How about a national sales tax to pay for health care - tax every thing that is bought or sold

[ThomWV]

And I mean everything, including corporate buyouts of other corporations, including a surtax on Government spending for services and hardware to be moved into the healtcare fund, including every personal purchase made by everyone no matter how large or small the item or service.

Unlike the Republican mindset I don't mind paying for health care with my taxes, I'd just like to see it done with a tax that absolutely no person or company could avoid - a universal tax. A little tax will not kill us, lack of health care certainly will. And for all those who now how insurance - great, now you won't have to be making that payment, you'll pay for it with a tax - that in all likelihood will be lower than the monthly payment you are now making.

[sam sarrha]

1. how about ... "Military Funding" ...!!! we could all retire next week

[D-Lee]

75. Or anything ELSE but the most regressive tax known to man or woman nt

[jcarterhero]

100. Oh, definitely

We need to SERIOUSLY cut back in that area.

[The Magistrate]

2. A tax On Sale Of Stocks And Bonds, Sir, Would Be An Excellent And Useful Measure

[paulsby]

7. we already have that.

it's called capital gains. otoh, if you taxed the full value which may be what you are implying, you would crush the utility of the stock market in general, which would be an awful blow to the greatest price discovery and wealth creation mechanism ever devised.

[DireStrike]

28. Also the greatest responsibility-reducing mechanism ever created

The company is doing awful shit? Just dump your stock!

No need to take any interest in the company you supposedly own part of. No need to encourage long-term thinking or anything other than lying to post good numbers.

As long as you beat everyone else to the punch, you're ok. And you're not a sucker, like all those SUCKERS out there...

[dysfunctional press]

37. what's needed is a transaction fee...

a quarter of a cent fee on every share sold.

[Selatius]

39. Capital gains is not a sales tax. It's a tax on income. Sales taxes are taxes on production.

Big difference.

[The Magistrate]

54. Nonesense, Sir

To call the present financial markets 'the greatest price discovery and wealth creation mechanism ever devised' is a joke in extremely poor taste. What they in fact are is a system of side bets, the sort engaged in by spectators around a craps table on whether or not the shooter will make his point. They produce nothing; they siphon off capital from productive enterprise. The pyramids of speculative wagering erected over the actual production of useful goods and provision of valuable services dwarf the amounts of money involved in real economic activity, and must sooner or later crush real economic activity, destroying enterprises and livelihoods of real use. The only thing this system does efficiently is to concentrate wealth in the hands of sharpsters, and impoverish the people as a whole.

The entire concept of the 'capital gains' tax is rooted in two egregious notions: first, that income from investment should be taxed at a lower rate than income from work, and second, that without such favoritism, people would not try and make more money than they already have. The latter notion is nonesense, as people always want to make more money than they have, and not only will attempt to do it without favoritism, but in thee face of considerable obstacle and risk. The former notion is simply a carrying forward of the notion that those who labor are lesser creatures than those who do not that is at the root of all systems of aristocracy and exploitation.

A tax on the sale of financial instruments, levied as a percentage of purchase price just as a tax on the purchase of goods is, would have several useful benefits. It would certainly enable a reduction in the taxes levied on wages and sale of goods and services falling chiefly on working people. It would make available for social use a portion of the wealth generated by productive enterprise. It would doubtless serve as some break on speculation and the rapid churning of financial instruments which does great harm to the stability of markets, and to the economy and society they serve.

It is a bad, a damnable mistake, to set up the market as supreme, to make it the ruler all serve rather than the servant of the economy and society which supports it. Like fire, markets are good servants but poor masters.

[rosesaylavee]

63. I am going to bookmark this response ... this is very well said.

An idea whose time has come and thank you for saying so well.

[TahitiNut]

72. Precisely. Furthermore ...

... the "value" of the means of production is ZERO without a willing or coerced(!) labor force. It is, therefore, ONLY labor which offers any basis whatsoever for the fundamental "value" of the means of production, a 'corporation' or factory or agricultural field. It is NOT (and never has been) the capitalist that creates value. Not any more than buzzards create antelope.

[Hannah Bell]

65. tax on trades would improve price discovery. v. "price-making" via manipulation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Stocks don't create wealth, productivity does. Stocks only intercept that wealth. n/t

[POAS]

113. We used to have a transaction tax

on the sale or transfer of stock. Doing away with it helped lead to the growth in stock day trading.

Many have suggested a modest $0.02 of every $100 trade.

[TahitiNut]

30. Yup. That's my favorite proposal whenever sales taxes are discussed.

As little as 2% sales tax on the sale or exchange of corporate stock, EVEN IF that sale or exchange takes place overseas on an American corporation (what fair for travelers is fair for investors), would probably pay for truly Universal National Health Care.

[The Magistrate]

57. Quite Likely, My Friend

And best not to get me started on overseas 'tax shelters': if there was ever a good use for the United States Marine Corps....

[varelse]

3. How would that be enforced and administered?

not to mention, if every bite of food and drink of water is taxed, a "little" tax could kill poor and/or homeless people before they have a chance to use the health care system.

