Obamacare signups pass the 7 million mark

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
[/B]A national sales tax ensures that everyone has a stake in what their taxes fund. If "free" health care costs the lower and middle class a larger portion of their income, maybe they will think twice about what "free" health care should be.

Does the cost of a roof depend on who the owner of the home is? No, it does not.

It absolutely does.

If a roof is expensive, it's only because there's someone wealthy enough to pay for it. And cheap roofs depend on poor people--no one else would live there.

No one thinks healthcare is free, so there's no need to think twice. The question is, should universal healthcare disproportionately increase the burden already placed upon the great majority of the population?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Just like the federal gas tax is slated to fund road construction and rehabilitation, those who makes use of the roads pay tax to fund the roads. A national sales tax to fund health care would put everyone's money where their mouth is.

Are you talking about a sales tax on healthcare, or on goods and services in general? If the latter, your analogy with gas taxes for road construction does not hold.

People like things they don't have to pay for. But if they have to pay, then they may think twice about it.

You want people thinking twice about whether to seek healthcare?

Life is unfair. There will always be variances in income levels.

And variances in the degree of variance. Right now, it's at a near-all-time high.

Income levels do not impact the cost of providing a good or service.

Income levels always affect costs. It's called inflation/deflation.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
The law was SIGNED by the President a few months after the Massachusetts special election. (There was hope that the seat could have been kept, but me thinks one debate sealed Coakley's fate.) The bill that was signed into law was the bill that was passed BEFORE the 60th seat was lost in the Senate. It did not match the bill eventually passed by the House. So the only option on the table was for the House to accept the Senate bill as written or get nothing...
They still passed it after the supermajority was gone. And it's still better than the "Don't Get Sick" plan.
[/B]A national sales tax ensures that everyone has a stake in what their taxes fund. If "free" health care costs the lower and middle class a larger portion of their income, maybe they will think twice about what "free" health care should be.

Does the cost of a roof depend on who the owner of the home is? No, it does not.
Exactly, it doesn't. The problem with your assumption though is that you fail to account for how spending will shift to accomodate the new sales tax. If everything in the US suddenly gets a national sales tax, all it means is that everything is more expensive. This makes American goods less attractive to customers. All this will do is shift the country to having more imports, will decrease the viability of American manufacturing, and cause more of the country's money to be spent online. There's already no sales tax on most online purchases because it's too difficult to track and enforce. What makes you think that will change?
Life is unfair. There will always be variances in income levels.

Income levels do not impact the cost of providing a good or service.
It all comes down to whether you think that the ability to live, be healthy, and be as productive a member of society as possible should be a public interest or simply a privilege of wealth.

But as for the costs, remember the 80/20 rule? Some people thought trying to place a restriction on how much those companies were allowed to make was ridiculous because they assumed almost all of the money taken for premiums was being used on healthcare costs, when in fact a very large portion was lining their own pockets. They even tried to delay paying out, hoping the law would get repealed, but in the end the vast majority had to pay out. It would be one thing if the cost of performing any given medically procedure was just prohibitively expensive. It's quite another if prices are just being raised to enrich a select few.
 
Last edited:

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,561
Media
0
Likes
634
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
It absolutely does.

No, it does not.

The cost of the raw materials are the same; the cost of the labor is the same. It does not matter who the homeowner is.

If a roof is expensive, it's only because there's someone wealthy enough to pay for it. And cheap roofs depend on poor people--no one else would live there.
The cost of a "20-year shingle" roof is a function of the materials for the new roof, the labor required to rip out the old one, and the labor required to install the new one, and of course, the square footage and complication of shape of the roof. An estimate, provided by an honest contractor, is based on these things. The contractor does not ask what your salary is when he provides an estimate. He might if you plan to finance it, but it surely should not impact the estimate you are given.

If the owner chooses to install a steel / aluminum roof, or even an exotic copper roof, the cost is going to go through the roof (pun intented.)

Many go for the 20-year roof because:
1. They don't have the money for a metal roof
2. They don't plan on spending that much time in the house.

