patrick.net

Who wouldn't want to pay higher taxes for a pitchfork in the chest?

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

NHS is packed with relatives of Pakistanis visiting for Free Care.

Pakistanis have disproportionately high cases of disabilities due to cousin marriages. 70% of Pakistanis are married to their first cousins. 50% of Iraqis and a similar percent of Saudis are married to their first cousins.
Fucking cousin fuckers.

LeonDurham says

lol--are you pretending I haven't shown you why you must include the employer contribution? It's YOUR money.

lol because you have made no case for it except your own opinion.

LeonDurham says

lol--are you pretending I haven't shown you why you must include the employer contribution? It's YOUR money.

Same goes for other countries too.

MisterLefty says

lol because you have made no case for it except your own opinion.

Yes, I forgot. The law of supply and demand is a pseudo theory.

MisterLefty says

2009: Comparison is between a single individual and a married couple with two children.

France: 50.1% and 41.7%
UK: 33.5% and 27.1%
Canada: 31.6% and 21.5%

What a total fucking joke. A 1 paragraph post on a blog? Nothing else? It's true because I say it's true.

MisterLefty says

$5,000 employee contribution for plan plus $1,318 out-of-pocket. You are suggesting that it become the equivalent of $25,000 under socialized medicine is not a great argument for adoption.

Average employer premium last year was 18,000 according to NCSL. That's money you don't get paid. You contribution isn't the total cost of the plan. plus you kick in on top of that out of pocket.

Strategist says

The stats are based on average earnings. Benefits not deducted from average earnings.

What stats, it's someone's blog that is totally meaningless. No source no methodology, not nothing.

Hassan_Rouhani says

LeonDurham says

Not to mention that those other countries offer far more services paid by tax dollars that we have to pay separately for here.

Says who?

Like schools, fire, police paid out of income taxes not property taxes. I am willing to bet US property taxes didn't get included in taxes. But we don't know since there isn't anything about how the numbers were calculated. Want to tack the average whatever it is property tax (including what renters pay) onto the average earner and see the numbers?

How about $500 a year or free college tuition? Not a benefit?

Here are some real oecd numbers and 11% tax paid is not on the menu or even close. https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2016/

bob2356 says

Average employer premium last year was 18,000 according to NCSL. That's money you don't get paid. You contribution isn't the total cost of the plan. plus you kick in on top of that out of pocket.

It is an opinion that the money would be paid to employees if the company no longer paid it.

LeonDurham says

Yes, I forgot. The law of supply and demand is a pseudo theory.

The way you apply it is nonsensical. And economics is not at all science.

bob2356 says

What a total fucking joke. A 1 paragraph post on a blog? Nothing else? It's true because I say it's true.

Tax rates in other countries are no secret. But instead of whining, post a link with contrary information.

MisterLefty says

It is an opinion that the money would be paid to employees if the company no longer paid it.

That's why it's called compensation package not salary.

bob2356 says

That's why it's called compensation package not salary.

But now Uncle Sam pays the benefit. Poof!

Uncle Sam: The new single payer plan signed into law by President Sanders provides a boost to both consumers, in the form of an average $5,000 raise, but also to employers, who see a more improved bottom line.

MisterLefty says

But now Uncle Sam pays the benefit. Poof!

Uncle Sam: The new single payer plan signed into law by President Sanders provides a boost to both consumers, in the form of an average $5,000 raise, but also to employers, who see a more improved bottom line.

Companies no longer send YOUR money to the insurance company so they obviously send it to YOU instead.

When there's a tax cut, do companies keep the money because they no longer have to withhold as much from your check?

MisterLefty says

bob2356 says

What a total fucking joke. A 1 paragraph post on a blog? Nothing else? It's true because I say it's true.

Tax rates in other countries are no secret. But instead of whining, post a link with contrary information

I did. Not a very useful one but a hell of a lot better than a couple random numbers posted on someone's blog. , There isn't an accurate study out there. All of these types of studies only exist to advance someone's political agenda. Look who paid for the study and you can know the results without even looking at the study. .

Comparing nominal tax rates instead of effective tax rates is useless. As is comparing totally different levels of benefits You would have to add back in all the missing benefits like health care, college tuition, etc., etc. to be able to compare. Then you would need to account for the total tax burden, not just federal. The US has a very high state and local tax burden that doesn't exist in other countries because a lot of services are federal in other countries not paid for at a local level. That would be a problem because how to you divide property tax by worker? or include property tax for renters who work?

