SHould the uber-rich pay of the health insurance of the uninsured?

[Perky]

Look everyone needs to be covered, but covering everyone is an expensive proposition.
It is aasy to say let the rich pick up the tab, and I certainly do not think they can't afford it. But I am having some trouble with the concept.

Why should the Rich pay a surtax and the rest of us pay nothing to fund healthcare for all.

I know promises were made during the campaign. but from the standpoint of social obligation why should the brunt of the cost be bourne by the rich? In some cases, they may have gotten rich on the backs of benefit-less employees (see the Walton family) but that is not the rule, some of the wealthy are captains of industy that provide coverage for their employees out of corporate coffers and others may not be owners at at all (see Goldman Sachs employees.

I am just questioning the notion that the Rich shjould be obligated to pay for the things that the rest of us do not want to pay for at all.

Blasphemy? Perhaps, but putting the burden specifically on them, when they may not be the cause of the gap anmd when they will not benefit in some way by covering the uninusred seems onerous at the moment.

Convince me.

---------------------

On edit

I am reading argument here that tell me the Rich are undertaxed. That's not the question.

THey certainly are under taxed, But the idea being floated is a surtax to pay for the public option. If you want to close loopholes and shelters for the sake of equity and to replenish the public coffers (and pay for the public option as a byproduct) you will get no argument from me. But a surtax on the rich specifically to pay for the Health insurance for the uninsured is a very odd argument.

[WinkyDink]

1. Yes. The "uber-rich" should pay more, PERIOD. FGS, AS IF current laws and loop-holes don't favor

them ENOUGH?

[RichGirl]

38. Absolutely!

We need to consider how the rich GOT RICH. On the backs of the working class...that's how. Is it fair that the hardest workers get the least amount of pay while the ones sitting in offices get huge million dollar salaries and bonuses plus every tax benefit and write off imaginable.

I am so, so, SO SICK of people who are concerned about being unfair to the rich!!!!

[WinkyDink]

39. S.S. is the most regressive tax EVER, for all its positive effects. Deductions should be TOP DOWN.

It's simple---and equitable---arithmetic.

Were I in charge, I'd hire one "reich" to be my economics advisor, and it wouldn't be Robert Reich. It would be Susan Ehrenreich.

[malletgirl02]

41. S.S.

I agree, the least that should be done is to remove the earnings cap on the tax.

[Mimosa]

63. Remove the earnings cap on the tax?

I always wondered why that wasn't done long ago.

On the surface a surtax on the rich looks awfully unfair.

[izquierdista]

2. Ask Willie Sutton

That's where the money is. Not by coincidence, or by their magically knowing where to stand with their wallets open, but because they vacuumed up all the capital in the system. Now when the system needs the capital to do something worthwhile, why would you send it to turn over rocks in the desert when we know very well who has hoarded all the water?

[tbyg52]

3. Really. It got vaccuumed upstairs

And it's *still* going on. The Founding Fathers, I believe, had a distrust of massive wealth, especially inherited wealth. Enough of a reason to claw some of it back for me, and not just for health care.

[drm604]

4. Who said that the rest of us do not want to pay for it at all?

I think that's your problem right there. Most of us who have insurance pay something for it. We understand that we should pay something, either in taxes or premiums, we just can't afford the current (and constantly increasing) prices.

Many of those who don't currently have it will either pay for it themselves, possibly with help from a government subsidy, or will have it provided by their employer.

Nobody, that I'm aware of, is saying that the rich should pay for everything and everyone else should pay for nothing. You're setting up a strawman argument when you say that.

[Perky]

8. I heard Jay Rockefeller say that just the other day on the Ed Show

That the Rich should pay for the cost of the public option.

At one level I am all for vanquishing tax shelters and other schemes that allow the rich paying the proportionate share of the national tax burden. but only in the general sense.

What I understand is being floated on the House side is a surcharged expressly for to cover the cost of a public option. Rather than closing loopholes and shelters we would just hit them with a surcharge to cover the public option.

[whyverne]

9. You tell him.

He's falling for the Repugs talking point.

