[Hitman21ST]

You want to take that posiion then you get thought of as you do you do not want anything said think before you post or speak.

There money is not flowing into the economy now the government takes that money and does not cut dmoestic spending the money flow, people have government jobs and spend money, people who need asistence get it and spend the money and government contracts help also.

So by your line of thinking, if some sort of violence were legalized, and someone said "well that will just bring about more killing," then that person is going to be a killer? It is possible to point out a possible point of view without believing or following it, you know.

Their money isn't flowing into the economy BECAUSE the government is taking it. You give the people more money, it will be spent, and the economy will thrive. You give people less money, and it won't be spent.

You can't tax a country into prosperity, period. Nowhere has that worked, and it will continue to not work. The more money in the hands of the consumers, the more money that will be in the economy.

[DRSmith]

Like a plan ever stopped spending?....if it is unaffordable people need to do with less

Or you can put in a plan that works like single payer.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 09:51 PM ----------

So by your line of thinking, if some sort of violence were legalized, and someone said "well that will just bring about more killing," then that person is going to be a killer? It is possible to point out a possible point of view without believing or following it, you know.

Their money isn't flowing into the economy BECAUSE the government is taking it. You give the people more money, it will be spent, and the economy will thrive. You give people less money, and it won't be spent.

You can't tax a country into prosperity, period. Nowhere has that worked, and it will continue to not work. The more money in the hands of the consumers, the more money that will be in the economy.

No as bloomberg and many others have pointed out the money is not flowing because it is not being spent.

The rich are the ones holding the money now and the economy is suffering why do you think so many are talking about income inequity?

Taxation does not work when you tax and do not put the money back into use.

[twa]

You trust the govt to administer single payer yet question whether they will deprive the elderly with vouchers?

[Hitman21ST]

No as bloomberg and many others have pointed out the money is not flowing because it is not being spent.

The rich are the ones holding the money now and the economy is suffering why do you think so many are talking about income inequity?

Taxation does not work when you tax and do not put the money back into use.

OK, but again, if the tax rates weren't as high, they would have more money, and thus be able to put more back into the economy. When you don't have as much money, you can't spend as much.

How is the government putting the money "back into use" that is making the country more prosperous?

Nowhere has taxing a country into prosperity worked.

[Baculus]

That's dumb reasoning.

No it isn't. It is the same reasoning by Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations and the "forefather" of capitalism. Smith said this:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

http://books.google.com/books?id=rpMuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=The+necessaries+of+life+occasion+the+great+expense+of+the+poor.+They+find+it+difficult+to+get+food,+and+the+greater+part+of+their+little+revenue+is+spent+in+getting+it.+The+luxuries+and+vanities+of+life+occasion+the+principal+expense+of+the+rich,+and+a+magnificent+house+embellishes+and+sets+off+to+the+best+advantage+all+the+other+luxuries+and+vanities+which+they+possess.+A+tax+upon+house-rents,+therefore,+would+in+general+fall+heaviest+upon+the+rich;+and+in+this+sort+of+inequality+there+would+not,+perhaps,+be+anything+very+unreasonable.+It+is+not+very+unreasonable+that+the+rich+should+contribute+to+the+public+expense,+not+only+in+proportion+to+their+revenue,+but+something+more+than+in+that+proportion.&source=bl&ots=51_iJ1A1El&sig=4uz-vTkj2D6YBCARF7Sw6sLnO68&hl=en&ei=7TGyTcy5M6XiiAKXzZ2wBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20necessaries%20of%20life%20occasion%20the%20great%20expense%20of%20the%20poor.%20They%20find%20it%20difficult%20to%20get%20food%2C%20and%20the%20greater%20part%20of%20their%20little%20revenue%20is%20spent%20in%20getting%20it.%20The%20luxuries%20and%20vanities%20of%20life%20occasion%20the%20principal%20expense%20of%20the%20rich%2C%20and%20a%20magnificent%20house%20embellishes%20and%20sets%20off%20to%20the%20best%20advantage%20all%20the%20other%20luxuries%20and%20vanities%20which%20they%20possess.%20A%20tax%20upon%20house-rents%2C%20therefore%2C%20would%20in%20general%20fall%20heaviest%20upon%20the%20rich%3B%20and%20in%20this%20sort%20of%20inequality%20there%20would%20not%2C%20perhaps%2C%20be%20anything%20very%20unreasonable.%20It%20is%20not%20very%20unreasonable%20that%20the%20rich%20should%20contribute%20to%20the%20public%20expense%2C%20not%20only%20in%20proportion%20to%20their%20revenue%2C%20but%20something%20more%20than%20in%20that%20proportion.&f=false

In particular, in this part of Wealth of Nations where this passage is from, he Adams is talking about land and ground rentals. Thomas Paine supported the idea of such taxes to support society security and a national income.