Just comparing nominal federal rates is idiotic.

Since the US is the only country other than North Korea and Eritrea (nice company to keep) that taxes non resident citizens I can tell you from personal experience of filing double tax returns for many years that the TOTAL tax burden in Australia/NZ isn't any higher than the US and is higher in France but not a lot unless you are making a lot (France is big on egalitarian, high earners get killed. also french tax law is very complex and nominal rates don't mean much). That's not including being in the US and having to for health care or 25k a year college tuition if I were stupid enough to send my kids to college in the states.

LeonDurham says

Companies no longer send YOUR money to the insurance company so they obviously send it to YOU instead.

They OBVIOUSLY aren't going to give it to you if it's going to an insurance company.

MisterLefty says

The United States of America 29.1% and 11.9%

Not sure if the other countries numbers represent total taxes, but this figure for US does not. Guessing this is federal income only.

MisterLefty says

---

2009: Comparison is between a single individual and a married couple with two children.

France: 50.1% and 41.7%
UK: 33.5% and 27.1%
Canada: 31.6% and 21.5%

To be fair, these taxes buys you a lot more than healthcare benefits: also free education for your children (or almost free for universities), and a pension for RETIREMENT.

According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), "the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare" in 2012, which was "up significantly from $7,700 in 2007."
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html

So let's see: for a family of Americans with 2 children, that's $38,000. Let's say the median household income is $60K. So that's potentially a tax of 63% IN ADDITION to the taxes you pay.
It doesn't stop here:

"Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

If you want to compare what other states spend on healthcare, you will lose.
The US GOVERNMENT already spends AS MUCH on healthcare per capita as other developed countries. The only difference is you don't cover all people for that money.
You choose not to cover everyone.

MisterLefty says

It is an opinion that the money would be paid to employees if the company no longer paid it.

Without collective bargaining (unions) you are right, but just make sure you include the recent corp. and pass thru entity tax cut going to the workers as opinion also.

Heraclitusstudent says

To be fair, these taxes buys you a lot more than healthcare benefits: also free education for your children (or almost free for universities), and a pension for RETIREMENT.

Actually in the UK not really. You have to do unbelievably well and your fate is determined by a test you take around 5-6th Grade I think.

Heraclitusstudent says

The US GOVERNMENT already spends AS MUCH on healthcare per capita as other developed countries.

and US spends almost twice as much per capita as other developed countries and 14% don't even have health care insurance. But hey just post prices in doctors offices and it will be all better.

LeonDurham says

Companies no longer send YOUR money to the insurance company so they obviously send it to YOU instead.

If it is your money, than surely the employer will turn it over to you if you ask. Wanna bet on the odds?

bob2356 says

Average employer premium last year was 18,000 according to NCSL. That's money you don't get paid. You contribution isn't the total cost of the plan. plus you kick in on top of that out of pocket.

I think you should read your own links. As previously posted, for an average family, employee pays roughly 1/3, employer 2/3. So employer's contribution is $18k-minus employee's contribution, which is around $12k. Why is it that the empty barrels always make the most noise?

The 2016 KFF survey looked at annual average employer contributions to health insurance:

For single plans, employers paid 82% of premiums ($5,306)
For family plans, employers paid 71% of premiums ($12,865)
Employees paid the remaining 18% ($1,129) for single plans and 29% ($5,277) for family plans.

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/premiums-for-employer-sponsored-family-health-coverage-rise-slowly-for-sixth-straight-year-up-3-but-averaging-18764-in-2017/

Heraclitusstudent says

"Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

To be a bit more honest, and accurate, for those covered by the employer:

The 2016 KFF survey looked at annual average employer contributions to health insurance:

For single plans, employers paid 82% of premiums ($5,306)
For family plans, employers paid 71% of premiums ($12,865)
Employees paid the remaining 18% ($1,129) for single plans and 29% ($5,277) for family plans.

