Skip to main content

Howard Dean's truth

"The truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. "

Comments

Anonymous said…
From NYT:
For more than a year, politicians have been fighting over whether to raise taxes on high-income people. They rarely mention that affluent Americans will soon be hit with new taxes adopted as part of the 2010 health care law.

The new levies, which take effect in January, include an increase in the payroll tax on wages and a tax on investment income, including interest, dividends and capital gains. The Obama administration proposed rules to enforce both last week.

Affluent people are much more likely than low-income people to have health insurance, and now they will, in effect, help pay for coverage for many lower-income families. Among the most affluent fifth of households, those affected will see tax increases averaging $6,000 next year, economists estimate.
kavps said…
"Affluent people are much more likely than low-income people to have health insurance...."

Exactly the problem Obama-care is designed to fix.

Insurance is a cost saver. The reason one subscribes to insurance is because it stabilizes costs. $100 a month is more stable than a surprise $120,000 medical bill, ending your economic history as you know it.

47 million do not have insurance. They are not turned away when they seek emergency treatment. That cost can be handled three ways; the hospitals absorb it, and shorten their dividends to their investors, the hospital raises other prices across the board, so the wealthy pay for it anyway, or the hospital, can require insurance to reimburse it at a higher rate for all other services to keep it afloat from taking care indigents.

In all three ways, the wealthy subsidize the running of the hospital.. The question then becomes, is it cheaper to pay $1000 more in taxes, or to pay $10,000 more in yearly higher insurance premiums?

Obviously the $1000 in increased taxes is the cheaper option...

Those against the employment of any tax increase upon the wealthy to fix the broken pieces of America. have an agenda that is not in any way, related to mathematics....

Increasing taxes on the wealthy is good for America, it is the cheapest option for America, and the original tax cuts, are simply why America today is not the prosperous nation we were destined to be, or believed we would be 12 years ago.....

Simply raising taxes 5% on the money you could never find time to spend, isn't going to hurt anybody....
Delaware Watch said…
I agree with Howard Dean. I thought the Bush tax cuts for everyone were ridiculous at a time of new wars and when the budget had just come into balance. I do think that tax rates should be substantially increased on the rich. The current capital gains rate is infamy.
Hube said…
If we want to solve the debt/deficit problem, taxes will have to raised. But more importantly, spending must be cut. And I don't mean the usual "reduction in growth."

The GOP has a problem with the former. The Democrats have a problem with the latter. Good luck to all of us in the current negotiations.
Hube said…
Those against the employment of any tax increase upon the wealthy to fix the broken pieces of America. have an agenda that is not in any way, related to mathematics....

Sure it's related to mathematics. You could tax everyone making over $66K/year at a 100% rate and it still wouldn't solve our debt problem. And since that in no way will happen (obviously), then how in the world will merely raising the rate on the top 2% do so?
NCSDad said…
So to be "responsible", Progs think we need to raise taxes on either the rich, or everyone. To be "responsible", Libs think we need to cut spending. What the hell do Repubs think it means to be "responsible" regarding a tax deal?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...