patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,268,856 comments by 15,180 users - WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 110 - 111 of 111 Search these comments
Regarding the existence of HMOs, HSAs, 12 month waiting periods for health insurance, personal management of risk, the need for software modelling at home, etc, etc:
None of that is necessary here under a govt-provided health guarantee, and health services are provided in most OECD countries as a universal social guarantee by govt for about half of the cost per capita of running the American system with a non-inclusive insurance approach.
In other words, it's more efficient to treat people when they fall sick on a universal basis for free by the govt out of tax dollars than it is to do all this faffing around with health insurance in the private sector which only leads to denial of care, extra stress and anxiety, extra admin overhead, and unseen gouging of citizens by unscrupulous insurers, whose main intent is not to pay out money. In terms of quality of care, the US system is ranked 37th in the world, and is particularly noted for its denial of access to needed care.
Disasters, Education, Transportation, all done better by private sector.
Disasters like Union Carbide in India? Definitely, disasters are done quite well by the private sector...
Pollution and environmental degradation? Complete disregard for workers and residents rights?
Way to go...
A recent review of bus operators in Sydney found that they were only viable because of schoolchildren subsidies they receive from govt, when they don't even carry the schoolchildren. This year, the govt finally decided to reimburse each private bus company for all their operating losses out of the public purse, as they provide essential services non-viably...
« First « Previous Comments 110 - 111 of 111 Search these comments
A number of bloggers have criticized the current mortgage interest tax deduction as regressive and penalizing savers (as in, the higher your income tax bracket and the more interest you owe, the more you get back). Some have proposed modifying it to be more progressive or extending it to non-owners (i.e., jealous bitter renters).
Ray W Said:
If we are talking fair tax laws then how about a tax deferred savings where non home owners who would qualify as first time buyers can save and deduct just as if it were paying interest on a mortgage towards a down payment on a home. All money used for the down payment and closing costs would not be taxed but if the money is removed and used for anything else then taxes and penalties would be applied like it were 401k penalties.
If we are an ownership society why don’t we give people who currently don’t have the advantage of the mortgage deduction the ability to take advantage of using the same benefit towards saving to buy a home?
Others have debated the merits and possible consequences of replacing the current Byzantine federal income tax laws with a simpler no-loophole flat tax.
Randy H said:
The market does not solve all problems. I am about as close to a market fundamentalist as exists, but the market has a bad tendency to get caught in “local maxima†and not optimize for the greater good.
The consumption argument is that flat taxes disproportionately punish those who must consume a higher portion of their income/wealth to survive. Someone at poverty level is consuming 100% of their incomes to subsist. So $1 taxed from them is much more punishing than someone who consumes only 1% of their wealth to subsist. If you could figure out a way to make all staple consumption exempt in a flat tax system then I’d be on board. But otherwise you’re incentives are backwards (regressive). If you think people tend to unnecessarily rely upon welfare now, it would be worse in a flat-tax without threshold system.
What are the pros/cons of these proposals?
Given the massive amount of RE industry/mortgage/banking/pro-wealthy influence in Washington, would either of these proposals stand a chance of passing?
--HARM
#housing