Yes we're talking more taxes. Paid by everybody.

Because less taxes didn't work. Proved by Reagan going in the hole by 3 trillion dollars, Bush the first charging 1 trillion and Bush the second putting 5 trillion on the tab.

And McCain has the nerve to talk about "generational theft".

[Warren Stupidity]

5. "putting the burden specifically on them" == total bullshit

"them" have gotten one burden reducing break after another over the last 30 years. Your premise is bullshit.

[baldguy]

6. The question shouldn't be "what's best for the rich?" but "what's best for the country?"

Under the Clinton Administration we had a minor increase in in taxes on the wealthiest people, and got the biggest & longest economic expansion in US history. Under the Bush Regime it was argued that a massive tax cut would allow the expansion to continue. The same old Republican canard that A) such lower taxes will automatically spur reinvestment and B) such reinvestment by the private sector is somehow superior to government spending. This policy failed under Reagan, and it failed again under Bush II.

They've had the largest tax cut in US history to play with for eight years, yet we're teetering on the edge of economic collapse. What happened? At the same time Bush was giving our money away to his rich friends, he weakened the governments ability to regulate financial markets. They took their $2 trillion tax cut and instead of investing it in America, they literally gambled it away.

The richest among us don't represent the best & the brightest. They're on the top of the pyramid through an accident of birth, or they're mere parasites who stole their way to the top. Very, very few of the Top 1% have done anything to earn that wealth.

The simple fact is that with proper (meaning non-Republican) management, directed government spending can make much more effective & positive influence on the economy - and the lives of ordinary Americans - than the diluted whims of the idle rich.

[Orsino]

7. Yes. Especially the uber-rich who earn dividends...

...from the companies who deny coverage.

Being rich in America is an incredible privilege. If the super-wealthy have to pay for it only in dollars, without breaking a sweat, they are still far better off than those who have to struggle.

[Perky]

10. I am reading argument here that tell me the Rich are undertaxed. That's not the question.

THey certainly are undrtaxed, But the idea being floated is a surtax to pay for the public option. If you want to close loopholes and shelters for the sake of equity and to replenish the public coffers (and pay for the public option as a byproduct) you will get no argument from me. But a surtax on the rich specifically to pay for the Health insurance for the uninsured is a very odd argument.

[ipaint]

18. It guarantees failure of the public plan

Once the wealthy buy off the right politicians they will whittle away at the tax and the public option will die. It also creates a new class of health care "freeloaders" the wealthy and their middle class gatekeepers can use as a whipping boy while they poison peoples minds against anything government run.

It certainly is a rallying cry but in the long run anything short of absolutely not including for profit, shareholder obligated, insurance companies will fail.

[harun]

11. The uber rich will pay a little more but I hardly see the current plans

as being funded totally by the rich.

I would actually rather the plan allow EVERYONE to opt in to the public plan if they would so desire and commit to always paying say 5% additional income tax for guaranteed coverage for life. I would actually be willing to pay more than that based on additional factors. Just trying to make the point of my willingness to pay more in taxes to get real coverage for life and my willingness to pay a bit more to help cover additional people who might not have the resources I do.

[Perky]

13. I don't think that is sellable politically.

It is all about accessability and affordability.

If cost goes up in the middle class wo are insured. It would be politically untenable,

[Skidmore]

12. The haves get where they are on the backs of

those who have not. To maintain their status, they will willingly break both the physical and mental health of those who work to produce the goods and services they capitalize on. Sure they should give back for the privilege of being allowed to amass wealth. The least they can do for the working class is to ensure that they can be healthy and have an education.

[bulloney]

14. The uber rich pay a smaller percentage of their incomes into Social Security. They collect on it.

They can contribute to the infrastructure and social programs like health care. After 30 years, you'd think that everyone would see that Reagan's trickle down does nothing but polarize the wealth in this country and that's not good.

[Perky]

16. I'd be fine with removing the cap on FICA/SS

to fund the social safety net. The damning thing is that Obama boxed himself in to a corner on those between 100K and 250k. SO the cap would have to stay in place there
but after $250K the cap should come off, with no loopholes.