But in the next 20 years, each roof should perform their function. The materials selected will be required to meet certain standards. Are there better roof systems out there? Sure there are. The more expensive roofs will be purchased by those who can afford them.

No one thinks healthcare is free, so there's no need to think twice. The question is, should universal healthcare disproportionately increase the burden already placed upon the great majority of the population?
Disproportionately how? By usage? or by some other metric? Because from my chair, those who use something should pay for something.

Toll roads are paid by those who use the road.
Bridge tolls are paid by those who use the bridge.
Shouldn't health care be paid by those who use it?
 
Last edited:

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
No, it does not.

The cost of the raw materials are the same; the cost of the labor is the same. It does not matter who the homeowner is.

The cost of materials and labor is not a constant. Consumer demand or lack thereof affects costs all along the supply chain.

If there's no demand for houses, producers of building materials will sell their commodities at lower prices--or not sell them at all. Builders will be hired at lower wages--or not hired at all.

Disproportionately how? By usage? or by some other metric?

In this case, by percentage of income. Those who can least afford it are made to pay a higher portion of their earnings.

Because from my chair, those who use something should pay for something.

Toll roads are paid by those who use the road.
Bridge tolls are paid by those who use the bridge.
Shouldn't health care be paid by those who use it?

In other words, by everyone.
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,561
Media
0
Likes
634
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Are you talking about a sales tax on healthcare, or on goods and services in general? If the latter, your analogy with gas taxes for road construction does not hold.

Haven't really given it much thought how it would work.
If you tax healthcare to pay for more healthcare, it doesn't get uncovered people any healthcare until a certain amount of people have paid for healthcare. And you may simply have more people not seeking healthcare because it is too expensive.

A broad-based tax which derives revenue from many sources would go go much further to fund health-care for the less fortunate.


You want people thinking twice about whether to seek healthcare?

No. I want people thinking twice about what health care is worth.


And variances in the degree of variance. Right now, it's at a near-all-time high.

Storming the Bastille is not a solution. Haters are gonna hate.

Income levels always affect costs. It's called inflation/deflation.

Could you explain this to me? The cost of something is the cost of something. One's ability to pay might be a function of income, but inflation / deflation has nothing to do with the ability to purchase a good or service in the here and now.
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,561
Media
0
Likes
634
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
They still passed it after the supermajority was gone. And it's still better than the "Don't Get Sick" plan.

I think we will agree to disagree on this one.

Exactly, it doesn't. The problem with your assumption though is that you fail to account for how spending will shift to accomodate the new sales tax. If everything in the US suddenly gets a national sales tax, all it means is that everything is more expensive. This makes American goods less attractive to customers. All this will do is shift the country to having more imports, will decrease the viability of American manufacturing, and cause more of the country's money to be spent online. There's already no sales tax on most online purchases because it's too difficult to track and enforce. What makes you think that will change?

A national sales tax on goods and services purchased in the US would apply to anything purchased for consumption in the US, regardless of its place of origin. It impacts everything consumed equally, and has no bearing on the viability of American Manufacturing. A 10% tax on something is a 10% tax on something, whether it was made in the USA, Mexico, or China. All boats ride with the tide.

The impact of such a tax on the American populace would force them to make some sacrifices for the "free" health care the tax is supposed to fund. What do I cut out of my budget? Cable TV bill? Cell phone? Maybe I drive my car one more year before buying a new one? It would make them think about it.

I do admit it has the potential to fuel a black market, but I have no feel for how big that impact would be. If every-day goods are taxed, it becomes difficult to set up a whole separate, secret distribution system.

It all comes down to whether you think that the ability to live, be healthy, and be as productive a member of society as possible should be a public interest or simply a privilege of wealth.

Not only that, but what segments of society should pay for it? Should the few pay for the many? Or should the many pay for the many?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Haven't really given it much thought how it would work.
If you tax healthcare to pay for more healthcare, it doesn't get uncovered people any healthcare until a certain amount of people have paid for healthcare. And you may simply have more people not seeking healthcare because it is too expensive.

A broad-based tax which derives revenue from many sources would go much further to fund health-care for the less fortunate.

