Aa
Obamacare Wealth Redistribution...1%ers tax bill pay for poor
Obamacare Wealth Redistribution: Health Reform To Add $52,000 To 1 Percenters Tax Bill To Pay For Benefits For Poorest Americans
Obamacare is designed to increase the health care coverage of Americans but doing so will, in part, yield something else: Wealth distribution.
The Affordable Care Act will raise taxes by $52,000 on average for families among the top 1 percent of earners in order to finance $250 to $2,000 worth of health benefits for the poorest half of American families by 2016, a recent report from the Tax Foundation has found.
The added taxes are just one way that the government is expected to increase measures that will likely reduce the wealth gap as Americans face added pressures from globalization and an aging population, according to The New York Times.
Though redistribution of wealth through Obamacare and other means may seem like a certainty in the coming years, it still holds quite a stigma. Following the release of Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent video, a 1998 speech at Loyola surfaced where Obama declared that he “believe[s] in [wealth] redistribution.” Romney subsequently attacked the stance, arguing that “it’s never been a characteristic of America.”
Even so, President Obama's predilection to "spread the wealth around," as he famously said during the run up to the 2008 elections, seems fairly measured compared to presidents of other nations. Take French President François Hollande, for example. He recently levied a 75 percent "supertax" on French earners making over 1 million euros, CNNMoney reports.
Regardless of a president's particular stance on redistributing wealth, however, the gap between the richest and poorest Americans still remains, though it's fluctuated during Obama's term as well as under President George W. Bush. In 2009, income inequality was reduced by more than a quarter, the largest reduction in at least 30 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, Businessweek points out that the decrease isn't much more substantial than in 2003, when the income gap fell by 24.8 percent under George W. Bush.
But in 2011, the Census Bureau found that income inequality had reached a new high. Indeed, to reach the same levels of equality seen during the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, $146,000 would need to be culled from each of the nation’s richest 6 million households, and redistributed in $7,700 payments to the remaining 95 percent of Americans, Businessweek points out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/government-wealth-distribution_n_1928973.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
Obamacare is designed to increase the health care coverage of Americans but doing so will, in part, yield something else: Wealth distribution.
The Affordable Care Act will raise taxes by $52,000 on average for families among the top 1 percent of earners in order to finance $250 to $2,000 worth of health benefits for the poorest half of American families by 2016, a recent report from the Tax Foundation has found.
The added taxes are just one way that the government is expected to increase measures that will likely reduce the wealth gap as Americans face added pressures from globalization and an aging population, according to The New York Times.
Though redistribution of wealth through Obamacare and other means may seem like a certainty in the coming years, it still holds quite a stigma. Following the release of Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent video, a 1998 speech at Loyola surfaced where Obama declared that he “believe[s] in [wealth] redistribution.” Romney subsequently attacked the stance, arguing that “it’s never been a characteristic of America.”
Even so, President Obama's predilection to "spread the wealth around," as he famously said during the run up to the 2008 elections, seems fairly measured compared to presidents of other nations. Take French President François Hollande, for example. He recently levied a 75 percent "supertax" on French earners making over 1 million euros, CNNMoney reports.
Regardless of a president's particular stance on redistributing wealth, however, the gap between the richest and poorest Americans still remains, though it's fluctuated during Obama's term as well as under President George W. Bush. In 2009, income inequality was reduced by more than a quarter, the largest reduction in at least 30 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, Businessweek points out that the decrease isn't much more substantial than in 2003, when the income gap fell by 24.8 percent under George W. Bush.
But in 2011, the Census Bureau found that income inequality had reached a new high. Indeed, to reach the same levels of equality seen during the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, $146,000 would need to be culled from each of the nation’s richest 6 million households, and redistributed in $7,700 payments to the remaining 95 percent of Americans, Businessweek points out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/government-wealth-distribution_n_1928973.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
"...Do you really believe that taking home 180,000 vs. 200,000 would have much if any impact on lifestyle..."
Who said that taking taxes needs to impact your lifestyle?
Why is it that people that make more money, NEED to have their lifestyle impacted?