[Gwendolyn]

4. At least one single payer country works that way.

The great thing about the sales tax idea is that once again it works on a sliding scale. The wealthy purchase much more and buy bigger ticket items, so they bear a larger percentage of the cost.

[Andy823]

8. I agree.

Everyone should be able to handle a tax to help pay for their health care, and as you said, it would be more on those who buy more stuff, and less for those who do not, yet everyone will be paying something to help. I really like the idea!

[bobbolink]

12. Would you PLEASE read up on REGRESSIVE taxes before shooting off your mouth?

[Gwendolyn]

18. Lol, you're funny. And running around from thread to thread attacking people.

It's worked in Canada for decades. Far as I know, people are still dining out and buying parkas.

I haven't checked, but assume other countries use the sales tax to augment their health care programs as well.

What, you think a work force kicking in $60 a month pays for the health care of an entire nation? Chuckle.

[bobbolink]

20. Educate yourself. The way you're talking sounds exactly like RW radio.

You not only don't have a clue, you don't give a shit ab0ut those who are barely existing in this hateful country!

If you would bother to, first, care for others besides your own skin, you would immediately think about those who haven't any pennies left for more taxes, and second, actually (gasp) research stuff before you mock others, you would sound a lot more intelligent.

[Gwendolyn]

27. You might do a little research yourself.

The choices are, status quo... which means the better off who are employed get healthcare. Those who are not, get bupkis unless they have a trust fund. The very poor get medicaid, but not always. There's a whole population of millions out there that need to be taken care of. The way to do that is to pool resources and that path requires taxing people. The current plan is not perfect by a long shot, but moving to something better would require tactics such as raising the sales tax, or some other scheme. In the end though, it has to come from somewhere.

In single payer countries a small transparent fee is taken out of a person's earnings, and the rest is non-transparent but you still pay for it. In Canada some of that is borne through a higher sales tax. So yes, even the person living on public assistance contributes every time they buy something. The people who are buying fur coats and eating at expensive restaurants pay a lot more. However, EVERYONE gets decent health coverage. EVERYONE.

I wonder who does and doesn't give a shit about others. You think the unemployed are honing in on *your* health care, even though they've been contributing toward seeing that you get it throughout the entire time they worked. Even though they may currently be facing great hardship. Keep yelling and attacking people though, cause that's the most helpful of all.

[bobbolink]

29. You don't lecture me on health care, dearie. I've been more involved than you, so cool it.

You haven't a clue about what LIBERAL really means, and just keep parroting the RW shit.

Your wanting poor people to pay for YOU is not only an ATTACK, it is DEADLY.

Not that our suffering and our lives mean shit to you.

[Gwendolyn]

31. I don't need or want anyone to pay for me. I pay for myself and contribute towards

the care of others. I'm happy to do so. If something happens to me and I can no longer contribute, others will pick up the slack for me till I can again, or die. I think that's a pretty okay position to take.

Call me a repug all you like. Doesn't change a thing.

[bobbolink]

33. Wanting poor people to be taxed more is TAKING CARE OF YOU.

It's also heartless.

Not that it matters to you.

No, you are clearly a Libertarian. With the arrogance of the RW.

[ipaint]

40. Neoliberals

The correct name for the folks who push regressive taxation in Canada. The Canadians aren't immune to the same trickle down dogma the has ruined our economy in the states. This particular breed of greedy politician picked up speed during the height of the reagan bullshit and have been trying their best to whittle away at progressive taxes in Canada ever since. They are not nearly as successful as their counterparts in the states but they are just as greedy and progressive taxes which effectively distribute wealth in a society are poison to them.

Good for the canadians for holding on to their healthcare and not allowing these bastards from instituting tax policies which would guarantee underfunded healthcare and wealth transfer to the top.

[Gwendolyn]

45. Yes, to some extent that's true.

But look at socialist countries throughout Europa, and you'll see heavy taxation as well. I don't know how some people manage in the UK. Money to fund social programs comes from somewhere, and it's always the people. That's why socialist countries try to keep as many people working as possible in order to fund them. I'm sure many Canadians think they're only contributing $60 or $100 a month for their healthcare, but the reality is that some of it does come from sales tax, as well as Federal taxes. What seems like a couple of hundred bucks a year, is really a couple of thousand.

[bobbolink]

46. I will remind you again.... check your FACTS. Educate yourself before speaking about stuff you

don't know about.

(and first, care about those who are poorer than you!)

I've been sitting here talking with a woman from Sweden... born, raised, citizen of Sweden.

She confirmed what I knew, and what those of us who have been paying attention know....SWEDEN DOESN'T HAVE SALES TAXES.

As she said, she isn't sure about Britain, but the rest of Europe doesn't, either.

So, you can drop that schtick now.

Again, learn about REGRESSIVE taxes, and the harm that does to poor folk!!!