This might be workable, provided the less fortunate are not the very ones most burdened by such a tax.

No. I want people thinking twice about what health care is worth.

Can you think of anything more important? As a society, let's decide it's worth more than just about anything else, and implement policy accordingly.

Storming the Bastille is not a solution. Haters are gonna hate.

Non sequitur.

Could you explain this to me? The cost of something is the cost of something. One's ability to pay might be a function of income, but inflation / deflation has nothing to do with the ability to purchase a good or service in the here and now.

The cost of something is the cost of something, but it's not a constant. Inflation/deflation has everything to do with whether the coffee you order in the here and now is ten dollars or ten cents.
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,561
Media
0
Likes
634
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
The cost of materials and labor is not a constant. Consumer demand or lack thereof affects costs all along the supply chain.

The cost of materials is constant enough over a given period of time. I don't see the cost of shingles or nails moving up and down like the price of gas....

The cost of labor, also, is not as flexible as you write. While the labor rate you charge may vary with experience, there comes a point where there either is no job for labor to perform, or the cost of hiring labor is just too high. On either side, the roof doesn't get replaced, and the house is either abandoned, demolished, condemned, or a tarp is thrown over it...

If there's no demand for houses, producers of building materials will sell their commodities at lower prices--or not sell them at all. Builders will be hired at lower wages--or not hired at all.

As long as there is weather, there will be a need for roofing.
As long as people are fucking and making more people, there will be a need for housing.

We have strayed off-topic here. Supply and demand will impact price; but your income does not change the cost of a good or service as compared to someone else with a different income.

In this case, by percentage of income. Those who can least afford it are made to pay a higher portion of their earnings.

So you are in favor of a flat-tax to pay for health care?

In other words, by everyone.

Yes. Rich and poor alike should pay.
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,561
Media
0
Likes
634
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
The cost of something is the cost of something, but it's not a constant. Inflation/deflation has everything to do with whether the coffee you order in the here and now is ten dollars or ten cents.

I agree it is not a constant, but it does not fluctuate three orders of magnitude in cost, and there sure isn't a magic button at the register that the cashier pushes to change the price as a function of your income bracket.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
The cost of materials is constant enough over a given period of time. I don't see the cost of shingles or nails moving up and down like the price of gas....

The cost of labor, also, is not as flexible as you write. While the labor rate you charge may vary with experience, there comes a point where there either is no job for labor to perform, or the cost of hiring labor is just too high. On either side, the roof doesn't get replaced, and the house is either abandoned, demolished, condemned, or a tarp is thrown over it...

Just as I said, "builders will be hired at lower wages--or not hired at all." If there's insufficient demand--if houses are abandoned rather than repaired--then the cost of housing *and* the wages builders are successfully able to demand are reduced.

As long as there is weather, there will be a need for roofing.
As long as people are fucking and making more people, there will be a need for housing.

Are you saying there are no fluctuations in the housing market? That will come as news to those in the industry.

We have strayed off-topic here. Supply and demand will impact price; but your income does not change the cost of a good or service as compared to someone else with a different income.

On an individual level, no. I was responding to what you made sound like broader generalizations.

So you are in favor of a flat-tax to pay for health care?

No, for the reason I've already indicated.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree it is not a constant, but it does not fluctuate three orders of magnitude in cost, and there sure isn't a magic button at the register that the cashier pushes to change the price as a function of your income bracket.

Historically, inflation can cause fluctuation a dozen orders of magnitude. We have had the good fortune not to face such trials.

You're right, though: prices don't change at the individual, instantaneous level. But in our increasingly stratified economy, rising healthcare costs threaten to restrict affordable services to an ever smaller elite.
 
Last edited:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
There are a variety of ways to fund government-administered, single-payer health insurance schemes. Most provinces in Canada fund the health system by a combination of general revenue, special taxes, employer contributions and user paid premiums. The systems vary from province to province and are always being reviewed, debated and reformed. The system we have today is not the same as it was 30 years ago.