"flat tax" has been mathmatically proven to work.
I think the percentage that was tossed around was 12%. If EVERYONE, across the board, paid 12% (at every income level), the US would have a surplus.
Who said that taking taxes needs to impact your lifestyle?
Why is it that people that make more money, NEED to have their lifestyle impacted?
"flat tax" has been mathmatically proven to work.
I think the percentage that was tossed around was 12%. If EVERYONE, across the board, paid 12% (at every income level), the US would have a surplus.
"But that's NOT how our system works. If you make less than "X number of dollars", you pay ZERO% in income-tax, and those that make more pay an incrementally higher percentage, depending on how much they make . . . "
However if you are among the wealthiest you pay less, percentage wise.
Romney, for example who earns almost $57,000 per day paid 13% income tax.
However if you are among the wealthiest you pay less, percentage wise.
Romney, for example who earns almost $57,000 per day paid 13% income tax.
Ok, I understand what your saying. And theoretically it makes sense right. But disect it for a second..
Pay 10% at 20,000/year means you lose 2,000 to taxes right? Doesn't sound like much, but that works out to $160/month. I know families where that could mean the difference between eating for part if not all of the month.
Pay 10% at 200,000/month means 20,000/year. Do you really believe that taking home 180,000 vs. 200,000 would have much if any impact on lifestyle? I doubt it.
Plus, if everyone pays an equal percentage, and the median income in your country is 50,000 with only a small percentage making over $200,000 and a fairly high number living at or below the poverty line, well, you've probably got a non sustainable situation. So where does the money come from then?
I'm no economist El, but I don't think that would work. See what I mean?
Pay 10% at 20,000/year means you lose 2,000 to taxes right? Doesn't sound like much, but that works out to $160/month. I know families where that could mean the difference between eating for part if not all of the month.
Pay 10% at 200,000/month means 20,000/year. Do you really believe that taking home 180,000 vs. 200,000 would have much if any impact on lifestyle? I doubt it.
Plus, if everyone pays an equal percentage, and the median income in your country is 50,000 with only a small percentage making over $200,000 and a fairly high number living at or below the poverty line, well, you've probably got a non sustainable situation. So where does the money come from then?
I'm no economist El, but I don't think that would work. See what I mean?
I think EVERYONE in the country, no matter what their income (assuming they work for a living and draw an income of some type) should pay an equal PERCENTAGE.
(*Lets for arguments sake, say 10%)
If you make $20,000/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If you make $90,000/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If you make $200,000/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If you make $20Million/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If THAT was the way our tax structure was distributed, then I'd say that everyone has "skin in the game".
But that's NOT how our system works. If you make less than "X number of dollars", you pay ZERO% in income-tax, and those that make more pay an incrementally higher percentage, depending on how much they make (the highest being 39% I believe, but may be mistaken).
Why should you be penalized for having a higher salary than someone else that makes less?
(*Lets for arguments sake, say 10%)
If you make $20,000/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If you make $90,000/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If you make $200,000/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If you make $20Million/yr... you pay 10% in income-tax
If THAT was the way our tax structure was distributed, then I'd say that everyone has "skin in the game".
But that's NOT how our system works. If you make less than "X number of dollars", you pay ZERO% in income-tax, and those that make more pay an incrementally higher percentage, depending on how much they make (the highest being 39% I believe, but may be mistaken).
Why should you be penalized for having a higher salary than someone else that makes less?
I hear you. My husband is an accountant, and we too take advantage of whatever we can to pay less. Human nature and if the system allows for it, it's going to happen. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps.
It's one of those tough things. I mean, there are certain realities. The poor just cannot contribute much to the tax system. It's just not possible. The uber rich do seem to get a whole lot more breaks then the rest of us - it's just the way the loopholes work. It's legal, I'm not saying anyone is doing anything wrong. The middle class typically have less loopholes, yet are in a high enough bracket to not get off the hook. So they tend to absorb the majority of it. Under the current economic situation, it's just not sustainable. So what gives? Unless the rules of our North American society change, and we choose to just let the poor starve and die off? I know you well enough to know that is not something you would ever be ok with - so what should be done?
