Reply With Quote
WC
Any comment on taxpayers subsidizing $Bs of Walmart's no-benefit, non-living wages, while WM pockets $Bs in profits? straight-thru redistribution of taxpayer wealth to WM.
I voted for Gary Johnson and got nothing.
WC
Any comment on taxpayers subsidizing $Bs of Walmart's no-benefit, non-living wages, while WM pockets $Bs in profits? straight-thru redistribution of taxpayer wealth to WM.
Tax payers are subsidizing Walmart employees no more than any other employee making the same wages. Your question is rather idiotic.WC
Any comment on taxpayers subsidizing $Bs of Walmart's no-benefit, non-living wages, while WM pockets $Bs in profits? straight-thru redistribution of taxpayer wealth to WM.
Exactly, idiot. When ANY company won't pay living wages, then taxpayers subsidize those companies by helping their employees towards the poverty line.
OP must regret immigrating to the US imho
The public option was necessary to create the political space/pressure for the development of a single payer system. I'm not sure Obamacare does enough to contain/reduce costs, which means that it will always be vunerable to repeal or replacement.
I doubt Obamacare moved the needle one iota towards a single payer system, but rather smothered the possibility of real reform for another generation. After all, Obamacare is at bottom a piece of Republican legislation - it seems like wishful partisan thinking to believe it's going to do anything other than what it was designed to do: extend and enhance the death grip of the status quo.
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 12-04-2012 at 09:03 AM.
The Huge (And Rarely Discussed) Health Insurance Tax Break
the most tax revenue the federal government forgoes every year is from not taxing the value of health insurance that employers provide their workers.
"If we treated health insurance the same way we treat wages," says Gruber, "we would raise about $250 billion per year more." That not only makes the health insurance exclusion the federal government's largest tax break, but it's also "the third largest health care program in the U.S., after Medicare and Medicaid."
"If we ended the tax exclusion, we could cover every uninsured American with health insurance twice over,"
One big reason economists from across the ideological spectrum don't much like the insurance tax exclusion is that it's regressive. That means those it helps the most are the richest people with the most generous health plans.
"So if you're uninsured, you get nothing," says Ron Pollack of the consumer group Families USA. "If you're a low-wage worker, you get a very little tax break. If you get a lousy health care plan you get a very little break out of this."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...ance-tax-break
So Boutox is for raising taxes on those making less than $250,000. Check.
Killing tax-free employer health insurance would force people to demand, insist upon a non-profit hard-core public health insurance option, Medicare for all. As the article shows, the biggest beneficiaries of regressive tax-free health insurance are the top earners, who would be hit a lot harder than the lower earners.
tax-free employer health insurance is actually a scam, skimming people's salaries and hosing their $Bs right to the for-profit health insurers, their highly paid mgmt, and the investors, often p/e owners.
I'd be for the elimination of that deduction. As the article points out, it results in inflation in healthcare cost which is the primary driver of our national deficit. Ultimately it would force more people on to Obamacare, the next step to true universal healthcare.
The article didn't show . It made the unsubstantiated claim that the deduction was regressive. Essentially the proposal turns all health care cost into taxable income and that affect everyone that has insurance.
If it were just that simple. You know, Utopia is a fantasy, right?
It is that simple. Employers pay wages, taxpayers lift the -wage earners upward.
"unsubstantiated claim that the deduction was regressive"
it's extremely, INARGUABLY regressive.
unemployed, self-employed, employed w/o employer health insurance must pay for their own probably high-deductible/copy with their after-tax income, while insured employees "buy" group insurance with pre-tax wages, with small/no deductive. And the higher the wage earner, the more coverage, the more access to care. HIGHLY regressive.
How do you get employers to pay a living wage? Now a days, it seems to be considered on the order of $16 per hour or more.
self employed premiums are deductible, and if you don't have insurance for whatever reason the deductibility of insurance premiums is academic.
it's abosolutely obama's fault soulless corporations are taking advantage of AHA.
You can't force them to pay decent. They've won the War on Employees, and in bad faith, they are continuing the bloodbath relentlessly. The 99% is pretty much ed and un able.
Brand Name Drug Prices Are Skyrocketing
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...-skyrocketing/
BigPharma raises prices BECAUSE THEY CAN, are unstoppable robbers.
Maybe they should have read the mother er before they passed it.
That 3.5% additional tax on cap gains to fund obamacare was slick. Makes you think they are skinnin the rich people. In reality, you work all your life, pay your house off, decide to downsize and move? Suddenly that $200,000 "income" in one year when you sell it makes you rich. Thank you for playing, dumbass.
You use this example all the time even though there is a $250k single/ $500k married exemption for profit on the sale of a home. Are you unaware of the exemption even though it's been pointed out to you multiple times, or do you just like to disseminate misinformation because it suits your narrative?
It's all on the table now. Or haven't you noticed?
And which side is pushing to eliminate deductions as opposed to increasing rates on the top 2%.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