In Ontario, people with an annual taxable income above $20,000 must pay an annual health care premium ranging from $60–$900. Funding for medicare in Ontario also comes in part from a dedicated Employer Health Tax that ranges from 0.98%-1.95% of employer payroll. Eligible employers are exempted from the tax on the first $400,000 of payroll.

There are lots of ways to skin a rabbit. It doesn't have to be unfair to the poor or place a tremendous burden on the well off.

But how to fund a universal health insurance system in the USA is a pointless debate. That train left the station when the Senate Democrats caved on the "public option" (which was included in the version passed by the House) and instead created the exchanges.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
A national sales tax on goods and services purchased in the US would apply to anything purchased for consumption in the US, regardless of its place of origin. It impacts everything consumed equally, and has no bearing on the viability of American Manufacturing. A 10% tax on something is a 10% tax on something, whether it was made in the USA, Mexico, or China. All boats ride with the tide.
Unless you don't buy it in the US. Are you charging a sales tax on items privately purchased from overseas? There are legal implications there. If there are no importers declaring large purchases to pay tariffs, the government really has no way to collect these taxes because they would have no jurisdiction over the sales of businesses residing in other countries.

Meanwhile, any American manufacturers selling inside or outside the borders of the US would be subject to said laws. This law would quickly become shorthand for "Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!" People outside the US wouldn't care what the reason for the price increase would be, they'd just care about the price. In any competitive market, a flat 10% price increase would severely harm any ability to compete.

The impact of such a tax on the American populace would force them to make some sacrifices for the "free" health care the tax is supposed to fund. What do I cut out of my budget? Cable TV bill? Cell phone? Maybe I drive my car one more year before buying a new one? It would make them think about it.
There are a few problems I have with this. First, the things that you're comparing to healthcare are more or less luxury items. These are things that people get with their discretionary income. Their consumption should be seen as truly optional, whereas healthcare really isn't. Additionally, needing healthcare is an inevitability, not an lifestyle choice. Going without healthcare often leads to worse conditions and an even greater drain on society. My diabetic friend couldn't afford good healthcare, so doctors didn't recommend proper testing. He only found out his kidneys were failing when he had a stroke at age 32. Now he's a double organ transplant recipient and blind, all because he couldn't afford a test that would have told him he needed to be on dialysis. As someone who has suffered full renal failure, his medical bills are paid by Medicare. How much could have been saved by getting good treatment when he needed it?

The rest is really just an understanding of economics. Here's a living wage calculator. Calculate out discretionary income for someone barely making it versus someone who makes $250K+ a year. Then calculate out how much a flat 10% consumption tax would affect them.

Now that you've seen all of the poor persons money go up in smoke, consider the equation for GDP. Consumption is the most important driver in the equation, both as the largest portion and because of The Multiplier Effect for Consumption. So it is in the nation's best interest to maximize Consumption spending. Who is most likely to do so?

If you don't want to follow all the links, they basically say that you're hurting the economy by taking what little money the poor have away from them. They're more likely to spend it and drive the economy than the rich, and taking it from them is much more likely to decrease income in other areas. There's a reason we have a progressive tax system.

I do admit it has the potential to fuel a black market, but I have no feel for how big that impact would be. If every-day goods are taxed, it becomes difficult to set up a whole separate, secret distribution system.
That's what I'm saying, is that the system isn't a secret. It's the internet. There are currently a great many loopholes and whatnot that need to be closed before such a thing can be considered. For instance, paying sales tax is often determined by a physical presence in the area. However, if a company creates a subsidary that exists solely to run its internet presence and handle online sales, it has no physical presence anywhere, and hence gets to dodge almost all sales taxes.

Those loopholes need to be closed in general, but trying to establish a national sales tax when there is currently a very easy, and often perfectly legal, way to dodge such a tax is not a good idea.

I think we will agree to disagree on this one... Not only that, but what segments of society should pay for it? Should the few pay for the many? Or should the many pay for the many?
Here's where I come from on the issue of healthcare:

1) The people need to take care of themselves on the individual level, but the people are also a driver for the economy. A healthier workforce is more productive, and a generally more productive workforce leads to a better economy. This benefits everyone.