It probably isn't fair, but maybe it has to be reality? Or maybe I'm just out to lunch...lol, always a possibility.
It's one of those tough things. I mean, there are certain realities. The poor just cannot contribute much to the tax system. It's just not possible. The uber rich do seem to get a whole lot more breaks then the rest of us - it's just the way the loopholes work. It's legal, I'm not saying anyone is doing anything wrong. The middle class typically have less loopholes, yet are in a high enough bracket to not get off the hook. So they tend to absorb the majority of it. Under the current economic situation, it's just not sustainable. So what gives? Unless the rules of our North American society change, and we choose to just let the poor starve and die off? I know you well enough to know that is not something you would ever be ok with - so what should be done?
It probably isn't fair, but maybe it has to be reality? Or maybe I'm just out to lunch...lol, always a possibility.
My husband and I pay a tax accountant every year to do our taxes. He looks for all the deductions we can take and works within the system to help us pay the least amount we can or get the biggest refund. I think it is unfair that the super rich are made to feel they shouldn't do that too. Or maybe some even feel that my husband and I are wrong to pay as little as possible. ??? I dont know.
Personally, I think the wealthy do pay a lot into the system when you look at the dollar amount and wish they'd get a thank you rather than reamed that they are doing something wrong.
Personally, I think the wealthy do pay a lot into the system when you look at the dollar amount and wish they'd get a thank you rather than reamed that they are doing something wrong.
I know they don't pay the same. I was referring to some of the other posts that seemed to imply they should be. I took that as the meaning behind some of the comments made. And it's simply not possible. So we are back to "redistribution of wealth" - I don't understand the issue when that is what is happening.
My question in all this was, does that mean that everyone should pay the same amount? Would that solve the issue?
My question in all this was, does that mean that everyone should pay the same amount? Would that solve the issue?
Well, they don't pay the same amount adgal. We are talking about a percentage. So someone who makes 2 million dollars a year pays a heaping tax bill verses someone that makes 50 thousand a year. Whether they are able to take advantage in things that allow them to save some money on their tax bill------ they are still paying a boat load of taxes and far more than someone of lesser income.
No, that isn't what I mean...sorry if it came across that way.
Here is how I see issues such as this. Every single country that has taxpayer support is really partially a socialist country right? I mean, in order not to be, everyone would pay their own way, end of story. Education, roads, clean water, etc. etc. All things we all pay into, but of course all utilize. That being said, you just cannot pay the same amount making 20,000 per year as someone making 250,000 a year. It's simply not possible. The only option would be to lower everyone's taxes to the level of those making the 20,000/year. With a large population, or even a medium sized population, it simply isn't possible. That's why this "redistribution of wealth" term confounds me. I guess technically it is, but what is the solution? Do away with things necessary for a healthy society to function? Or charge based on use? You would be well on your way to becoming a third world country. Capitalism is important of course. Business' need to be able to start up and grow in order to create job opportunities. And people should benefit from hard work...absolutely. But a truly Capitalistic society has none of the benefits countries like the US does. It's a balance. So really, it comes down to determining what is important in a healthy society for everyone, and that is what should be taken out of taxes. Things that benefit all...the wealthy and the poor alike. The gap between the haves and have nots is widening...and that is not good for the country..not at all.
Here is how I see issues such as this. Every single country that has taxpayer support is really partially a socialist country right? I mean, in order not to be, everyone would pay their own way, end of story. Education, roads, clean water, etc. etc. All things we all pay into, but of course all utilize. That being said, you just cannot pay the same amount making 20,000 per year as someone making 250,000 a year. It's simply not possible. The only option would be to lower everyone's taxes to the level of those making the 20,000/year. With a large population, or even a medium sized population, it simply isn't possible. That's why this "redistribution of wealth" term confounds me. I guess technically it is, but what is the solution? Do away with things necessary for a healthy society to function? Or charge based on use? You would be well on your way to becoming a third world country. Capitalism is important of course. Business' need to be able to start up and grow in order to create job opportunities. And people should benefit from hard work...absolutely. But a truly Capitalistic society has none of the benefits countries like the US does. It's a balance. So really, it comes down to determining what is important in a healthy society for everyone, and that is what should be taken out of taxes. Things that benefit all...the wealthy and the poor alike. The gap between the haves and have nots is widening...and that is not good for the country..not at all.
http://www.epi.org/publication/taxes_on_the_wealthy_have_gone_down_dramatically/
Office projects federal revenue in 2011 will total 14.8% of GDP—the lowest level since 1950.