[Gwendolyn]

52. Europeans pay a lot in taxes. I have lived in Germany, France and Canada.

Ask your Swedish friend what her tax rate is. Whether it's through sales tax, or some other non-transparent taxation, people pay when they get something. Which do you prefer? Millions of lower income people with no healthcare at all, or what amounts to a $100-more-or-less tax which entitles them to the same quality of health care as the next person who makes $2,000,000.00 a year?

[bobbolink]

64. Your memory is going. We were discussing SALES TAX.

You really do need to back down from your arrogance.

You still want to lecture me about health care, and now you're lecturing me about "lower-income people", as if you cared.

Dearie, I live in my car. I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do.

And what I know is that educated PROGRESSIVES don't go around advocating HIGHER SALES TAXES!

[Gwendolyn]

69. Fine. If you wish to talk about sales tax in Europe, please look up VAT.

Please google sales tax for Germany, France and the UK. Your Swedish friend is mistaken. In a BIG way. And then look up Canada for that matter. You'll be amazed and astounded. If you would like me to do it for you, I don't mind. I notice though, that you didn't respond to anything I've said.

I'm sorry you are living in your car. I did know that as I've read your posts before. Perhaps I should have been more clear. In a country like Canada, those who live on public assistance are supposed to receive a cost of living adjustment that takes care of the augmentation of taxes on priced goods. The lower income people receive a rebate check. I've gotten them myself, quarterly I think, and they were in the range of $100 - $120. I think it's a great system.

I don't know what's wrong with saying lower income person. I have been one, then not, then one again, then not, etc. It's all the same to me and there's no shame in it. Sorry if it offends.

There is no such thing as perfection, but compromise usually arrives after a long ebb and flow. Socialism requires that everyone contribute in some way, and that eventually, those with less are drawn closer to those who have more. But there's always a time of turmoil and change before that happens, and regardless, there will always be a disparity.

[Obamanaut]

104. Oh good grief. A couple of days ago it was being more educated

than another poster, today it's being more involved or knowing more about health care (I'm not going to look it up.) Now its more about living in a car. The statements that come forth are so like a kid with his "my daddy can beat up your daddy."

Talk about arrogance. And we know who apparently considers themselves to be the poorest in the whole country, we've read it often enough here - it appears in threads quite frequently.

Give it a rest.

[noamnety]

85. I don't know that it's worth arguing with her

She's so busy mixing situations that there's very little meaning in her posts. She's trying to impose a tax structure from countries that have a real safety net onto a culture here that has none. Sweden for example considers housing to be a "social right" and they provide access to public housing without a means test. Higher education there is free, they don't have to save thousands of dollars to send their kids to college.

She won't acknowledge that heavily taxing the working poor or unemployed when ALL basic needs are considered a right - and are therefore provided - is very different than heavily taxing the poor when it means that they have to pick and chose which necessities they will pick from and which they will do without.

[bobbolink]

102. Thank you for bringing out the obvious! For her, it's more important to "win" and "be right"

than it is to have compassion for those who would be harmed, and to work to improve our lives.

I really appreciate your words! :hug:

[ipaint]

51. I haven't been to a state yet that does not have a sales tax

not to mention most have income taxes.

The heavy taxation is a bogus point. Taxes aren't that much higher than what they are here in the states especially when you roll in healthcare dollars spent by americans each year. Our taxes are higher more often than not.

[Gwendolyn]

71. The money spent by Americans on healthcare is money thrown into the garbage.

Plain and simple. It's profit payouts to insurance companies, so it doesn't count. I will totally argue with you that there are more prohibitive taxes levied on people living in socialist countries but at least they get a bang for their buck.

[The Magistrate]

84. And That Is The Point, Ma'am: People Get Something For Their Taxes

Not to put too fine a point on it, they get a freedom from fear of personal catastrophe. This does not only apply to health care, but to unemployment, retirement, and even certain kinds of social tensions.

Here, what people mostly get for their taxes is an extravagant military apparatus, and a sneaking sense their money is going to someone else. That last is mostly true, though the someone else is usually a financier rather than a person less well off than themselves, as the financiers have trained them to believe....

[Gwendolyn]

97. Yes, that's mostly it. Where were you the entire night. You could have said it plainer.

:hi:

[noamnety]

83. you are out of line and insulting people.

"I wonder who does and doesn't give a shit about others."

You are deliberately providing false choices. You have been attempting to present the benefits of a public health plan as if those benefits can ONLY happen through regressive sales taxes, which is not true. You have been misrepresenting the situation as if people have to chose between a sales tax or no health care, and misrepresenting people who want a progressive income tax as "not giving a shit about others."

Choice 1: no public health option. Nobody in this thread is supporting that.

Choice 2: public health funded by a shitty regressive tax that hurts low income people the most. You appear to support this enthusiastically. I haven't a clue why.

Choice 3: public health funded by a progressive tax (the most common kind of tax in America, and the kind that is widely considered to be the most fair as those with the most leftover income after paying for basic necessities pay the most). Most people in this thread appear to support this idea, go figure.

[dysfunctional press]

38. the reason a sales tax is regressive is because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income.

generally a MUCH larger percentage.