Smith also said, "The expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

The poor, by their meager lot, can financially contribute little. The wealthy? That is another story.

They're already paying more because they make more.

Yes, that is an element of a progressive tax system.

Just because they can afford it, it should happen?

Read the first Adams' quote I mentioned. Keep in mind that Smith is a right-wing hero (though they aren't familiar with the "real" Adam Smith).

That's punishing the rich because they're rich.

That isn't punishing them. That is having the rich contribute more to society because they have a greater responsibility and are able to do so. I will now refer you to Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."

http://books.google.com/books?id=gXnGnISGwfkC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=A+heavy+progressive+tax+upon+a+very+large+fortune+is+in+no+way+such+a+tax+upon+thrift+or+industry&source=web&ots=6_lJR0RFsX&sig=i_GN1L2n2o_k5Ckc4EqyVu4suZo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#v=onepage&q=A%20heavy%20progressive%20tax%20upon%20a%20very%20large%20fortune%20is%20in%20no%20way%20such%20a%20tax%20upon%20thrift%20or%20industry&f=false

They can also afford health care without insurance, so should we just deny them insurance "because they can afford it?"

It's encouraging people to earn less, so they're not taxed as much.

How many people really "earning less" so they are taxed less? That seems like an unrealistic assertion. Do you have any stats to support this notion (which I have heard from other right-wingers)?

[Hitman21ST]

How many people really "earning less" so they are taxed less? That seems like an unrealistic assertion. Do you have any stats to support this notion (which I have heard from other right-wingers)?

How many people stay on welfare that can actually go out and get a job?

My brother-in-law was jobless for a while and on unemployment. When he finally found a job, he was bringing home after taxes less than he was bringing home on unemployment.

Thankfully he found a better job and is now making more money, but they're by no means financially secure.

Again, in a flat-tax system, If I make more than you, I still give more money in taxes than you do. 20% of 100,000 is a whole lot more than 20% of 40,000.

[Baculus]

You trust the govt to administer single payer yet question whether they will deprive the elderly with vouchers?

Here is the rub that you seem to keep missing: the vouchers will NOT purchase the same level of coverage which a person will get through the current single-payer Medicare system. Why do you think so many people are worried about this?

Here is the CBO analysis, as I have previously quoted:

"For purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that all individuals projected to enroll in Medicare would use the proposed voucher. Voucher recipients would probably have to purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums than they would under current law, for two reasons. First, most of the savings for Medicare under the proposal stem from reducing the amounts that the federal government would pay for enrollees on a per capita basis, relative to the projections under current law. Second, future beneficiaries would probably face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf

This argument isn't difficult -- the Ryan plan will not provide the Medicare coverage that people currently receive. There, the GOP are implementing rationing, a "death panel," to use their hyperbole. Which, BTW, considering everything you said during the health care debate in your opposition to the PPACA, seems to place you in the position of supporting something, "rationing," which you have decried in the past.

---------- Post added April-23rd-2011 at 02:28 AM ----------

How many people stay on welfare that can actually go out and get a job?

BTW, you should read some of the quotes I presented so you may understand the argument for a progressive tax.

A welfare allowance isn't that high. Anyone who wants to own some desired possessions (car, gaming system, TV, stuff in general) and to live in more comfortable surroundings should be well motivated to obtain a job. Some people certainly exploit welfare, but I would bet that you can find more corporate welfare compared to the proverbial, often cliched "black welfare queen with children."

BTW, in relation to your brother-in-law, yes, a part-time job will pay less than unemployment, but that system isn't meant to replace having a job, and it only lasts for so long. Times are tough. Unemployment has helped to ease the pain for some troubled folks.

Again, in a flat-tax system, If I make more than you, I still give more money in taxes than you do. 20% of 100,000 is a whole lot more than 20% of 40,000.

