Mandating individuals' health insurance purchases


#1

I’m first discussing individuals’ income taxes and then relating it to mandating health insurance purchases.

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Whatever the courts will decide with regard to requiring individuals to purchase government qualified health insurance, I, (a populist) join others across the entire political spectrum who are uncomfortable with this mandate.
Rather than the stick, I prefer the federal government employ the carrot.

The income tax considerations granted per taxpayer and each of their dependents during the tax year should require that those persons be covered by qualifying health insurance during each month of the tax year. [The health insurance requirements for persons should of course be waived for months prior to each person’s birth or after their death].

Respectfully, Supposn


#2

A “Tax Credit” available to income groups that already pay NO INCOME TAX is just a welfare check.

If you want to help the poor, reverse the progressive tax system.

Make the highest tax rates hit the poorest and the lowest hit the wealthiest.

You punish the behavior you want to eliminate (sloth and government dependence) and reward the behavior you want to encourage (hard work and self reliance).

I actually advocate a single tax rate that applies to all based only on consumption instead of income (this would restore the concept of a voluntary tax code our Founders envisioned) but if we are going to keep a progressive tax system we must change it to stop rewarding all the wrong behavior.


#3

We could put an end to bad behavior just by letting the behavior’s natural disincentives run their course.

IE: Starvation, freezing to death in the winter.

That is punishment enough for whoever doesn’t want to work and they won’t care how much you tax them, it would simply encourage them not to work anymore and just collect like they do now.


#4

GT7, just how far back do you want to regress; to the middle ages or back further? Do you prefer we go back to complete pre-civilization?

Respectfully, Supposn


#5

[quote=“Supposn, post:4, topic:28921”]
GT7, just how far back do you want to regress; to the middle ages or back further? Do you prefer we go back to complete pre-civilization?

Respectfully, Supposn
[/quote]Regress? I think that G7 has the courage to post what many Americans are currently thinking.

The parasites of society are continually rewarded for their behavior and we keep raising the bar as to how much care and feeding we are going to provide to this carefully nurtured liberal voting block and criminal factory.

It is not medieval to believe that actions have consequences and therefore, so must inaction. Need is a wonderful motivator to action and what we have been witnessing is the rapid removal of need and therefore the predisposition of inaction.

The so called “war on poverty” has resulted in a larger impoverished population that enjoys the standards of living that the majority of the rest of the world would call middle class.


#6

Subvet, USA’s population doesn’t reside in the “rest of the world”; they reside here.
Respectfully, Supposn


#7

Realizing that there is no set solution, and many hardliners would like to sweep the poverty problem under the nearest rock, what is being discussed here is a bit over the edge to be sure.
As Jesus once said “the poor you will always have with you,” Poverty for sure is an ongoing problem from the beginning of Adam and Eve’s downfall. It will never go away, because there will always be circumstances surrounding the descent into the poverty floor.
Yes there are many people who are lazy and because of no work ethic they will be poor and a drag on society. But there are those through no fault of their own whether by family tragedy, local job replacement, mental illness, or other mitigating issues, that fall below the poverty level.
Right now much of the work force objective has been outsourced to other nations, It’s not their [ the worker]fault, and when there is nothing to replace the local job objective one goes from unemployment to needy to poverty. Big, tax, low tax, no tax, nothing changes the status quo.
Unemployment does not fix the “Big Picture” either. It’s just a stop gap measure paving the way to poverty on a slower pace. The government can keep throwing ‘Fixes’ at the poverty issue, but it will never go away and as you keep throwing meat scraps at the wolf, but instead of driving it away through satisfaction, the wolf will just get closer to the meat scrap source and call all his friends.


#8

And the wolves keep getting fatter and fatter.


#9

Entitlements of all kinds breed more poverty, not end it. The sweeping overhauls proposed by the democrats are about expanding entitlements, not fixing the real problems with health care. I’d like to see the Republicans in the House propose some piece-by-piece legislation, like allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines.


#10

Ah, yes the good old Fair Tax. My brother is a state respresentative in Missouri and he is sponsoring the Fair Tax bill for our state. Obviously, it is peanuts when compared to a Fair tax on the federal level, but it might be a good start.

He and I debate it often, and I am still somewhat split between the Fair tax and a flat tax rate. But regardless, ANYTHING is better than what we have now. Something has to be done. Tens of thousands of pages for a tax code is ludicrous.


