House Democrats look at taxing the rich for health care - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON – House Democrats working on President Barack Obama's goal of health legislation are narrowing in on an income tax surcharge on the highest-paid wage earners to help subsidize insurance for the 50 million people who lack it. Pushing to complete a comprehensive health care overhaul plan by Friday and bring it up for committee votes next week, House Democrats abandoned earlier money-raising proposals, including a payroll tax. They met behind closed doors Thursday to fine-tune the details. Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he expected to have a draft bill on Friday. "The leadership's doing meetings with lots of members to hear their concerns, talk it through. But legislation doesn't come together until we actually start working on specific amendments on specific language and that's what we'll do next week," said the California Democrat. The action in the House stood in contrast to the Senate, where Democrats edged away from their goal of passing health care legislation by early August amid heightening partisan controversy over tax increases and a proposed new government role in providing insurance to consumers. As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, according to officials involved in the discussion. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the panel is looking at a surtax around 3.5 percent. In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits. Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has said his committee needs to come up with $600 billion in new taxes to deliver on Obama's goal of sweeping changes to the nation's health care system to bring down costs and cover the 50 million uninsured. Hundreds of billions of dollars more would come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for legislation expected to cost around $1 trillion over 10 years. Top administration officials, including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, conferred with Rangel's committee Democrats on Wednesday as they met throughout the day. "They know what I'm thinking about and I have no reason to believe I'll have any problems with them on that part of the bill," Rangel said of the tax proposals. Berkley said the proposed surtax on high-income taxpayers appealed to her and others as a way to avoid a "nickel-and-dime" approach involving numerous smaller tax increases. Lawmakers cautioned that no final decisions have been made, either by the tax-writing committee or by the Democratic leadership, which hopes to have legislation that the House can vote on by month's end. Smaller tax options remained possibilities, depending on the overall cost of the legislation, including a tax on sugared soft drinks and ending a tax break that drug companies receive for advertising. In the Senate, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer told The Associated Press that he believes the "ultimate goal" is to have a bill by the end of the year that is signed into law by the president. Separately, Republicans who met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expressed flexibility on the timetable, indicating that he was willing to allow more time before legislation is brought to the floor. Failure to meet the August goal would be a setback — but not necessarily a fatal one — for Obama's attempt to achieve comprehensive health care legislation this year. A group of Democratic and Republican senators led by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is still trying to work out a bipartisan deal. The White House expressed its support Wednesday for the emerging House legislation. [/quote] Congratulations Washington, taxing the rich to pay for the poor? Source: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul[/url]

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;15941422]Congratulations Washington, taxing the rich to pay for the poor?[/QUOTE] well I think poor people not dying of preventable diseases is a little more important than a rich person's second vacation home

What's wrong with taxing the rich? The wealth they hold was ultimately created by the poorer sections of the population anyway. The rich live in a society where they are provided for by other people, like anyone else. Why shouldn't they cover their medical costs?

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;15941449]well I think poor people not dying of preventable diseases is a little more important than a rich person's second vacation home[/QUOTE] Be that as it may, it doesn't seem fair that the successful that spend thousands of dollars on education and work every day have to pay for the people who don't take opportunities to educate and support themselves.

[QUOTE=Conscript;15941484]What's wrong with taxing the rich? The wealth they hold was ultimately created by the poorer sections of the population anyway. The rich live in a society where they are provided for by other people, like anyone else. Why shouldn't they cover their medical costs?[/QUOTE] When you start taxing the rich, they're gonna look for somewhere else to live. And they shouldn't have to cover for their medical costs, because this isn't (well, at least it wasn't) a socialist country.

[QUOTE=Conscript;15941484]What's wrong with taxing the rich? The wealth they hold was ultimately created by the poorer sections of the population anyway. The rich live in a society where they are provided for by other people, like anyone else. Why shouldn't they cover their medical costs?[/QUOTE] medical care is an important enough service that it should be provided for all by all. no one should have to pay for their own police protection, even rich people. However, more of the tax burden should be placed on the rich.

Sounds good to me.