[Swede]

43. The GST works pretty well here in Canada.

The government also sends out rebate checks in accordance with your income.

[Gwendolyn]

55. Yes, I know.

:)

Edited to add: guess I forgot to mention the rebate check.

[Hannah Bell]

67. it's a flat tax, there's no sliding scale about it. as percent of income, the rich pay less.

= regressive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. Let me tell you a story.

I live in a state which relies heavily on a sales tax.
One of the biggest local employers is a megayacht builder. Their prices start at $7 million.
They get tax breaks and tax credits and people line up at the local community college to get training to work at the shipyard.
Starting salary? $10.
They have a unique way of conducting sales. The buyer arrives with an armed guard and a suitcase full of money. The shipyard rep, the hired crew, the new owner and the suitcase cast off.
A few hours later, the yacht returns, the deal is done, and no sales tax is due, because the deal was done outside of the state's tax jurisdiction.

Moral of the story? Sales taxes smell like ass.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Show us one with a Gini index of 47.

The wealth is so grossly maldistributed in this country that the only way to do anything is to go where the money is; the Walton family and the 24 families like them.

[Andy823]

5. I agree.

This would work, and if "everyone" had to pay it "should" make it easier for the right wing to accept. Republican in congress would have harder time fighting it if "everyone" had to help pay for their health care with a tax. I like it and rec this thread!

[bobbolink]

13. So, you would like for DUers like me to have the little we have TAKEN AWAY FROM US??

I keep forgetting that "empathy" is now verboten.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. It sounds like a hard thing to implement.

If it went the way you say, "on everything," I suppose it would be virtually imperceptible when applied to typical retail sales, but I think it would be a real bitch to make it work, and the corporations as always would be hiring rafts of lawyers and accountants and bribing politicians wholesale to get around it.

[bobbolink]

14. "Imperceptable" to those of you with comfortable disposable incomes.

Some of us wouldn't survive it.

But maybe that would make you HAPPY.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. In general, I really hate regressive taxes, including sales taxes.

I would much rather do it with income taxes on the rich, but I was responding to the OP. Maybe a half-cent tax wouldn't be so bad in return for adequate health care. I don't know. For me, the real issue is that we tolerate poverty in the way that we do. I would gladly pay more in taxes if it meant decent food, shelter, education, health care and in general, hope for people who are desperately poor.

I have been poor--a PTSD-ridden drunk for some years after infantry service in Vietnam, as a matter of fact--and I have subsequently devoted a large portion of my life to working with poor and mentally disabled people and with people caught up in the poorly-named justice system. I currently make much of my living as a forensic psychologist, participating in the criminal defense of poor people who cannot afford to defend themselves against whatever the cops and prosecutors decide to charge them with. I have watched America turn further and further away from common decency. I hope we are on a path away from those evil days now. And no, Bobbi. I would not be made happy by seeing further misfortune fall upon those least able to bear it.

[bobbolink]

26. You still don't get it. It wouldn't be BAD for YOU.

And, I've NEVER been a drunk, or a druggie, or smoked.

I'm trying to figure out how to stay healthy, living in my car.

So, go ahead and tax me, and then watch me fall further down.

Do you have any idea what it does to the spirits of poor folk to find so few who are actually able to consider how things affect us?

[ipaint]

90. Poverty is a direct result

of the wealth gap in this country. Progressive taxes close that gap, lifting people up, regressive taxes grow it keeping folks down.

The top tax rate from which the vibrant middle class was born, in the 40's and 50's, was in the 80-90% range on income over I think it was 4 mil. The wealth was distributed and the middle class flourished. The opposite has been happening since reagan, the top tax rate is 35% before umpteen loopholes and not to mention a measly 15% tax rate on unearned income and we now have the largest gap between rich and poor in all of the industrialized nations. The middle class is dying and our social safety net is in tatters.
Regressive blanket sales taxes on everyone will not fix that, ever. In fact a tax like that chosen over increasing the top percentage on wealth will make it that much worse.

[ipaint]

9. wtf

That would be just terrific for the working class and the poor. :crazy:

[bobbolink]

16. Oh, but you see.... we DON'T COUNT!

Except when they want our damned VOTES! Fat chance!

Thank yo for actually understanding, and caring about "the least of these"! You are in the rare minority anymore. :cry:

[bobbolink]

10. Oh, yes.... that would be soooo brilliant! FUCK THE POOR! REGRESSIVE TAXES FOR ALL!!

"I'd just like to see it done with a tax that absolutely no person or company could avoid - a universal tax. "

Yes, absolutely, so that elderly poor folk can lose their homes.

So that people who are already having to chose between food and medications can then not be able to chose either one.

So that disabled people living on $674 a month (with NO COLAS!) will now not be able to get groceries after the middle of the month, rather than the last few days of the month.

And that is just the beginning.

Yes, it is absolutely FUCKING BRILLIANT.

Have you EVER considered that not everyone in this goddamned ugly society isn't MUDDLE CLASS????