2) Healthcare is an inevitability, not a choice.I don't think that something as fundamental as whether someone lives or dies, or whether they are crippled and infirm for the rest of their lives should become a privilege of wealth. As much as people like to hurl the phrase around with regards to income inequality, that is much more descriptive of class warfare in my book.

And a final possible compromise of thought: You've mentioned before about utilities that get used having attached taxes to help pay for them, such as collecting tolls to pay for a road or taxes on gasoline to repair infrastructure. Why not taxes directly on some of the things that can be linked to rising healthcare costs? Perhaps taxes on cigarettes, unhealthy foods, etc? Maybe tax breaks for getting annual check ups after a certain age? In other words, taxing choices likely to contribute to rising costs rather than taxing everything in general? People either have healthier habits or they contribute more to the system that is more likely to service them in the future. Sounds like a win-win to me. Adding a couple bucks in taxes to the price of every pack of cigarettes could subtract $100 billion from the deficit. Wouldn't something like that be a better place to start then, say, groceries and clothing?
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,561
Media
0
Likes
634
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Unless you don't buy it in the US. Are you charging a sales tax on items privately purchased from overseas? There are legal implications there. If there are no importers declaring large purchases to pay tariffs, the government really has no way to collect these taxes because they would have no jurisdiction over the sales of businesses residing in other countries.

I am not charging anything. The government has allowances on what you can bring into the country "duty-free". There are limits, and then you pay tax on the excess.

I find it hard to believe that large container ships will not be paying duty when they are unloaded at major ports. The government either collects the tariff, or turns the container ship away.

It would seem that you have no faith in the governments ability to collect taxes. They seem to have no trouble collecting taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and fuel.

I don't see Walmart building a secret underground tunnel from China... "Battle Beneath the Earth" is not a reality.

Meanwhile, any American manufacturers selling inside or outside the borders of the US would be subject to said laws. This law would quickly become shorthand for "Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!" People outside the US wouldn't care what the reason for the price increase would be, they'd just care about the price. In any competitive market, a flat 10% price increase would severely harm any ability to compete.
I don't see how a consumption tax on goods consumed in the US impacts US exports. The tax is on the consumer side of the equation, and applies to all goods, those domestically produced and those which are imported. If anything, it means that less stuff is sold unless consumers find other sources of income.

I don't view the law as 'Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!' I would view it as, "a tax has been placed on consumables in the United States to fund UHC."

We buy from China already because:

1. Their goods cost less.
2. We don't make them here ourselves anymore.

Please watch "Death by China" on Netflix for more information.


There are a few problems I have with this. First, the things that you're comparing to healthcare are more or less luxury items.
Health care costs money. Luxury items cost money. Until we abolish money, they need to be compared, as the sellers of these commodities fight for the consumer dollar.

These are things that people get with their discretionary income. Their consumption should be seen as truly optional, whereas healthcare really isn't.
Tell someone to give up their broadband connection, cableTV, air conditioning, or their cell phone. I am sure they will say, "I need this to keep up with the rest of the world..." Many will be hard pressed to part with them.

Additionally, needing healthcare is an inevitability, not an lifestyle choice.
I agree with you. Try convincing that to the electorate.

Going without healthcare often leads to worse conditions and an even greater drain on society. My diabetic friend couldn't afford good healthcare, so doctors didn't recommend proper testing. He only found out his kidneys were failing when he had a stroke at age 32. Now he's a double organ transplant recipient and blind, all because he couldn't afford a test that would have told him he needed to be on dialysis. As someone who has suffered full renal failure, his medical bills are paid by Medicare. How much could have been saved by getting good treatment when he needed it?
No argument from me here, either. But you will have a hard time convincing anyone to pay money for something that doesn't give you an answer. Nobody wants to pay thousands of dollars for a test that comes back inconclusive... You are seen as a spender, not an economizer, if you order a full battery of tests for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who walks into your practice. Eventually someone will do a cost benefit analysis, and I am sure that someone figured out the overall cost is less if you deny testing, even though a select few will suffer greatly for not having the testing done.