At the same time that the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, this same top income group has enjoyed massively disproportionate income gains. Between 1992 and 2007, a time in which income for the average household and top one percent grew 13% and 123%, respectively, the income for the top 400 households grew fully 399%.
Office projects federal revenue in 2011 will total 14.8% of GDP—the lowest level since 1950.
At the same time that the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, this same top income group has enjoyed massively disproportionate income gains. Between 1992 and 2007, a time in which income for the average household and top one percent grew 13% and 123%, respectively, the income for the top 400 households grew fully 399%.
But is it fair for someone else to have to pay your bills?
El, you cannot possibly expect those making minimum wage to pay the same amount of taxes those making $250,000 a year pay. Or do you? That is why I struggle with this I guess.
I absolutely do not consider those who have done well for themselves to be immoral just for the fact that they are wealthy. Good for them! I begrudge no one anything they have worked for. But....I don't think it's ok for the well off to pay a lower percentage by using tax loopholes, offshore accounts, etc. This DOES leave the burden to those who can afford it the least. And that is not fair.
I absolutely do not consider those who have done well for themselves to be immoral just for the fact that they are wealthy. Good for them! I begrudge no one anything they have worked for. But....I don't think it's ok for the well off to pay a lower percentage by using tax loopholes, offshore accounts, etc. This DOES leave the burden to those who can afford it the least. And that is not fair.
Keep your hands out of my pockets.
Stop taking MY hard-earned money, and giving it those that abuse the system.
FIX THE SYSTEM, then we'll talk about funding it.
Funding a broken, abused system, is my chief complaint.
And Mike... eat a richard.
Stop taking MY hard-earned money, and giving it those that abuse the system.
FIX THE SYSTEM, then we'll talk about funding it.
Funding a broken, abused system, is my chief complaint.
And Mike... eat a richard.
I hate the term "redistribution" in the manner it is being used regarding this subject. I too have mixed emotions about the whole thing. As with most everyone else here, we are in the middle at our house and we often struggle to make ends meet.
I don't know why I have a problem with asking the rich to pay more. (Probably because I am somehow wealthier than someone else and will be asked to do my part, even with the economic struggles I see on a monthly basis.) There's nothing in it for them. Perhaps a "feel good feeling" but nothing else. We need to keep in mind too that these are the people who normally "give" of their own feel will to other causes. Without these contributions, numerous non profits that help the community at large would/could go belly up. In my opinion, you make the rich fund this and in the end they will give up funding on their own free will. Now you've got those outfits going belly up and we need to come up with another government program to fill that niche'. (That means that we the people end up pumping more of our middle class money into the system.)
I don't know why I have a problem with asking the rich to pay more. (Probably because I am somehow wealthier than someone else and will be asked to do my part, even with the economic struggles I see on a monthly basis.) There's nothing in it for them. Perhaps a "feel good feeling" but nothing else. We need to keep in mind too that these are the people who normally "give" of their own feel will to other causes. Without these contributions, numerous non profits that help the community at large would/could go belly up. In my opinion, you make the rich fund this and in the end they will give up funding on their own free will. Now you've got those outfits going belly up and we need to come up with another government program to fill that niche'. (That means that we the people end up pumping more of our middle class money into the system.)
Well, I just hate being a puppet. LOL
But I do feel quite conflicted on many things in this area. I'd like to save the world but selfishly want to save myself first.
But I do feel quite conflicted on many things in this area. I'd like to save the world but selfishly want to save myself first.
