Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's not a bad idea, this Calfornia bill. But of course it should come with a tax increase to pay for it, which is reasonable since people won't be paying for any health insurance anymore under a single payer system.
And, in theory, giving everyone a new house, two new cars and a 2 week Caribbean vacation each year is a good idea too.
But, the problem is that you need to be able to pay for it.Calfiornia would never be able to assess the kind of tax hike necessary to overcome its own financial woes and provide single payer healthcare. The numbers simply don't come close to adding up.
A US state simply can't just wake up one morning and raise the state income tax to 30%. It would instantly lose almost all of its businesses to neighboring states.
Originally posted by sh76 And, in theory, giving everyone a new house, two new cars and a 2 week Caribbean vacation each year is a good idea too.
But, the problem is that you need to be able to pay for it.Calfiornia would never be able to assess the kind of tax hike necessary to overcome its own financial woes and provide single payer healthcare. The numbers simply don't come close t ...[text shortened]... income tax to 30%. It would instantly lose almost all of its businesses to neighboring states.
If California (or some other state) could come up with a healthcare plan that eliminated the need for employers to pay for their workers' healthcare, that might be rather attractive to many businesses.
Originally posted by Melanerpes If California (or some other state) could come up with a healthcare plan that eliminated the need for employers to pay for their workers' healthcare, that might be rather attractive to many businesses.
Not if it had to raise its income tax rates sky high to pay for it.
Originally posted by sh76 Not if it had to raise its income tax rates sky high to pay for it.
healthcare costs are becoming an absurd game of hot potato.
premiums keep skyrocketing every year. At some point, the employers are going to say "no mas" and throw the potato to the individual employees - who will then toss it to the Democrats - who will then toss it to the rich people - who will then toss it to the GOP - who will then toss it to Sarah Palin - who will then toss it to the Tea Party Movement - who will then toss it to whodey - who will then toss it to zeeblebot - who will then c&p something written by some blogger in Romania that actually solves the problem.
Originally posted by Melanerpes healthcare costs are becoming an absurd game of hot potato.
premiums keep skyrocketing every year. At some point, the employers are going to say "no mas" and throw the potato to the individual employees - who will then toss it to the Democrats - who will then toss it to the rich people - who will then toss it to the GOP - who will then toss it to Sarah ...[text shortened]... o will then c&p something written by some blogger in Romania that actually solves the problem.
So who gets credit for saving the World, Zeeblebot or the Romanian blogger?
Originally posted by sh76 1) Business pay income tax
2) Employees will need and demand higher salaries if they have to pay more of their salaries in income tax
I'm not sure I understand your question.
1) Maybe if you look at it administratively. But of course it boils down to people paying tax from their gross income. The employer doesn't pay for their employees' cars, pets, food, etc. either. The employer just pays the gross income, which is unaffected (directly) by income tax.
2) Not necessarily. For sure they won't "need" it if the tax increase will get them cost reductions that outweigh the loss of income. And the employer does not have to give in to the employees' demands, especially if everyone else is faced with the same tax increase.
The de facto "requirement" that employers pay for their workers' health insurance could be thought of as a tax. A tax that employers in other countries don't have to pay. And it's a "tax" that automatically rises every year because premiums keep going up at a rapid rate.
I'm sure most of these employers would rejoice if this "tax" was removed and replaced by a personal income tax (or some other source for paying premiums that doesn't involve payroll).
Originally posted by Melanerpes The de facto "requirement" that employers pay for their workers' health insurance could be thought of as a tax. A tax that employers in other countries don't have to pay. And it's a "tax" that automatically rises every year because premiums keep going up at a rapid rate.
I'm sure most of these employers would rejoice if this "tax" was removed and repla ...[text shortened]... l income tax (or some other source for paying premiums that doesn't involve payroll).
Originally posted by Hugh Glass There ya go, no sales tax. I wonder when that will raise it's ugly head?
However, I think our property taxes are way high.
remember THE SPOTTED OWL...............have yet to see one?
No sales or income tax here in NH and things have been ok for decades.
Now the Dems are in power and suddenly there's a 'revenue shortfall' which can only be overcome by an income AND sales tax. It's coming boys, so ya better get ready.
btw Our property taxes are through the roof as well. The bright side is it's the only way gov has to get into our wallets at the moment.
Dem funny Californians
02 Feb '10 14:39
Back to Top