The rest is really just an understanding of economics. Here's a living wage calculator. Calculate out discretionary income for someone barely making it versus someone who makes $250K+ a year. Then calculate out how much a flat 10% consumption tax would affect them.

Now that you've seen all of the poor persons money go up in smoke, consider the equation for GDP. Consumption is the most important driver in the equation, both as the largest portion and because of The Multiplier Effect for Consumption. So it is in the nation's best interest to maximize Consumption spending. Who is most likely to do so?
I like how the Multiplier Effect definition describes a factory... which likely won't be built in the States anyway.

The issue at hand is that the middle class jobs that your parents and grandparents had no longer exist in the States. That is a separate issue.

Do you propose that the wealth of the rich be taken and redistributed for health care? Or should jobs exist in the States so that everyone can pay their own way for health care?

If you don't want to follow all the links, they basically say that you're hurting the economy by taking what little money the poor have away from them. They're more likely to spend it and drive the economy than the rich, and taking it from them is much more likely to decrease income in other areas. There's a reason we have a progressive tax system.

So how does health care get funded? Again we are straying from the topic here. There are people without healthcare now. The existing health care infrastructure surely cannot support everyone "showing up at once". How does the expansion get funded? The money must come from somewhere.

Here's where I come from on the issue of healthcare:

1) The people need to take care of themselves on the individual level, but the people are also a driver for the economy. A healthier workforce is more productive, and a generally more productive workforce leads to a better economy. This benefits everyone.

2) Healthcare is an inevitability, not a choice.I don't think that something as fundamental as whether someone lives or dies, or whether they are crippled and infirm for the rest of their lives should become a privilege of wealth. As much as people like to hurl the phrase around with regards to income inequality, that is much more descriptive of class warfare in my book.
Better health care will always be a privilege of wealth as long as money is used to pay for health care, and people with means have a choice on how to spend their money.

And a final possible compromise of thought: You've mentioned before about utilities that get used having attached taxes to help pay for them, such as collecting tolls to pay for a road or taxes on gasoline to repair infrastructure. Why not taxes directly on some of the things that can be linked to rising healthcare costs? Perhaps taxes on cigarettes, unhealthy foods, etc? Maybe tax breaks for getting annual check ups after a certain age? In other words, taxing choices likely to contribute to rising costs rather than taxing everything in general? People either have healthier habits or they contribute more to the system that is more likely to service them in the future. Sounds like a win-win to me. Adding a couple bucks in taxes to the price of every pack of cigarettes could subtract $100 billion from the deficit. Wouldn't something like that be a better place to start then, say, groceries and clothing?
I think Mayor Mike Bloomberg already did that (taxing smokes) in NYC over 10 years ago. I remember a pack of smokes going from $4 to $8 overnight. I think a pack is over $12 now. Ironically, the government saw a reduction in revenue with the change. Many people quit. Others just bought their smokes on the reservations or out of state.

There is only so much you can tax one thing before you drive away all consumers... which is why I believe the most successful tax will be one that is broad based and is across many bounds.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I can't help but laugh when I read efforts to compare flaws in the ACA with mold remediation or a roofing job. The fact remains that NO form of true universal healthcare would've EVER been able to be passed back then, and nothing even CLOSE to it has since EVER been proposed... by anyone.

The premise that nothing should've passed until it was damn near "perfect" is an argument that doesn't take into account the lives, health, and well being of MILLIONS who otherwise would have had NO coverage at ALL.

As to the objection to "robbing Peter to pay Paul", it's done all the time. Many things are paid, not only via sales tax, but via TAXES, period; for example, when they bail out banks and corporations while CEO's skip out with millions of dollars in severance packages, benefits, and the like...

Besides, I don't know of many universal healthcare programs that aren't funded, at least in part, via some form of taxation or contribution from that nation's workforce.

What's also overlooked are the payback/benefits from the law, in a reduced rise in the average cost of premiums to the availability of coverage (where GOP states haven't blocked the medicaid subsidies) to millions who couldn't afford coverage, or get it because of medical conditions.