I'm so fucking tired of all this libertarianism coming out of the mouths of those who consider themselves "progressive"

Learn about REGRESSIVE and PROGRESSIVE taxes, will ya????

[LiberalAndProud]

11. I would not be in favor of it.

Those who live paycheck to paycheck would be taxed on every dime. Those who are fortunate enough to have more than enough would have many untaxed dollars. REGRESSIVE tax.

But my own Rep. Jeff Fortenberry would be open to the notion.

[havocmom]

15. How about we stop putting everything on the backs of the poor and working classes?

Read my lips: NO MORE REGRESSIVE TAXES.

We all did better in the 60s when the rich paid for what they took from society.

[Tim01]

17. Wait till you tell everybody in the country you are going to take a chunk of their income.

Everybody wants stuff. Nobody wants to pay for it.

[meow2u3]

19. Do you want to price the poor out of buying necessities?

That's exactly what the repukes want--a national sales tax, which will effectively make basic necessities unaffordable for low income Americans. What the hell are you thinking? Have you caught the repuke virus?

[bobbolink]

35. VERY well said!

:applause:

[frog92969]

21. Sales tax hurts the poor

We should tax dollars not people, and only income.

Say 10% (just to make my point):
If you make $200 a week, you pay $20.
If you make $200,000 a week, you pay $20,000.
If you're unemployed, you pay zip.

[Obamanaut]

23. This seems like a plan, a good one. Many years ago, I had a job

when I was in HS, in a drug store. There were three taxes - sales (state), federal, and luxury as well as the non-taxable items such as medicine and food. Some items got all three taxes, others only one or two of them depending on the item. I don't know when that all changed.

I think your idea can work. Some of the items that will get taxed people on the lower end of the economic scale probably don't buy anyway - yachts, hot air balloons, mutual funds and stocks, etc., so the new system surely could not be called 'regressive.' Smaller ticket items are already being purchased, so it wouldn't be noticed.

BTW, I think this deserves a 'rec'

[ipaint]

32. Really

So taxing paycheck to paycheck folks on 100% of their earned income (it's spent on necessities every week in full)and taxing a well off person on possible 25% of their income that is spent each week or say a rich person who spends maybe .09% of their earned income (if they have earned income most live off unearned income) is fair?

[Obamanaut]

41. Well gee, I guess it's a failing in me that I don't have an all-consuming

hatred of rich people.

How in the world will taxing things such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, yachts, jet aircraft adversely impact people who don't normally buy or use them? Especially when such tax will lead to better health care for the very people who are NOT buying/using aforementioned items?

My list is not all-inclusive. Recall the OP suggested taxing everything. I simply plucked out some 'everything' type items.

[varelse]

42. This is not about hatred of the rich

there is a clear difference between taking away from someone living at or near subsistence level, and taking from someone who will not even see a drop in standard of living as a result. It is, literally in some cases, the difference between life, and death.

[ipaint]

44. I have no problem with that

I don't know a poor person who buys them. But a tax on everything bought by everyone would mean exactly what I wrote. So you think taxing someone's stock investments or yacht purchase is the same as taxing the last and only $25 a person may have to spend on food for their family for a week or winter coats for the kids? I'm simply plucking out some "everything" items from the bottom of the economic ladder. You really think that is a fair tax?

[Obamanaut]

77. There is tax on winter coats now, but not on food in Fla. nt

[Gwendolyn]

49. In a perfect single payer world...

if for instance there was a sales tax implemented on goods. Those on public assistance would receive a cost of living adjustment. The poor who are not on public assistance would receive the health care they currently DON'T have, and would pay next to absolutely nothing for it from their taxes. Since the poor don't indulge in luxury purchases like cruises and rolex watches, such a tax may contribute to additional perceived hardship, but also with great benefit. Let's see... no health coverage AT ALL, or you pay $20 bucks a month out of your paycheck as a transparent tax and an additional let's say, $50 a year in sales tax, but your entire family gets to see the doctor whenever you need it and someone else pays for your $100,000.00 cancer treatments... which you are guaranteed to get at no additional cost. I know which line I want to get into.

[ipaint]

56. The folks I am concerned about

don't have healthcare and still can't afford food, clothes and/or shelter. Charging them for healthcare with a regressive sales tax is barbaric.

Can they spend that cost of living adjustment on food each week, clothes for the kids for school, 1st last and security on an apt, car insurance, tires for the car, dental work, eyeglasses, most of which now come with an extra tax.

I swear some people were born without the empathy gene.

[Obamanaut]

79. I would be happy to pay some additional tax to pay for health care

for everyone. I can't imagine anyone who would not - well, not anyone that I know. I am old enough to have medicare, and a system exactly like or similar to medicare for everyone would be great. $96.40 of my monthly Soc Sec goes to medicare, and it would not make me sad to increase that if everyone could get on the same bus.

[lexanman]

50. I think you meant to say

that when it comes to taxes, you think everyone should be equal, but when it comes to earning money, there should be no restrictions. Who said anything about an all-consuming hatred of rich people?