[lurky]

15. Are you opposed to progressive taxation in general?

Or are you a flat taxer? In general, the idea of a progressive tax is that the people who can afford the most pay the most. A second assumption is that the wealthiest benefit the most from government service, in a trickle-up kind of way -- They benefit from having healthy, educated workers, safe communities, transportations systems for moving goods and employees, communication infrastructure like the Internet, and government-funded research in science and medicine that eventually becomes commercialized.

Some of the societal benefits of progressive taxation are that it slows the division between rich and poor (unlike our current tax structure which steals from the poor to benefit the rich). Additionally, it has been shown to act as an economic stabilizer, by softening the spikes and dips of bubbles and busts.

[Perky]

17. No I vcertanly believe in a progressive tax

the wealth should pay more.
Get rid of the Bush Tax cuts
get rid pf the payroll tax cap.

I am fine with both of those. It is specifically the issue of a surtax to pay for the public option I find disconcerting and difficult to rationalize.

[whosinpower]

19. All you need to do to fund healthcare

Is to tax transactions on Wall Street. Every one of them -
For every dollar traded - tax it at one penny.

[Laelth]

20. Personally, I do not think health care should be paid for by the rich alone.

I think it should be paid for out of general revenues (just like the Pentagon). I do not think it should be paid for through a massive new tax of 1.5% to 11.5% of gross income on the uninsured themselves (i.e. forcing them to purchase insurance that most of them can't afford in the first place). That's insane, and it will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Oregone]

22. While I agree with funding from tax revenues...

Your characterization of 1.5% to 11.5% as unaffordable is a bit off the mark. On average, the lower quintile already pays 22% and 35% (non-elderly and elderly respectively) of their income on health care. As you climb up through to the fourth quintile, you just meet 10%, meaning 60% or more Americans already pay more privately than what you mention. Significantly more.But who knows how "cost-sharing" will pervert that amount.

If you were to turn this all into a tax funded deal, thats about the amount in taxes everyone would pay anyway maybe. Its not some "massive" new tax. For the most part, its a great reduction on average of what people pay anyway.

[Oregone]

21. They benefit the most from having healthy workers and a non-bankrupt consumer class

While they may pay some amount to make that happen, historically, in America, the ROI on tax investments to business profits is unnaturally high and attributes to the most viable upper class in the industrialized world.

[anonymous171]

23. YES YES YES. The rich are parasites.nt

[lindisfarne]

24. They won't be paying the health insurance. They'll be paying taxes, which some draft bills have p

proposed be used for health care.
If you believe in progressive taxation, you shouldn't be bothered by this.

[inna]

25. yes, they should.

it's only fair that the rich should pay AT THE VERY LEAST ***the same percentage*** of their income for healthcare as the middle class and the working people do.

[RoadRage]

26. No..

IMO, everyone should pay an equal share of this tax...

Perhaps it's not very "democrat" of me, but I don't like lobbing large sums of tax burden on to ANY group, be it rich, poor, black, white, gay straight, etc.

Punishing people for being rich, IMO is not a good strategy. Many here tend to "hate" the rich - but many of those people are entrupranuers (sp??) who employ people, build economies, etc. Taxing them unfairly is no better then when Bush unfairly taxed the less weathy in this country.

I think the rich should pay more in taxes, because right now they are not paying their fair share.. however, I don't think that 1 rich person should be taxed the equivalant of what it will cost for 1,000 people to get heatlh insurance while those other 999 don't have to pay anything.

Flame Away...

[Perky]

31. ANd many of the Rich are not even Business Owners

[anonymous171]

51. The Rich are only rich beacuse they lie, cheat , and steal.

They deserve much more than just a large tax burden, imo.

[rug]

27. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8532916

[juno jones]

28. They got uber-rich by not paying their employees

a living wage.

Fuck 'em. Whiny babies. Sorry if tending to the well-being of the people who make you that filthy lucre cost you that Louis Vuitton handbag.

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. The uber rich have been getting off too easy since JFK was President

If we still had the Eisenhower era tax rates on the rich, health care would have been paid for decades ago.