Maybe you don't realize it, but the effective tax for some people is currently below 20%. Some higher earners and corporations don't even pay any taxes at all. I know some lower-income people do not pay any federal income taxes (which receiving an EIC), but they still pay payroll and other forms of taxes.

Much of the spending deficit can be closed by ending corporate welfare, ensuring that those who have to pay their taxes do pay their taxes, and by increasing the upper percentile tax rate to 38%, which was the rate during the Clinton years.

A 3% increase isn't breaking the bank. Heck, just weeks ago, conservatives were saying that public workers in WI needed to take a virtual 8% pay cut via benefits and lowered wages. But "shared sacrifice" only applies to middle class workers?

[JimboDaMan]

You trust the govt to administer single payer yet question whether they will deprive the elderly with vouchers?

Trust is not a factor here. The vouchers are designed to provide less coverage. That's where the savings come from, not that Paul Ryan would ever put it in those words.

[Hitman21ST]

[quote name=Baculus;8255636

Maybe you don't realize it' date=' but the effective tax for some people is currently below 20%. Some higher earners and corporations don't even pay any taxes at all. I know some lower-income people do not pay any federal income taxes (which receiving an EIC), but they still pay payroll and other forms of taxes.

Much of the spending deficit can be closed by ending corporate welfare, ensuring that those who have to pay their taxes do pay their taxes, and by increasing the upper percentile tax rate to 38%, which was the rate during the Clinton years.

A 3% increase isn't breaking the bank. Heck, just weeks ago, conservatives were saying that public workers in WI needed to take a virtual 8% pay cut via benefits and lowered wages. But "shared sacrifice" only applies to middle class workers?

I wasn't trying to say it was 20%, I was just using round numbers for easy math's sake. I agree that the corporations should pay taxes, and those that don't are doing something wrong (or wrongly right, depending on how you look at it ). I don't really care what the percentage is, but it still should be the same for every individual. I haven't looked into the corporational (not a word, but you know what I'm saying) tax bracket, and don't know much about it, so I'm not really trying to delve into that.

It a perfect world, there wouldn't be an income tax. Make it a higher sales tax, save for food and medications, and give a significant portion of that to the government. But what you earn should be yours.

[Baculus]

I wasn't trying to say it was 20%, I was just using round numbers for easy math's sake. I agree that the corporations should pay taxes, and those that don't are doing something wrong (or wrongly right, depending on how you look at it ). I don't really care what the percentage is, but it still should be the same for every individual. I haven't looked into the corporational (not a word, but you know what I'm saying) tax bracket, and don't know much about it, so I'm not really trying to delve into that.

Fair enough.

Corporational -- I like the term!

It a perfect world, there wouldn't be an income tax. Make it a higher sales tax, save for food and medications, and give a significant portion of that to the government. But what you earn should be yours.

There is some truth to that, but it isn't a perfect word, unfortunately. This is the reason why I do not have the same support for a flat tax which I did in the past. (I used to fully support the idea.)

[mardi gras skin]

Paul Ryan's plan won't get adopted as is. Its not really a medicare plan, its 3 pages within a deficit reduction plan. In broad terms I agree with Ryan. He's looking at Medicare as a percentage of GDP and he's holding the line. We can't allow medicare to eat up 15% of GDP within the next couple decades. That's going to kill us.

Edit: Bac and Jimbo, what do you think of this analysis? http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-ryanrivlin-plan/

The article outlines the benefits and deficiencies of the Ryan/Rivlin plan (touches on the other plans as well) and it offers up some proposals to improve it. These sounds good to me but I'm fairly ignorant on this subject. You guys clearly have strong negative opinions on the Ryan plan. Is anything misreported in this article?

This is what I find most relevant:

Beginning in 2013, all enrollees would be protected by a $6,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses; in return they would pay for more small expenses on their own...

...What about Low-Income Beneficiaries? Ryan/Rivlin have a nice idea here. For Medicare beneficiaries whose low income also qualifies them for Medicaid (the dual eligibles), forget Medicaid and deposit $6,600 for each of them in a health savings account. This gives them the financial resources to pay the $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses they are potentially exposed to plus $600 to boot.

[DRSmith]

You trust the govt to administer single payer yet question whether they will deprive the elderly with vouchers?

NO I would not trust the insurance companies as the would jerk up rates faster and why waste money that could be going into patient care so that insurance companies can make more money and that is what the voucher system is.