[Obamanaut]

74. Actually, I said what I meant to say. And the idea of hatred of rich

people comes from the multitude of posts that suggest the rich are evil, or increase the tax on the rich, or they aren't paying their fair share, etc.

Maybe it's not hatred, but rather envy. Either way, long term it's not healthy.

[lexanman]

78. I have yet to see

a post that says the rich are evil. I do see posts they they do not pay their fair share and increasing taxes on them, both of which are correct. Those are progressive ideas. I may be incorrect but I thought this was a progressive forum.

[masuki bance]

61. Take some time and research the effects the luxury tax had

on jobs. Jobs like assembly people who worked in boat factories.

[Obamanaut]

76. Some years back, in the 50's when I got my first job while in high

school, there was a 'luxury tax' (might have been called federal tax - memory fades) on items such as make-up and what some people might consider non-essential goods. My earlier post was quite likely incorrect re number of different taxes - I do recall that on the counter where we had the manual cash register there would be three piles of stuff from the customer - no tax, state tax, state plus federal (aka luxury) tax. I don't know when that went away, with many of the same items having only sales tax.

In the not too distant past, there was a hue and cry re luxury items that only the 'evil rich' could buy, and these items should be taxed more heavily because those rich fat cats could well afford it. Well, in most cases the fat cats didn't get to be rich by being stupid. They started buying their yachts from other than US makers, and leaving them in places other than US slips and harbors. With the ripple effect being what it is, US builders sold fewer yachts, made less money, needed fewer workers, and downsized or went out of business. All this because the rich people were not paying their 'fair share.' Note that this is/was not limited to yachts, but other big ticket items as well.

[Cleita]

24. Tax the properties of the rich instead.

Anybody who has a second home or several like John and Cindy McCain should be taxed for them. Anybody whose home exceeds the normal number of rooms and bathrooms for a single family home should be taxed for the extra rooms and baths. Any multimillionaires who have private wineries for their own use and only pay agricultural tax on the land should be taxed extra. You will have billions in no time nationwide but especially from both coasts.

[Thothmes]

108. What about John and Teresa Kerry, the Kennedys

George Soros? Do you include them also?

[Cleita]

110. Yes, they are rich aren't they? As Democrats they shouldn't object to the taxes

that help lift up the least of Americans. Speaking of those people. They ski and boat at the fancy resorts that the very people who need comprehensive health care for themselves and their families are the workers who serve them.

[Greyhound]

25. It was a bad idea when Libertarians brought it up, it was a bad idea when Republiks proposed it,

and it is still a very bad idea now that nominal Democrats are talking about it.

[dysfunctional press]

34. sales taxes are very regressive...

hitting the people who spend the biggest percentage of their income the hardest.

[noamnety]

36. DING DING DING

Regressive taxes disproportionately hurt the poor.

[Gwendolyn]

80. And who appointed you the DING, DING, DING person?

The OP was an idea, a decent one, a vision that would only come into effect with a lot of safety nets for those who couldn't afford a morsel of bread. Americans have been lauding the single payer system since forever, it's just that when it comes down to actually paying for it, suddenly everyone is "too poor this year" or is terribly misinformed about what it truly means to buy into a system where you take care of everyone and it means you might be taxed and can't get out of it. Then suddenly all the people who thought they were doing okay, describe themselves as poor. Because they thought they wouldn't be paying for healthcare for the poor and assumed someone else would be paying for them. That's not how it works. Ever.

[noamnety]

82. I am a self-appointed DING person, thanks for asking.

The OP was an idea, and may have been well intentioned, but it was not a decent idea.

We already have a tax income structure in place, one that is progressive and takes into account a sliding pay scale. You can claim that's "not how it ever works," but that's incorrect, that's how income tax works and it's how most programs are funded.

Claiming that people oppose regressive taxes because we want to "get out of" paying for health care for the poor is a bunch of rot. People (on the left) oppose regressive sales taxes because it's a reverse sliding scale - those with the least income pay the highest percentage of it on sales tax. But you already know that. ;)

[Gwendolyn]

86. Lol. Good for you... someone in the crowd always has to appoint themselves the genius.

;-)

The reason I don't mind the OP is because other countries have made it work. They of course have a good safety net wherein those who are poor are reimbursed through tax rebates, or plainly just given benefits outright. Those with less income may spend more of it on day to day necessities, but in return we receive health care that is equivalent to that of those who earn millions. Tell me again, without one of those winkie icons, how this doesn't work.

Actually, I don't give a shit, really, as I am in a single payer country now. I'm just amazed at all the responses that are currently so "OMG, I have to pay?" versus a few months ago when EVERYONE wanted the Euro-Canada system that they thought was FREE. Really, many Americans are free with opinions, but not so much on actually opening wallets.

Not sure what you mean by the "but you already knew that" comment plus a winkie icon. Like that isn't the stupidest, most utilized response ever, after ding, ding, ding.