[sarah553807]

30. My answer:YES

They've gotten off way to fucking easy for decades,and especially since the reagan years.I'm sorry I lack sympathy for how the rich are suffering during these hard times:eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

32. Health care is a right, health care requires money, go where the money is. nt

[Honeycombe8]

46. Almost everyone has SOME money. So I agree. Take some of everyone's $$$. nt

[ZombieHorde]

53. I have no problems with taxes going towards health care. nt

[boppers]

33. I got a great idea!

Let's tax the poor more to pay for public healthcare for the rich!

(Is a sarcasm tag really needed?)

[leftofthedial]

34. yes.

wealth more than 100 X the earnings of those making minimum wage is theft.

[busymom]

35. No. We should all pay in..

I'm not opposing a progressive tax, but if we want it, we should all have to pitch in.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. Oh yes!

[The Magistrate]

37. Yes, Sir, Certainly

Put bluntly, the disparity of wealth in this country has reached such a point there is no other source for financing.

[Vinca]

40. If I happened to be very wealthy, I would gleefully pay more taxes

so the citizens of this country would receive medical care. The tax they're considering will shake out to the cost of a good handbag and I don't think that's unreasonable. Why should they pay? Because we're all in this together and it's the humane thing to do.

[malletgirl02]

42. Song dedicated to the Rich

From Kurt Weill's Happy End. I always think of this song every time someone post about the banks or the very wealthy.

"Praise to the Fords and Rockefellers

Hosanna Hosanna

The buyers and the sellers

Hosanna Hosanna

All power to the great

Hosanna

give them the city and the state

Hosanna

Bless them with bodyguards and tellers

Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna

May God bless Rockefeller May God bless Henry Ford. May God bless JP Morgan too and his great treasure horde. May God bless sex appeal when wealthy men get bored. God keep their faith and profits high and low the poor may starve and die. Make sure no court on earth will trial try rich O Lord

Shower thy mercy on the wealthy

Hosanna Hosanna

To keep them healthy

Hosanna Hosanna

Let all who are blessed

Those who all worldly goods possessed

Grant the contented happiness

Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna

May God bless Rockefeller may God bless Henry Ford. Big Oil and coal and steel send them their just reward.

Help and protect the ruling classes

Hosanna Hosanna

Till hatred of them passes

Hosanna Hosanna

Lord smile on those who smile

Hosanna Hosanna

Grant them the wealth to live in style

Hosanna Hosanna

Pardon their crimes against the masses

Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna

May God bless Rockefeller may God bless Henry Ford. Big Oil and coal and steel send them their just reward. May God bless sex appeal when wealthy men get bored. God keep their faith and profits high and low the poor may starve and die. Make sure no court on earth will trial try rich O Lord

Rule the earth the way you rule the sky almighty lord."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. That's good!! Weill/Brecht wrote some great stuff.

Not familiar with Happy End.

[Better Believe It]

43. The rich won't even miss the money. Let them do something for the public good for a change.

[kestrel91316]

44. Yes. Just like the uber rich should pay the very poor's proportionate share

of other social costs, like road building and maintenance, police and fire protection, court system, etc. In large part because the uber rich work overtime trying to keep others from becoming rich and ensuring that THEY are the ones to get even richer.

[Honeycombe8]

45. I'm uncomfortable with that. Plus, if you want the Dems not to get elected for a few decades,

that'd be one way to do it: go on a personal crusade against people with money (who belong to both major political parties).

Maybe it's in the budget, and the wealthy pay a larger percentage of taxes, thereby footing more of the bill. I'm more comfortable with that.

To tax JUST the rich with no regard for others' ability to pay doesn't set well with me, either. People should pay for what they need, to the extent they are able to. Plus, it is a disincentive to make more money, if a lot more is taken from you to pay for someone else's health care that they CAN pay $1 for, but don't have to because YOU have to. It's just not a good plan, and it doesn't sound good.

[anonymous171]

49. The Wealthy constitute a very small minority of Americans.

Going after them is actually an extremely good idea, both politically and economically.