[QUOTE=gamefreekv2;15941528]When you start taxing the rich, they're gonna look for somewhere else to live.[/QUOTE] Where? Name somewhere that is easier on rich people than the United States, apart from anarchic African countries. [QUOTE=gamefreekv2;15941528]And they shouldn't have to cover for their medical costs, because this isn't (well, at least it wasn't) a socialist country.[/QUOTE] UHC doesn't instantly make a country socialist, dummy [editline]10:40AM[/editline] [QUOTE=margerine_12;15941498]Be that as it may, it doesn't seem fair that the successful that spend thousands of dollars on education and work every day have to pay for the people who don't take opportunities to educate and support themselves.[/QUOTE] what, do you think poor people are poor because they choose to be? if they just worked a little harder they could have all the things rich people have? spend a little bit of time in the real world and get back to me

[QUOTE=gamefreekv2;15941528]When you start taxing the rich, they're gonna look for somewhere else to live.[/quote] Maybe if we were talking about taking their money, yeah. [QUOTE=gamefreekv2;15941528]And they shouldn't have to cover for their medical costs, because this isn't (well, at least it wasn't) a socialist country.[/QUOTE] haha typical. dont tax the rich cuz that's soshulizm!!

The chances are if you are rich, you have done a lot of exploiting of the poor, EG: obliterating small businesses. Not everybody can go out and be rich, because there is a fixed percentage of rich people; so everybody else who can't afford to buy a second home doesn't deserve the shaft because of that.

don't get excited senate dems are absolutely worthless and no meaningful reform will come of any of this we won't have single payer and any bill that passes will include a lot of insurance company dicksucking that intentionally handicaps the government's plan so as to "insure" insurance companies will stay in business [editline]05:10PM[/editline] also anyone opposed to this on the basis that it punishes success and that the rich are captains of industry are fucking delusional and part of the problem you will never be rich; the welfare of the public is more important than the profits of .1% of the population

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;15941559]Where? Name somewhere that is easier on rich people than the United States, apart from anarchic African countries. UHC doesn't instantly make a country socialist, dummy [editline]10:40AM[/editline] what, do you think poor people are poor because they choose to be? if they just worked a little harder they could have all the things rich people have? spend a little bit of time in the real world and get back to me[/QUOTE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that they choose to be, there are definitely mitigating factors that prohibit many of these 'poor' people from staying on the right track. On your second point, I believe that if some worked harder, they definitely could have gone places. I believe that the only things that make these people poor are their poor decisions.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;15941559]what, do you think poor people are poor because they choose to be? if they just worked a little harder they could have all the things rich people have? spend a little bit of time in the real world and get back to me[/QUOTE] This^ In all human morality sense, if you have something in abundance, in this case money, while others are suffering--most likely because it isnt their fault, the people with the abundance of money should at least help out the less fortunate in some way. Just a small amount of money from the higher class would help greatly to people in need. *theres my robin hood rant* /thread

[QUOTE=margerine_12;15942154]I wouldn't go so far as to say that they choose to be, there are definitely mitigating factors that prohibit many of these 'poor' people from staying on the right track. On your second point, I believe that if some worked harder, they definitely could have gone places. I believe that the only things that make these people poor are their poor decisions.[/QUOTE] this is bullshit fyi [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html[/url] please read this all the way through because I really hate when people use the bootstraps argument

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;15942117]don't get excited senate dems are absolutely worthless and no meaningful reform will come of any of this we won't have single payer and any bill that passes will include a lot of insurance company dicksucking that intentionally handicaps the government's plan so as to "insure" insurance companies will stay in business[/QUOTE] yeah, I know :smith:

This is news? Isn't this what the democrats have always wanted to do?

[QUOTE=margerine_12;15942154]I wouldn't go so far as to say that they choose to be, there are definitely mitigating factors that prohibit many of these 'poor' people from staying on the right track. On your second point, I believe that if some worked harder, they definitely could have gone places. I believe that the only things that make these people poor are their poor decisions.[/QUOTE] Obviously you have never been poor because you were born into a mid-high class family and never have had to struggle to achieve something great. Going from poor to rich isnt as simple as just getting out of bed and saying, "Ok today im gona get rich!"

[QUOTE=cosmeticplague;15942241]Obviously you have never been poor because you were born into a mid-high class family and never have had to struggle to achieve something great. Going from poor to rich isnt as simple as just getting out of bed and saying, "Ok today im gona get rich!"[/QUOTE] yeah generally the very poor are perpetually poor

That's what democrats do, dumbass.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;15941422]Congratulations Washington, taxing the rich to pay for the poor?[/QUOTE] You're right, we should be taxing the poor. They've got all the money.