#11

The Flat Tax STILL taxes/punishes productivity. It’s immoral, and not at all what was in the minds of our Founding Fathers when it came to supporting a military, the coinage of money, and what money it took to regulate trade.
Some might argue that the FAIRTax punishes productivity, but I would argue that no, it does not, as it is given by choice.
Big difference.
And some would argue that there would be no reason to buy new. I beg to differ because purchasers very much value the contract, (aka, guarentee), that comes with a new product.


#12

[quote=“Supposn, post:6, topic:28921”]
Subvet, USA’s population doesn’t reside in the “rest of the world”; they reside here.
Respectfully, Supposn
[/quote]And what is this year’s definition of poverty that requires govenment action? Is it not being able to afford the latest smart phone with a 4G data package? We provide food, clothing and shelter to our poor and despite all the hype, free medical care but that isn’t good enough is it? It’s the demand for social justice that propels the arguement and as long as there are people who are better off than others, this debate will continue to rage. Capitalism and socialism are incompatable and one will destroy the other eventually.
R/ SUBVET


#13

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

How is that? The effective tax rates currently show the wealthiest Americans shouldering most of the burden while those at the bottom essentially have a negative income tax rate.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

First, what is a populist? That term carries many meanings, although it generally refers to those supporting liberal policies.

Second, we already give plenty of tax credits to the poor (EITC, LIHTC) and yet, that doesn’t seem to offer a incentive to get themselves out of their current state. Why not focus more on just cutting taxes across the board towards something like a flat tax? I’d rather see the incentives go towards hiring people instead of seeing more handouts.

The income tax considerations granted per taxpayer and each of their dependents during the tax year should require that those persons be covered by qualifying health insurance during each month of the tax year. [The health insurance requirements for persons should of course be waived for months prior to each person’s birth or after their death].

Again, why would a subsidy cure the problem? All you’re doing is forcing the taxpayer to create artificial demand in the marketplace, which just ends up driving up the cost of health care.

GT7, just how far back do you want to regress; to the middle ages or back further? Do you prefer we go back to complete pre-civilization?

How is rolling back the welfare state going to create a dark ages for us? Considering that many of the monarchies were able to impose absolute rule under their thumb, I’d say your criticism is rather moot. Generally, it is the productive members of society that advance the well being of the nation, not the moochers.

Subvet, USA’s population doesn’t reside in the “rest of the world”; they reside here.

You totally missed the point. The point was that our standard of living was increased to such a high point that even the poor can enjoy benefits that would be considered luxuries in other countries. It’s called a point of reference.


#14

No, he’s right but as I understand it black & white poverty are two totally different things. Doesn’t being poor, and white, in the US mean something like you don’t have a microwave? Oh…I’ve just remembered trailer parks. Are they examples of poor people?

Anyways whichever it is, that’s nothing compared to the global definition of poverty. And I guess his point was that perhaps the USA needs to make poverty a life or death situation to be avoided. I don’t really get that reasoning though because it hasn’t seemed to do much for everywhere else. At least if you’re poor in the US and at some point wake up to the fact you’re a welfare leech, you can still afford to live relatively well so you’re physically & mentally healthy. Also you’ll have some means to better your qualifications & be able to afford the things like clothes & equipment a new job requires.

If you’re at rock bottom, without a house or a regular source of food, you aren’t going to be very successful at finding employment unless the USA is quite happy to have the roaring trade in street hustling, begging, crappy markets & of course drugs that the third world mostly subsists on. It gets to a stage though where th choice is that or die in a gutter, which can take a surprising amount of time.

I’ve seen the soloist. How would you suppose most of those people find gainful employment? I’ve gotten off track…anyways Subvet had a point, I don’t totally agree but he was misunderstood.


#15

Is that the same as a goods & services tax? Just taken off whatever people buy, so it collects from those earning their money in the black market too. We got that when Howard came in, almost immediately it seemed although 1) he swore black & blue before election that it would never happen and 2) it was supposed to replace income tax…and stamp duty…and all these other taxes. But none of that happened.

As for the poverty thing, I don’t believe in entitlements based on being a number in a system. I believe if you are truly entitled to a handout because you’ve suffered hardship or something and have behaved as a kind & decent person, the people that know you will help you get on your feet & you’ll feel indebted to them, and thus not want to dissapoint them. So you get your ass into gear as soon as you can & get on your own feet, and repay the kindness any way you can. If you’re a hermit or recently moved to a new place though you may be in a bit of strife.