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/premiums-for-employer-sponsored-family-health-coverage-rise-slowly-for-sixth-straight-year-up-3-but-averaging-18764-in-2017/

bob2356 says

Heraclitusstudent says

The US GOVERNMENT already spends AS MUCH on healthcare per capita as other developed countries.

and US spends almost twice as much per capita as other developed countries and 14% don't even have health care insurance. But hey just post prices in doctors offices and it will be all better.

Those numbers are a few years old. Situation is worse now, and spiraling out of control.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-u-s-similar-public-spending-private-sector-spending-triple-comparable-countries

bob2356 says

Comparing nominal tax rates instead of effective tax rates is useless.

In France, I'd be paying 17% more income tax, and there seems to be some sort of pesky wealth tax there, too. But it is true that unbiased analyses are rare, France provides broader social services than healthcare, etc. It is possible that taxes will go up if the USA adopted single payer, and that higher income folks would pay more than they do under employer sponsored plans, and out-of-pocket continue to increase, a la Medicare. But even exchange costs under Obamacare are less as a percentage for higher earners.

MisterLefty says

Heraclitusstudent says

"Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

To be a bit more honest, and accurate, for those covered by the employer:

The 2016 KFF survey looked at annual average employer contributions to health insurance:

For single plans, employers paid 82% of premiums ($5,306)
For family plans, employers paid 71% of premiums ($12,865)
Employees paid the remaining 18% ($1,129) for single plans and 29% ($5,277) for family plans.

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/premiums-for-employer-sponsored-family-health-coverage-rise-slowly-for-sixth-straight-year-up-3-but-averaging-18764-in-2017/

This is why most gainfully employed people dont realize the extent of the problem. Try pricing out an Obamacare policy without a subsidy. Prices are absurd.

CBOEtrader says

This is why most gainfully employed people dont realize the extent of the problem. Try pricing out an Obamacare policy without a subsidy. Prices are absurd.

Indeed and that data is available, too.

Heraclitusstudent says

"the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare"

Heraclitusstudent says

So let's see: for a family of Americans with 2 children, that's $38,000. Let's say the median household income is $60K. So that's potentially a tax of 63% IN ADDITION to the taxes you pay.

It doesn't work like that. Healthcare costs are highly skewed. Averages in healthcare are a flawed measure of normal. The median family spends nowhere near that much. Now if your kid has epilepsy or if your brother catches HIV, you will have $8k/month meds to pay for.

A normal kid does one wellness exam per year ($200 value) and maybe goes to urgent care once ($200 value) plus some antibiotics for $50. Those are actual costs w/o insurance.

Price of that family's insurance policy will vary based on ages and location. It used to be possible to get healthy underwriting and lower your premium, but Obamacare threw that out. So now, even healthy families of 4 are forced to pay between $20 to 30 thousand for annual premiums. Allowing for UW to get lowered premiums is part of Trumps plan, which does call into question the preexisting condition issue under this new administration.

At the very least trump is opening competition within short term medical carriers and removing the individual mandate nonsense.

MisterLefty says

CBOEtrader says

This is why most gainfully employed people dont realize the extent of the problem. Try pricing out an Obamacare policy without a subsidy. Prices are absurd.

Indeed and that data is available, too.

I have a quote engine if you'd like to price out Obamacare policies.

Ex: I'm looking at a family of 4, 40yo father, 33 yo mother, 8 yo son, and 4 yo daughter in johnnson county TX. The lowest priced silver plan is $1786/month. This includes a $15 copay, 1700 (5100) individual (family) deductible, and a 7350 (14700) individual (family) max out of pocket risk per year.

That means the family pays $21432 in premiums. If one person has large health issues they will pay up to $28782 for the year. If multiple family members have problems this family could pay as much as $36132 for the year.

CBOEtrader says

It doesn't work like that. Healthcare costs are highly skewed. Averages in healthcare are a flawed measure of normal. The median family spends nowhere near that much. Now if your kid has epilepsy or if your brother catches HIV, you will have $8k/month meds to pay for.

Yes but my point remains: the cost is totally disproportionate to American households incomes. And it will become worse.
So you can't simply say "Europeans pay more taxes meaning they pay more in an inefficient government system." They pay much less.

Take a look at https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2018

5 out of the top 10 lobbyists are lobbying for more expensive healthcare. They simply bribe our supposed "representatives" with "campaign contributions", who then happily represent them, and not us.