Here are some others:

20 Obamacare Stats Republicans Don't Want You to See | Mother Jones
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Unless you don't buy it in the US. Are you charging a sales tax on items privately purchased from overseas? There are legal implications there. If there are no importers declaring large purchases to pay tariffs, the government really has no way to collect these taxes because they would have no jurisdiction over the sales of businesses residing in other countries.

Meanwhile, any American manufacturers selling inside or outside the borders of the US would be subject to said laws. This law would quickly become shorthand for "Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!" People outside the US wouldn't care what the reason for the price increase would be, they'd just care about the price. In any competitive market, a flat 10% price increase would severely harm any ability to compete.
It's not a problem. I don't live in the USA. I live in Canada and Turkey and when a business or an individual orders something from aboard directly, or over the internet, it gets held at Customs and they determine what tax to apply. In addition there are fees for the paperwork that are paid to the customs broker. In the case of Turkey, the VAT is 18% on nearly everything except children's items and books. Last year my firm imported over 5 million euros worth of goods, and so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

The shipping costs and extra fees are a deterrent to ordering small quantities of goods. Private individuals have a duty-free limit of 150 dollars per year.

One thing governments are very good at is collecting taxes and there are many, many examples of national VAT systems around the world. It's not a new idea.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
It's not a problem. I don't live in the USA. I live in Canada and Turkey and when a business or an individual orders something from aboard directly, or over the internet, it gets held at Customs and they determine what tax to apply. In addition there are fees for the paperwork that are paid to the customs broker. In the case of Turkey, the VAT is 18% on nearly everything except children's items and books. Last year my firm imported over 5 million euros worth of goods, and so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

The shipping costs and extra fees are a deterrent to ordering small quantities of goods. Private individuals have a duty-free limit of 150 dollars per year.

One thing governments are very good at is collecting taxes and there are many, many examples of national VAT systems around the world. It's not a new idea.
I'm actually on the other side of the equation. I work in America and ship many things to both Canada and Turkey. When I send things to other countries we change shipments, information, forms, etc. To make the package as unobtrusive as possible specifically so it DOESN'T get stopped by customs. For Canada, it's just a matter of having any declared value be under $2500. Turkey practically extorts us and have held our packages for more than triple their total value in customs fees. We ended up sending a new item with different forms and it sailed right through.

But considering you declare the value and import classification of what you're shipping whenever you ship it, the process is surprisingly simple to manipulate. I know for a fact that plenty of multi-thousand dollar items get shipped to both Canada and Turkey and fly right through customs, all because their declared value on their shipping documents is under $50. It's all about having knowledge of how their end of the system works.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I am not charging anything. The government has allowances on what you can bring into the country "duty-free". There are limits, and then you pay tax on the excess.

I find it hard to believe that large container ships will not be paying duty when they are unloaded at major ports. The government either collects the tariff, or turns the container ship away.

It would seem that you have no faith in the governments ability to collect taxes. They seem to have no trouble collecting taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and fuel.

I don't see Walmart building a secret underground tunnel from China... "Battle Beneath the Earth" is not a reality.
I work in a shipping department, and I know how easy it is to manipulate tariffs for small shipments. Tobacco, alcohol, and fuel are all necessarily in person transactions due to being controlled substances of some form or another. An underground tunnel isn't necessary to hide shipments, undeclared electronic transactions are just legitimately difficult to track.

I don't see how a consumption tax on goods consumed in the US impacts US exports. The tax is on the consumer side of the equation, and applies to all goods, those domestically produced and those which are imported. If anything, it means that less stuff is sold unless consumers find other sources of income.
Because sales tax not actually on the consumer side of the equation, sales tax is an obligation imposed upon the seller. It is merely typically passed forward to the consumer and tacked onto the bill. If a gas station is in an area with 5% sales tax, they can choose to charge $1.00 for a candy bar or add on the 5% sales tax and make it $1.05. Either way, they still owe the government 5 cents, so why not collect it from the person buying the candy bar?

I don't view the law as 'Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!' I would view it as, "a tax has been placed on consumables in the United States to fund UHC."
This tax will hit any products sold by a company with a US presence, unless the law for this particular sales tax says otherwise. Anyone looking to buy directly from the US will find that the prices are suddenly 10% higher. They won't care why, they'll just know the price went up.