Like you, I am in a position of struggle, being in the middle class I fall thru all the cracks you can think of. I dont make enuff to have it easy and too much to get any help. Isnt that what middle class means? I think the reason the word is used is to provoke the very response you have from hearing it. That means its working.
I think what I react to is that times are tough for me too. The term redistribution is a bad one that they should try not to use because really, taken literally, is maddening. I don't think if i were wealthy, I should have to redistribute my wealth to others. I just don't. I may choose to but the thought that it is morally wrong to be wealthy and want to remain so kind of bothers me.
On the other hand, making those in our country that are struggling- struggle less is a better way package it. They need to do a marketing campaign for these things to understand that there is a way to get more people to agree with you than to try to make people feel guilty or wrong for what they have.
Sadly, I'm a tweener. I'm not on the radar to take down because i have too little and I'm not on the radar to be given any help. But I am STILL struggling like others. And I don't like that my husband works so incredibly hard--- long hours when in town, often out of town, sitting behind his computer until midnight, conference calls at 5 am and someone would think that he and I would be wrong to want to keep what he earns for our family? If he made 2 million dollars a year, he'd have earned every penny of it. (bummer he doesn't)
But I will say that I don't mind the very top taxed a bit more so that we can work on the deficit (although I realize redistribution means entitlement programs).
Anyway, I'm always conflicted with wanting to do right by those less fortunate, doubting some people who claim to be (sorry, but we ALL know people who don't deserve benefits), wanting to remain stable financially myself, feeling like my husband (and I when I was in the work force) made choices that put us in a position to be financially independent (can't believe I almost blew off college for the lousey highschool boyfriend . . .yikes!) and therefore should never feel bad/guilty for wanting to reap the reward, wanting to raise the bar for others to see what they can achieve rather than giving it all away, and knowing full well that many do the very best they can and have struggles i will never know which is heartbreaking.
whew, that was a mouth full. But all those thoughts pop in my head during this type of discussion.
On the other hand, making those in our country that are struggling- struggle less is a better way package it. They need to do a marketing campaign for these things to understand that there is a way to get more people to agree with you than to try to make people feel guilty or wrong for what they have.
Sadly, I'm a tweener. I'm not on the radar to take down because i have too little and I'm not on the radar to be given any help. But I am STILL struggling like others. And I don't like that my husband works so incredibly hard--- long hours when in town, often out of town, sitting behind his computer until midnight, conference calls at 5 am and someone would think that he and I would be wrong to want to keep what he earns for our family? If he made 2 million dollars a year, he'd have earned every penny of it. (bummer he doesn't)
But I will say that I don't mind the very top taxed a bit more so that we can work on the deficit (although I realize redistribution means entitlement programs).
Anyway, I'm always conflicted with wanting to do right by those less fortunate, doubting some people who claim to be (sorry, but we ALL know people who don't deserve benefits), wanting to remain stable financially myself, feeling like my husband (and I when I was in the work force) made choices that put us in a position to be financially independent (can't believe I almost blew off college for the lousey highschool boyfriend . . .yikes!) and therefore should never feel bad/guilty for wanting to reap the reward, wanting to raise the bar for others to see what they can achieve rather than giving it all away, and knowing full well that many do the very best they can and have struggles i will never know which is heartbreaking.
whew, that was a mouth full. But all those thoughts pop in my head during this type of discussion.
Makes about as much sense as giving the rich even more tax cuts on top of the bush tax cuts and gutting programs like medicare and medicaid to pay for it. Yes?
Maybe people like Trump should just go to the inner city and "make it rain", at least it will be fun rather then then government just taking his money.
OH how is it immoral that someone who works hard in a good job makes a lot of money while others who don't work doesn't make a lot of money? Would it be great if everyone made the same amount of money? Sure but what incentitive would people have for higher education? For doing there best? For even doing anything? None.
OH how is it immoral that someone who works hard in a good job makes a lot of money while others who don't work doesn't make a lot of money? Would it be great if everyone made the same amount of money? Sure but what incentitive would people have for higher education? For doing there best? For even doing anything? None.
That word.. Redistribution? hmmm, can be seen both ways.