[QUOTE=margerine_12;15941498]Be that as it may, it doesn't seem fair that the successful that spend thousands of dollars on education and work every day have to pay for the people who don't take opportunities to educate and support themselves.[/QUOTE] Many of the poor people here are immigrants. They all work as hard as they can for their children to become something in the US. These people work everyday as well and for longer hours than the rich. They take second or even third jobs to get the children good educations. I've seen immigrants going through trash to find anything that can be sold so their kids have some help financially to get through college. Half of these immigrants also have college degrees, but can't get a foothold because they don't have any connections and no one is willing to lend a hand to help them.

[QUOTE=Sams Brume;15942396]You're right, we should be taxing the poor. They've got all the money.[/QUOTE] we should have a flat tax!! that way all taxes are the same and fair... (even though it would negatively affect the poor to a great extent!)

we should remove food taxes and increase the taxes on leisure items edit: this way the poor don't see massive tax increases and the rich can simply choose not to buy that new fifth summer house or 300 ft yacht if they don't want to pay taxes

This will never happen Lobbyist FTW

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;15942179]this is bullshit fyi [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html[/url] please read this all the way through because I really hate when people use the bootstraps argument[/QUOTE] Eh, I'm almost sixteen and have lived roughly $2,000 below the poverty line for a family of three my entire life (poverty line for a family of 3 being $18,310, my mother's annual income (my parents are divorced) is $16,440, that's $1,370 or so a month, it used to be a family of 4, but my brother found his own apartment). A lot of the stuff in the story is exaggerated. For example when it says: "You have no car." We DO have a car, we just aren't stupid poor people who try to buy some nice car they can't afford. We have a 1996 Saturn. Everyone who lives in my neighborhood has a car, and I live in a apartment-housing complex type place. They all are pretty much at or below the poverty line too. We are able to buy a sufficient amount of food. My doctor expresses no concerns of me being dangerously underweight or something. Seriously is this story basing "poor" off of some lonely person with no friends or family? When we can't afford enough food we ask our friends and family for assistance. They are glad to help out. Either the people they're talking about have no friends or family, or their friends or family are just a bunch of dicks. OR their family and friends are poor too, in which case, I don't know what to tell you, other than that sucks total dick. We also have our own washing machine, and dryer in our basement. As do most of our neighbors. If we didn't, the place where I live (It's called Lincoln Village) supplies one for every 5 buildings or so. So does the next place about 1/4 of a mile from here, called Great Brooke Valley. That place is for people who are sometimes even poorer than me. That's just a couple examples. The story, coming from someone who has lived BELOW the poverty line their entire life, does seem to exaggerate sometimes, from my point of view. On the other hand, we receive assistance through food stamps, social security and child support, all of which I am appreciative of but in no way proud of. I also have free healthcare in the state of Massachusetts, which also covers my dental care. Something else that, I appreciate but am not proud of whatsoever, it also kind of sucks balls because I had to wait almost a year to get braces, while my friend whose parents pay for it got an appointment for 3 weeks after they called. I don't think the rich should be taxed some stupid amount to pay for us poor people. Also, my mother has said it is her fault we are poor, because she made poor decisions in her past. I also completely HATE it when people say if you're poor you're going to stay poor. SO NOT TRUE! I have family members that were raised in just slightly better conditions than me. They're now in their 30s-40s and are making over $80,000 per year, except for one, my father who is a janitor at a high school, I don't know how much he makes but I'm assuming it isn't over $80,000. I mean they're still paying off student loans but, still. If you don't want to believe anything I've said, your problem. I can't prove any of this to you but I assure you, it's true. Also I'm not saying the stuff in that newspaper story is FALSE, for some people it may be true, just from what I've seen living below the poverty line, and living near people living below the poverty line, it's just highly exaggerated. I do believe if you are born here, because being an immigrant can be a totally different story, and work hard enough, in school especially, you can get out of poverty, because I've seen it happen. If you're wondering how I afforded a computer and Half-Life 2 etc: Christmas + Birthdays. As I stated before a lot of my family is "well off" and can afford that without a problem.

This works great in other countries, what's the problem?

[QUOTE=Poltergeist Three;15943398]This works great in other countries, what's the problem?[/QUOTE] this is AMURCA

I'd prefer that an equal percentage of everyone's income be used if everyone is going to have equal access to medical care.

[QUOTE=Poltergeist Three;15943398]This works great in other countries, what's the problem?[/QUOTE] As I've said many times before, that is like saying the Chinese style of education should be taken up by Europe and America, since it is clearly superior.

This is bollocks, the rich have worked for their money and deserve to spend it how they wish; by doing this these socialist hippie politicians are alienating those who own the means of production.