- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”
Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
It’s only cheaper if you consider current healthcare costs. It would require tax increases, and under current progressive tax models, those would be disproportionately high for the upper class, for whom the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium.
I don’t know how you can say with any confidence that the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium when the system literallydoesn’t exist.
I said under current progressive tax models.
And what would this non-existent healthcare system cost them to contribute to?
It depends on the state. Massachusetts actually does have a flat income tax, so maybe it would be easier to do there. But even so, wealthy people might prefer to buy private plans, and see the tax as redundant.
This is a wildly different comment/take than what you were saying earlier.
How so?
You literally said - a complete blanket statement - that it would result in “higher income“ people paying more than they save. I said I don’t know how you could know that when the system doesn’t exist yet. Now you are completely shifting gears and not even addressing what you said initially, as well as narrowing the scope to MA for your (unsure why…?) example even though they have a very unique case.
I’m conceding that it might not always be the case. I don’t have an answer to your question because I don’t feel like doing the research and math to figure out what the top earners would pay in any given state under universal health insurance. It seems to me obvious that it would represent a large tax increase, and that that increase would disproportionately effect top earners. If you have reason to believe it would universally save people money, I’m all ears for a reason or argument.
No, the sum of all premiums paid by all Americans is way more than is required. You could make it a flat tax and it’d still be cheaper.
The tax increase is more than offset by the cost of premiums.
That may be the case, but do you have any evidence or reasoning? There are a certain number of people right now who don’t have insurance or who have very bad insurance, and a universal insurance would have to have to make up what’s missing for those people.
There’s a variety of ways to implement it, but the vast majority save trillions in the long run. https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/ has a couple sources listed, even a Koch-funded institute found it would save money.
The reasoning is simple: you cut out the middlemen who demand a portion of the premiums for themselves. Those costs are instantly removed, and there isn’t really anything that starts costing more in return.
There’s also collective governmental bargaining on procedures and medication which lowers prices.
I understand that it saves money overall. I don’t understand how it could save money for individual high-income tax payers. At some earning level, your taxes will be raised by more than you would pay for insurance. Even under a flat tax, that has to be the case, right? You would need a regressive tax to actually make it beneficial to every single resident.
Depends exactly on what is taxed. Regardless, the tax increase would be so low that moving is almost certainly not paying for itself. The government could also just increase taxes by a flat amount rather than a flat rate.
Point is, there’s plenty of options that give zero reason to assume capital flight will happen.
So a regressive tax
Yes.
I would prefer a progressive tax which would be easier to do on the national level.
ok, why should I care about the well off not getting to be quite the leaches they are now?
Under current economic conditions, economic wealth is necessary for the functioning of the economy. Some (including me) would advocate for a redistribution/government seizure of capital, but I don’t know of any economist who doesn’t see it as a problem if the wealth is lost altogether. If taxes are imposed on a national level, it is less likely that the wealthy will flee to other countries than it is if they are imposed on a state level. Unless the government seizes all capital, or bans capital flight, there will always be a risk of losing that wealth to emigration.
is it required? to an extent, yes. but do we need 60% of everything to be owned by 10% of the population?
As for the Capital flight, that is a myth, even the implementation of straight wealth taxes don’t see great multimillionaire migrations, because taxation isn’t a very strong factor, in fact a golf course or tow is a stronger pull, example Scotland vs Ireland when the UK was still part of the EU saw more ultra wealthy live in Scotland, a region with a higher tax rate, than Ireland, primarily for golf courses.
I’m not sure it’s even negligible between countries, but I am specifically talking about capital flight between US states, where there is a very low barrier to exit. Do you have any reason to believe that isn’t a phenomenon?
Yeah we need to deflate the disproportionately high pricing of the health care caused by insurance as well, if we could get it at the national level we could eliminate a lot of the back office overhead, and then maybe negotiate a revisit of the master charge list so that Tylenol in hospital isn’t something crazy like $250 dollars a dose. State by state this would probably be much more difficult.