The essence of the situation is that prices for healthcare are crazy high because no one in Congress actually wants prices to be any lower. That would displease lots of their top donors.

MisterLefty says

bob2356 says

Average employer premium last year was 18,000 according to NCSL. That's money you don't get paid. You contribution isn't the total cost of the plan. plus you kick in on top of that out of pocket.

I think you should read your own links. As previously posted, for an average family, employee pays roughly 1/3, employer 2/3. So employer's contribution is $18k-minus employee's contribution, which is around $12k. Why is it that the empty barrels always make the most noise?

I thought that it would be obvious to almost anyone that only the employer part was the part you don't get paid so that the point didn't need to be made. I was wrong. . I will spell it out next time.

MisterLefty says

In France, I'd be paying 17% more income tax, and there seems to be some sort of pesky wealth tax there, too.

You would? Do you know how it's calculated? You divide the income by the number of people in the household and thats the amount you use to determine the rate. Being single is a real tax disadvantage. Like I said french tax law is very complex.

You'd honestly be paying 17% more including fica, state income tax, and the difference in property taxes? Remember police, fire, and education are paid out of the income tax in france, not property taxes. Plus getting health care and college at 180 euro per year for tuition. Want to back a lifetime of health care premiums and your kids college tuiiton into that number?

I've lived and paid taxes over seas for 15 of the last 30 years. America isn't much cheaper when you put in all the taxing bodies and you don't get as much for it. The money for military spending that is more then the next 20 countries combined has to come out of somewhere.

Like I said all these think tanks and research groups that people believe so devoutly in exist to create political spin for who ever is paying them. They start with the conclusion then develop the methodolgy and carefully selected data points to support it. Unfortunately actually thinking and drawing your own conclusions is much to much work for a big percentage of people. They want someone who will tell them what they want to hear and how to think no matter how obviously the information is skewed.

CBOEtrader says

Averages in healthcare are a flawed measure of normal.

Indeed. And if you want to look at employee costs for healthcare as a percent of income (a tax), $5,000 on $60k earnings is 8.3%, but only 1.67% of $300,000. And likewise, if that cost goes away, a better tax cut, percentage-wise, for the lower earner. The unknown is where the resulting balance will reset under socialized medicine. Will that 1.67% go up to 6% or greater? And don't doubt that there would not still be out-of-pocket expenses under socialized medicine, as there are under Medicare. Even in the UK, one can buy supplemental insurance.

But I do think it is disingenuous to flatly state that everyone will pay less, that the employer will return their contribution to the employees its "their money', etc. Inflexible rigidity on the part of liberals, associated with TDS, means they lose again and again.

Also, the USA is still leading the world in pharma and biotech, a relatively clean and high-paying industry. Someone must pay, and it is disproportionately US citizens versus socialized medicine countries that do. Will implementing socialized medicine in the USA cause a rise in prices around the world? Will it continue the trend of an ascendant Chiner in this field? And will Bernie get elected on 2020?

MisterLefty says

Indeed. And if you want to look at employee costs for healthcare as a percent of income (a tax), $5,000 on $60k earnings is 8.3%, but only 1.67% of $300,000

What percentage of workers earn 60k vs 300k? That's why you use averages in the first place.

MisterLefty says

But I do think it is disingenuous to flatly state that everyone will pay less, that the employer will return their contribution to the employees its "their money', etc. Inflexible rigidity on the part of liberals, associated with TDS, means they lose again and again.

What is disingenuous is pretending spending twice as much on health care as a society while leaving so many people poorly cared for is good somehow. The cost of health care isn't the same as the cost of health care insurance. That ignorance is what managed to give us obamacare. The extra money spent on US health care is a giant trickle up scheme. The profits built into every nook and cranny of health care system in the US goes directly into the pockets of the .1%. The billions the health care industry has spent bribing (oops my bad, constitutionally protected free speech) politicians to maintain/extend the present system and brainwashing the public has returned trillions in profits.

Which is why there will never be any substantial changes that actually reduce the cost of health care. It would reduce profits and campaign contributions .

MisterLefty says

But I do think it is disingenuous to flatly state that everyone will pay less

Nobody said that. I said that for sure some number of people will pay more, but the overall cost to Americans will be 1/2 of what it is now. Anyone arguing that is a bad thing is ridiculously selfish or short sighted.