[noamnety]

92. Why misrepresent facts?

"I'm just amazed at all the responses that are currently so "OMG, I have to pay?""

"EVERYONE wanted the Euro-Canada system that they thought was FREE."


YES. That's what everyone here thought, we thought the whole thing was free. And the reason we want it funded by income tax instead of sales tax ... that must be because none of us pay income tax.


Why even bring that here, is it just to waste our time?

[Gwendolyn]

98. Waste your time?

:rofl:

I don't know, how much is your time worth, and how much is your time contributing to the community?

Go read the rest of this thread, then go read other cheerleader threads for universal health care. When it was free it was fine, now, not so much. I'm not sure why you want it funded by income tax instead of sales tax, since unless you are totally stupid, it's all a wash. Either you are fine with giving to others or you are not. If you need an accountant to tell you that you didn't spend a penny in sales tax, but you gave to the poor with your federal shit, then you are lost buddy.

[noamnety]

99. Don't call me "stupid"

for recognizing that there is a huge difference between progressive and regressive taxes.

[ipaint]

95. That's ridiculous

No one thought or thinks it's free. And if you were really reading the threads here critical of the reform you would understand folks don't want to pay into bloated for profit health ins. profits prettied up and sold as a public option.

You don't get it.

[Gwendolyn]

96. Duh. Did anything I said inspire you to think I was on the side...

of bloating the bank accounts of insurance companies. :) Not really. Go back and read the thread.

All I said was, that the sales tax has augmented the ability of Canadians to get health care. I don't know dude. Plenty of poor people here, but my tude and that of most Canadians ensures that most people get health care. Call me what you like. It's not perfect, but better than yours. I'm still paying my taxes and people are still getting health care where I live. How about your little napkin space of the world?

[ipaint]

101. What are you arguing?

You said americans want it for free. I said no they don't and if you think that you don't get it.
Twisting that into me saying what we have now is better than what you have make no sense.

[gmoney]

47. Just collecting "use tax" would do a lot...

If sales tax or "use tax" were collected on all internet sales, instead of just the ones that happen within a single state, that would go a long way towards generating income, either for states or make it a federal tax. Would also help encourage people to shop locally instead of buying online to avoid sales tax.

The problem lies in making online retailers deal with 50 state tax agencies, and conceivably deal with local tax rates within the states. Even calculating those sales taxes could be a big challenge.

Also, I'm guessing a large percentage of internet sales are discretionary spending items, rather than essentials. Yes, it would be a bit regressive, but it's no more regressive than if you'd bought the item in your own hometown.

[lexanman]

48. How about

a wealth tax on everything you own? Percentage wise, with the percentage increasing positively correlative with a persons wealth. I like that idea. Wealth Tax.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. That is regressive and would be devastating to to those of us who have enough problems making ends

meet.

[Matariki]

58. Sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor -

since a larger portion of their income goes to purchasing goods rather than into savings or investments.

It makes it an unfair proposal.

[question everything]

59. Regressive tax with heavier burden on the lowest income

who spend most of their income on necessary shopping.

[The Gunslinger]

60. It will never happen..

It makes too much sense and is the easiest way to do it.

[JVS]

62. How about not establishing regressive taxation as a normal policy move?

[1]

66. why not tax something more of a luxury? like a 5% tax on all cellphones...

that would pay for healthcare and then some.

* with an exemption for the poorest of us, of course, so i'm not accused of being a libertarian rw fucktard...

[Hannah Bell]

68. i have a better idea. how about a 5% increase on the top 5% of the income distribution

& the dismantling of the insurance industry?

plus making cap gains = to regular income?

that should be several times more than sufficient.

[Laelth]

70. Sales taxes are regressive. Not a good idea.

We don't need more taxes right now. Nobody proposed a new tax to pay for the Iraq war. The government just went into debt. Same here. No need for a new tax. Just go into debt. It's a worthy cause--a lot more worthy than the Iraq war.

How come when Democrats are in office we always have to figure out "how to pay" for things? When the Republicans are in office we just print money and don't worry about it. Why is that?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[pitohui]

73. i have to agree w bobolink this time, this is a shitty idea

the very poorest person who has to spent every penny will be taxed on 100 percent of their tiny income

the rich person will be taxed on some small portion of their income and the rest go to savings, as only the upper middle class and the rich have a significant amount of savings


is this a bible thing? you want to prove jesus right by taking from the man who has not, even the little bit that he does have?

terrible regressive and unfair

the rich underpay tax in proportion to services received and benefits enjoyed -- they simply need to start paying more tax

the poor do not need to start paying MORE tax, this is just crazy, crazy, crazy

even many middle class families have nothing left to save, many families w. kids even w. middle class incomes you'd be taxing them 100 percent on everything

your idea STRONGLY favors the rich person who doesn't have to empty his pockets each month, why should the rich ALWAYS get every tax break going?