Massive unemployment means theres a lack of opporunity but unless EVERYONE is doing it tough then some people are able to provide those opportunities to those that need them. Not handouts. An opportunity to learn a new skill or launch a new innovation or whatever, just an oportunity to better your life for those who want it. I saw that manufacturing jobs are moving back to the US in some way…? I’ll look it up.


#16

Our poor have;
Microwaves
Cable or satellite TV reception
Own computers with broadband Internet service
Own Multiple TV’s
Receive subsidized Land line phones and cell phones
Are more likely to eat meat regularly that the middle class population of Europe (and can afford to eat fast food regularly)
Have at least one car
Get free medical care
Get free food via food stamps
Receive subsidized housing
Receive subsidized electric and gas service
Have enough discretionary spending money to be the most obese economic class in America.

There is no means testing to welfare and a recreational drug addiction is considered a “disability”, qualifying the “addict” for permanent disability through the Social Security system.

Is it any wonder that the “War On Poverty” has turned a cyclical problem of poverty that most adults endured at least once at some point in their lives into a generational poverty problem.

We now have children who not only have never experienced a parent who “went to work” but they also have grandparents who have never had a job.

Anyone who calls this “advancement” or “progress” is the epitome of evil, our system is a curse to the poor. They are fundamentally devalued as humans and serve no purpose other than to screw up their children’s future and vote
Liberals back into office.

Entitlements are the new slave plantations, the master served is the Demoncrat Party.


#17

“Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish” is one of our oldest proverbs…I imagine…so you’d think elected leaders would take it into account when devising policy.

Our poor are either aboriginal, people on some kind of pension/benefit or anyone who earns less than 30 or 40 000 a year, i think. If you’re aboriginal though you aren’t necessarily poor or destitute, it’s a tough one, but the ones you generally bring into a conversation are. Also the really poor ones tend to live where we can’t see them, some small groups live in parks in the city. Then there are the aboriginal people that are unbelievably wealthy from Native Title payments- tey get royalties from the government & mining companies mainly, whoever wants to use their land which is out where most of the minerals are. Sometimes, often, the Government buys land back from them.

These people getting native title live like they’re poor- broken stuff, alcoholism, child abuse, houses that don’t have walls or roofs, etc etc. But they have brand new $100,000 landrovers and such. They trash them for a year, get another payment when the thing no longer goes and buy a new one. My sister & fiance lived in Arnehm land in a remote community and told me you’d see this going on. The funny part was you’d see a brand new 4wd full to bursting with ppl towing a clapped out, filthy year old model behind it with a piece of rope. What. The.

Our white poor get the same as yours, but I don’t think we have food stamps. If you’re on centreling (240 a week) you get a care package if you go into the salvation army, once a fortnight, but it’s mostly pies and stuff that’s unhealthy. There’s government housing too, everyone get free healthcare but if you can afford to you go private coz ppl like their own rooms & the little perks like cosmetic surgery. I think most ppl deck their houses out when a verge collection comes up in a new-rich suburb.

Your obese poor- I don’t think that’s coz they can afford to stuff themselves, it’s coz cheap food is really calorie dense and stuffed full of HFCS. Also, I’ve read that it’s not very common to walk for more than 15-30 mins or so to go do errands in the US and it can be difficult to find a footpath? Along roads with fast food chains clumped together and such. Is that true? I know Mississippi is a place where you need a car to get around and they’re the fattest in the country.

That drug addiction thing; I’m bringing up King of the hill again. Remember he accidentally hired a junkie and had to let him work there? The government wouldn’t let him get fired because of the diabilities act. And everyone got all lazy. Hank went off with this “I suffer from GWS…good worker syndrome” rant and I considered quoting it at you for something I cant recall the other day. I love they way they drew the ‘twig boy’ government guy, all weedy lol.


#18

That was a great episode, Hank ends up falling on his sword to get the company under 10 people so they can fire that whiner!

That is life in a small business here in America though, everything ends up requiring an attorney.


#19

And that, sir, is crazy. I didn’t appreciate that fact until recently because I was unaware of it. The first time I saw that episode I didn’t think of it as a real thing that would happen, i thought it was artistic license. I mean, come on!


#20

Most of South Park and King Of The Hill episodes are based on real stories or trends in our culture. They are presented in a way as to show how ridiculous these things are but usually they are not exaggerated.

One of the greatest summaries of how the Hurricane Katrina situation evolved that I have seen anywhere is the “Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow” South Park episode.
Dead on in every way (except the whole “Jew Gold” joke).