We buy from China already because:

1. Their goods cost less.
2. We don't make them here ourselves anymore.

Please watch "Death by China" on Netflix for more information.
That's becoming less and less true as China gains wealth. China's primary strength has always been cheap labor, but as the country gets richer, the cost of labor goes up. Already, the company that I work for considered outsourcing manufacturing to China and found it was actually cheaper to produce our products in the US.


Health care costs money. Luxury items cost money. Until we abolish money, they need to be compared, as the sellers of these commodities fight for the consumer dollar.
That's like asking someone whether they'd prefer to have cable television or eat. That's not really a choice. Yes, they both cost money, but there's a reason why we have food stamps and not cable stamps programs.

A more accurate thing to look at would be cost of living expenses. Rather than keeping the amount of money someone makes as some arbitrary thing you can poke at, put a face on it. There is this assumption that people who live on the bottom have all sorts of luxuries that they really don't have. When you show that someone who lives alone and make 50% more than minimum wage gets financially wiped out by a 10% flat tax, whereas someone at the top barely feels it despite the gross amount paid in the tax being much larger, it become clear how people are actually affected.

Tell someone to give up their broadband connection, cableTV, air conditioning, or their cell phone. I am sure they will say, "I need this to keep up with the rest of the world..." Many will be hard pressed to part with them.
You don't know many people who are barely surviving from paycheck to paycheck, do you? Is the objective to punish them financially, or make a system that works better?

I agree with you. Try convincing that to the electorate.
Don't get me wrong on this, I think that taxes need to be raised in general, but there is too much volatility and uncertainty of income and expenses at the low end for me to really think a flat tax can work without other reforms.

No argument from me here, either. But you will have a hard time convincing anyone to pay money for something that doesn't give you an answer. Nobody wants to pay thousands of dollars for a test that comes back inconclusive... You are seen as a spender, not an economizer, if you order a full battery of tests for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who walks into your practice. Eventually someone will do a cost benefit analysis, and I am sure that someone figured out the overall cost is less if you deny testing, even though a select few will suffer greatly for not having the testing done.
This wasn't exactly some obscure symptom they missed. He was a life-long diabetic over 30 who had chronic high blood pressure. Diabetes isn't exactly rare in the US, and any long term diabetic with high blood pressure is almost routinely checked for kidney functionality because that is so common as a problem. But if he couldn't pay for the tests or the dialysis, what's the point?

Do you propose that the wealth of the rich be taken and redistributed for health care? Or should jobs exist in the States so that everyone can pay their own way for health care?
The wealth gap in the US is rising to the point where the economy may be damaged, and we always want to have more jobs available. Are these two strategies mutually exclusive?

Better health care will always be a privilege of wealth as long as money is used to pay for health care, and people with means have a choice on how to spend their money.
There's a difference between trying to give everyone equal health care and trying to give everyone a guaranteed minimum level of care. Money will always talk and grant privilege everywhere, the question is to what level you allow that difference to extend.

I think Mayor Mike Bloomberg already did that (taxing smokes) in NYC over 10 years ago. I remember a pack of smokes going from $4 to $8 overnight. I think a pack is over $12 now. Ironically, the government saw a reduction in revenue with the change. Many people quit. Others just bought their smokes on the reservations or out of state.

There is only so much you can tax one thing before you drive away all consumers... which is why I believe the most successful tax will be one that is broad based and is across many bounds.
This right here is the primary reason why income taxes are supported over sales taxes in most countries. People can stop buying a product, people can find alternatives, and they can go to the black market to avoid taxes. Taxes are a lot harder to avoid if you take them right as people make the money.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I think Mayor Mike Bloomberg already did that (taxing smokes) in NYC over 10 years ago. I remember a pack of smokes going from $4 to $8 overnight. I think a pack is over $12 now. Ironically, the government saw a reduction in revenue with the change. Many people quit. Others just bought their smokes on the reservations or out of state.

A reduction in revenue accompanied by a reduction in cigarette-related healthcare issues and expenses. Is that really such a bad tradeoff?