[Chisox08]

81. I hate to say it but this is a bad idea.

Imposing a sales tax on top of what people are already paying will only hurt poor people. In Chicago our sales tax is 10.25% with up to an extra three percent added on top of that according to what you are buying and were you are buying it. For the people that can afford to they just leave the county to do their shopping. For the people who can't afford to shop outside the city the get screwed.
I would support an increase in income tax as well as corperate taxes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. The Walton family has as much net worth as the bottom 40% (120 million people)

The best place to get money is from the people who have it.

[The Magistrate]

94. And In That Situation, Sir, Sooner Or Later, Democracy Simply Is Not Possible....

Once long ago the Sage wrote: "Having too little to live on, the people know not to value life too much."

[NoPasaran]

103. Has anyone thought of just asking them politely?

[ipaint]

93. top tax rates in different countries

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6093386

[ThomWV]

105. I understand its Regressive - but we could easily rebate the tax to the poor

It would be no problem at all to rebate the tax to the poor and even let the rebate be progressive up to the middle class, you know, rebate it all up to some income level, lets say $40,000, and then progressively remove the rebate until you hit say $60 grand and no rebate after that. Something like how the earned income credit works now.

I'm just suggesting this because in the end the money has to come from somewhere and I don't see anyone talking about where. Give me a better way, all I want to see is that it is universal. I don't want to see a burden on the truly poor and I do not want to allow a free ride to those rich enough to find a way to avoid paying. Every person in the nation is going to benefit from this, let's make sure that the vast majority of us, with only the poor and near poor expempted, pay for it.

[noamnety]

106. No.

For people who have a margin in their paychecks, sure you can talk about "getting a rebate."

For those who don't have that margin, they cannot afford to give interest free loans to the government, they need the money they get right now, and if you take it away from them as a loan to the government, two things happen. First, they have to decide which things to do without right now. If they need medicine now, they don't want to hear that the government will rebate their money if they save all their receipts and they can afford their insulin 6 months into the future.

The other thing that happens for those who are beyond their margin is that when states go into deficit and can't pay their bills, they won't get their money back at all. They'll get some crap like California is pulling, an "IOU" from the state that people are unwilling to cash - because what money the state has is going to the richest people in the form of money and the poorest and most desperate are being told "yes, it's your money, we just don't have it."

Finally, for the people who are homeless - they don't have a spot in their office to keep all their receipts in a tidy ledger through all seasons. And when they do try to get a refund, where is the state going to address it to?

If you are pushing for a progressive system (trying to rebate money to the poor) just make it progressive to start with. Don't borrow the highest percentage of income from the people who have no disposable income to begin with.

[cascadiance]

112. A LOT easier and more targeted would be to restore the pre-Reagan top marginal tax rates of 70%+

which could just be levied on the top 1% or so... They've been getting most of the money from this economy and sitting on it.

The problem with the economy we have now is that we need:

a) more balanced wealth to empower more on the low end to spend money again.

b) have everyone spend money again to fuel economic growth in companies again so that they hire people again.

c) less speculation that causes a very bad investment climate when you have a very volatile market that is fueled by this concentrated wealth at the top.

Increasing sales tax is the worst things to do to further these objectives. It forces people to spend a lot less to avoid taxation, and as a regressive tax tends to widen the wealth gap more.

you need to be able to grab the money and other forms of wealth where its being hoarded and not doing anything, and then redistribute that to others who will put that back in to the economy. That's for other taxes besides sales taxes to solve.

[LAGC]

107. May as well just call it a day and implement the "FAIR" TAX!

AT LEAST 30% (thats a conservative estimate) sales tax on everything you buy, from groceries to prescription drugs...

Might as well wring every cent out from the poor that we can so that the rich get off contributing as little of a percentage of their wealth as is possible. :sarcasm:

[MadMaddie]

109. How about tax the crap that US companies export

manufacturing aand then import the shitty products back into America?

[Cleita]

111. We used to have import taxes so that our home based manufacturing could

be competitive with cheap products from overseas. But, NAFTA, CAFTA and a dozen other Reagan and Clinton deregulations changed all of that.

[shimmergal]

114. I can't imagine a bigger boost to the

underground economy! We're going to tax EVERYTHING? Kids' lemonade-stand sales? The money my daughter pays me for getting her children ready for school in the mornings? You do realize the cost of strict enforcement would undercut this as a fund-raising mechanism?

Personally, I think the soft-drink tax, even at a penny-or-two per can, might go a long way toward raising the funds. Ever stand in the grocery and see how almost every family buys 12-packs of pop, day after day. Match that with a similar tax on beer and away we go. This would put little hardship on anyone; almost everyone in America has access to a safe water supply. And this would be relatively easy to enforce, through the sales-tax mechanisms we already have in place. The only trick is segregating the new tax money so it goes directly to the health care plan.

One other thing--we ought to start talking about a possible future Cramdown of costs/charges in the health care sector. No more "slowing the rate of growth" -- just absolute cramdowns, to a charge comparable with what one pays for an equivalent non-insured procedure of the same complexity. (For example, in cosmetic surgery--doctors still manage to make money charging relatively much lower fees.) I'm not saying this is coming yet--just that we ought to start thinking about it.