[Honeycombe8]

54. As a PR move, it's a death move. Besides that, though, it's just flat wrong...

to go after a group you dislike to pay for something for someone else, who CAN pay something themselves.

People value things more if they pay SOMETHING for it. If a person can only pay $1, then that's what s/he should pay. Those who can pay, can pick up the tab for the rest.

But it'll be distributed among all taxpayers.

That's why there is a progressive tax. So that those who have more, carry a bigger percentage of the bill.

I am against taxing any one group to pay for the needs of another group that CAN pay something for their own needs, but don't, and expect someone else to pay for it. No way will I go along with that. I suspect most people feel that way. I work hard for my $$$. I will pay into the pool to pay for those in need. But those in need who CAN pay something must be required to pay something, even if it's only a token amount. Otherwise, you're punishing people for making money. It's not about punishing people. It's about providing for those in need.

[anonymous171]

56. It would not be a death move. No one likes the rich.

And taxation would not be a "punishment." The Government protects their wealth and grants them access to resources. They should pay way more taxes than the normal folks.

[Honeycombe8]

57. I don't dislike the rich. Buffett? Gates? Obama? Alec Baldwin? Madonna?

Ben Affleck? Joan Rivers? Zellweger? The Martin Luther King family? The Jackson family (both Michael and the politicians)? The Kennedys?

I admire many of them. Those who came from nothing and made their own way by providing a product or service honestly, working day and night.

No, I don't dislike the rich at all. I do dislike some of them, just as I dislike some poor people. But not because of their money or lack of it.

I have found that whether a person has $ or not has nothing to do with whether the person is good or not. And I have known wealthy people who work longer and harder than some poor people, and that's why they have more $$$. (Some have more $$ because they were born into it or had other advantages, and some are poor because they had disadvantages.)

If the Dem Party creates a policy of "taxing the rich" to "pay for the needs of those who don't want to pay ANYTHING," then most people in the country will vote against it. You can take that to the bank. No one likes a freeloader.

[LAGC]

61. The place you are looking for is called FreeRepublic.com...

Your views on the rich will be very well-received over there.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. Where are you getting this idea that people are going to pay nothing for health insurance?

Some people will qualify for Medicaid under the new plan but most people will be paying their share of premiums. And it's going to be mandated.

[Bad Thoughts]

47. If not, PAY WORKERS WHAT THEY ARE WORTH n/t

[ibegurpard]

48. No one should pay for health insurance

Now if you want to take about health CARE...

[noamnety]

50. I would prefer the uber rich fund the full cost of the defense dept and bailouts

And the rest of us could pay whatever taxes are necessary to fund health care, since the war and bailouts primarily benefit the uber-rich and health care primarily benefits the rest of us.

But it turns out the uber-rich would prefer not to fund the those things. :shrug:

[Fearless]

52. Yes.

[tranche]

55. Unless you are uber rich you don't need to be "convinced".

The rich have a right to complain about taxes as much as the next guy, but in every interview I've ever seen with someone of magnificent wealth, you'll see that they explain it away as "I'm just lucky", "I had the breaks and worked hard", and "This is a wonderful country which allowed me to attain this type of wealth". They become uber rich because they live in a functioning society, with an incredibly expensive socially payed-for infrastructure, public education, the rule of law, etc..

Until you become the uber rich, I don't think that you need to be "convinced" that they shouldn't have to pay an accelerated rate of taxes on the income they've received far outside the average laborer. They receive outsized benefits while living in this country and should be expected to pay to keep it running. Sort of like "leave it as you found it".

The thing that amazes me, is that it always seems the biggest defenders of the uber rich are those who don't know just how lucky they are to be uber rich. You don't need to be convinced, just listen to the uber rich themselves in candid moments.

[Hansel]

59. The poor and middle class pay disportionate amounts for thing mostly the rich

enjoy. The roads and infrastructure that we pay for benefits the rich disproportionately, however, everyone has to pay an equal amount in gas taxes to maintain them.

In some states we pay sales taxes so the rich can build and sap all of the profits from sports stadiums.

We all pay into government services such as patent offices and courts which few of us use and the rich, again, benefit from. We all pay into government regulatory agencies that have to exist because of the practices of the rich.