"The burden isn't being distributed 'across the board'. It's being thrown into the laps of the top earners because "they can afford to pay more".
So do you think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy over 8 years was just and fair to the Middle class those "47% footing the bill??
"THEY are the ones benefiting from the Democrat agenda and social programs and policies. A vote for Obama is a vote to keep putting money in their pockets (in the form of 'wealth distribution', ie: social-programs and entitlement-programs), whereas a vote for Romney would be shooting themselves in the foot, as Romney's fiscal plan calls for curbing said programs."
I hope you never know what it is like to lose your job or deplete your savings account because you will end up in that 47% and be thankful that that "democratic agenda was in place"...
So do you think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy over 8 years was just and fair to the Middle class those "47% footing the bill??
"THEY are the ones benefiting from the Democrat agenda and social programs and policies. A vote for Obama is a vote to keep putting money in their pockets (in the form of 'wealth distribution', ie: social-programs and entitlement-programs), whereas a vote for Romney would be shooting themselves in the foot, as Romney's fiscal plan calls for curbing said programs."
I hope you never know what it is like to lose your job or deplete your savings account because you will end up in that 47% and be thankful that that "democratic agenda was in place"...
The "opposition" to this is:
Those that earn more keep having their taxes raised in ever increasing increments, while those at the bottom, pay in nothing (or next to nothing).
The burden isn't being distributed 'across the board'. It's being thrown into the laps of the top earners because "they can afford to pay more".
It goes back to my whole "skin in the game" mantra. Those that have no skin in the game and pay nothing in (and reap the benefits), have NO problem voting to raise taxes on the top earners, because it doesn't effect THEIR bottom line.
That's why Mitt Romney's "47%" statement, although a bit off-color, is sort of true. He'll NEVER get that 47% of the vote, because THEY are the ones benefiting from the Democrat agenda and social programs and policies. A vote for Obama is a vote to keep putting money in their pockets (in the form of 'wealth distribution', ie: social-programs and entitlement-programs), whereas a vote for Romney would be shooting themselves in the foot, as Romney's fiscal plan calls for curbing said programs.
That's my take on it anyway...
Those that earn more keep having their taxes raised in ever increasing increments, while those at the bottom, pay in nothing (or next to nothing).
The burden isn't being distributed 'across the board'. It's being thrown into the laps of the top earners because "they can afford to pay more".
It goes back to my whole "skin in the game" mantra. Those that have no skin in the game and pay nothing in (and reap the benefits), have NO problem voting to raise taxes on the top earners, because it doesn't effect THEIR bottom line.
That's why Mitt Romney's "47%" statement, although a bit off-color, is sort of true. He'll NEVER get that 47% of the vote, because THEY are the ones benefiting from the Democrat agenda and social programs and policies. A vote for Obama is a vote to keep putting money in their pockets (in the form of 'wealth distribution', ie: social-programs and entitlement-programs), whereas a vote for Romney would be shooting themselves in the foot, as Romney's fiscal plan calls for curbing said programs.
That's my take on it anyway...
Ok, I know I'm beating a dead horse here but.....
Aren;t all taxes (as mentioned by Brice) a form of wealth redistribution? I mean, depending on your financial situation some contribute more to taxes then others. Yet all use the resources it provides.
Isn't this much the same thing? You pay in, but you get to take out. I still am struggling hard to understand the opposition to this...
Aren;t all taxes (as mentioned by Brice) a form of wealth redistribution? I mean, depending on your financial situation some contribute more to taxes then others. Yet all use the resources it provides.
Isn't this much the same thing? You pay in, but you get to take out. I still am struggling hard to understand the opposition to this...
I've felt/said for a long time that the exploding cost of CARE isn't being addressed; it's all about who has insurance that will pay it....and who can afford to pay for the rising cost of the insurance that keeps increasing deductibles and covering less and less of the cost.
As a recent retiree, paying $1000/mo for insurance for myself and my husband, it's not fun, or easy.
As a recent retiree, paying $1000/mo for insurance for myself and my husband, it's not fun, or easy.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