We all pay into fire services, that the rich get more benefit from if their multi-million dollar estates catch fire.

We all pay into police services to direct traffic at their events that they profit from or to protect their asses if they commit a crime.

We all pay into court systems that they disproportionately benefit from both in terms of protection and in terms of trial costs for their crimes.

We all pay practically the same percentage to fight wars that the rich profit from and our children die in.

The rich in this country get disproportionate benefits from government services and then cry if they have to pay their fair share.

Even welfare programs benefit the rich. Recipients spend their money at businesses and improves their bottom line. They rent property owned by the wealthy. They use health services. And they are more inclined to stay away from business districts and not commit crimes.

The rich, in nearly every case, benefit more from government tax dollars than anyone else. So they can pay more.

[Flying Dream Blues]

60. Could you please define uber-rich? nt

[quaker bill]

62. Your premise is false

Starting at 133% of poverty, people will begin to pay premiums. By the time you hit 400% of poverty income, you end up carrying all the freight.

The problem itself is that at 133% of poverty, other little matters like food, clothing, and shelter come first. The reason these folks do not have insurance is because their employers do not provide it and they cannot afford it and still be able to eat and feed their kids regularly.

We are already subsidizing these folks with CDBG funds for affordable housing, food stamps, medicaid. If you mandate that they buy health insurance, you will simply have to make up the funds in other programs. There is no discretionary money to be had from these folks.

I will tell you what, let's require a living wage and stop subsidizing businesses by supporting their employees lives on substandard wages.

The proposed surtax, at its maximum rate, is still lower than if you simply removed the cap on social security taxes, which everyone making less that 105K pays on every cent they make. For reference SSI witholding is 6.2 percent, the maximum surtax rate is 5.4 percent on exactly the same income. So even with this surtax, the rich are still getting a break, and that is assuming that their income comes from wages. Guess what, it doesn't. This is the whole point of stock options. Hold them for a year and a day and you pay taxes at the preferred 20 percent rate. In general the average CEO pays a lower tax rate than his / her secretary and the surtax, as large as it is, will still not make things equal.

It is true that the rich pay a major share of the taxes, but even so, they do not pay in proportion to their wealth. The concentration of wealth in this country is well beyond levels that have regularly caused social unrest in the rest of the world.

[lexanman]

64. Well no

How did you think they became uber rich? :sarcasm: In some cases? Try in most cases

[treestar]

65. Why not?

Why shouldn't they even want to? Do they have any pride in this country that allowed them to become uber rich? Then why do they not care that it looks bad that it doesn't take care of its people?

[Hello_Kitty]

66. It's not like health care is going to be free for everyone

They will raise the income eligibility for Medicaid somewhat but people making between 100 to 400% of the poverty level will be paying premiums. And don't forget that the non-rich will still be paying taxes, they just won't be getting an increase.

[Mass]

68. If we need to convince you, may be you are in the wrong party.

The point is that healthcare is a RIGHT, just as education is a right. Of course, some people may think that people should die if they cannot afford healthcare. Otherwise, it is a social obligation where people should chip in according to their income, so yes, the ultra rich should pay for most of it, because this country gives them more than others (where do you think they get their revenue), so they should give back more to the community.

[elehhhhna]

69. no, but they should pay their historic "fair share" of taxes, which should cover

MEDICAL care (not insurance -- very different animal) for the general population.

[bemildred]

70. Oh hell yes. "The Uninsured" sure paid for the wealth of the "uber-rich".

Where did all that money come from, anyway?

[Perky]

71. Pelosi and Kennedy are bot supportive of a surtac on the wealthy

It certainly makes it easier to gain the financing and probably easier for the blue dogs to swallow.

They are going to need an aggressive spin effort to get ahead of repuke (p)outrage. And Honestly it needs to come from Obama rather than the Dems on the Hill who can't seen to argue their way out of a paper bag
This could end the bipartisan theatrics which cuts both ways,

[uponit7771]

72. Yes, this would be the perfect situation for progressive taxes that should be in place now