I am very impressed that Team Obama insists that health care reform will be paid for. Unlike GWB's prescription drug plan, any new entitlements will be provided for in new revenues or cost savings rather than simply adding to the deficit.
That said, I am not happy with the House plan which takes the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 44.6%. I think that is too high. I have often said that Clinton had it about right at 39.6%. Once you get over 40% at the federal level you are exceeding a 50% total income tax rate in many jurisdictions and I think that is the point of diminishing returns. Even the highest earners ought to be keeping half of their labor, profit or plunder. Asking for more is overreaching and will not likely increase net receipts if scored dynamically.
I have long thought that universal coverage utilizing health insurance should be funded through an excise tax on premiums. If government's expenses under universal care consume 15% of the health care pie, simply charge a 15% excise tax to fund said costs. Rather than have cost shifting at every turn, how about one big shift that honestly addresses our obligations? Further, if we have a public option we can incorporate a modified Oregon Plan that will allow funding to determine the scope of coverage rather than a simple blanket entitlement.
I know my proposal is not on the table, however, the tax on benefits comes close if it covers all of the added costs. I think that a modified Oregon Plan is in the offing for those receiving care on the public purse. After all, this is the new Era of Responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That said, I am not happy with the House plan which takes the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 44.6%. I think that is too high. I have often said that Clinton had it about right at 39.6%. Once you get over 40% at the federal level you are exceeding a 50% total income tax rate in many jurisdictions and I think that is the point of diminishing returns. Even the highest earners ought to be keeping half of their labor, profit or plunder. Asking for more is overreaching and will not likely increase net receipts if scored dynamically.
BECAUSE, YOU DOPE, HE IS PROMISING TOO MUCH AND SPENDING TOO MUCH THAT THE ONLY WAY TO IN THE LEAST BIT ADDRESS THE DEFICIT IS BY MASSIVE TAX INCREASES...YOU DOPE!!! AND YES, THIS WILL RESULT IN DIMINISHING RETURNS, JUST LIKE WE HAVE BEEN SAYING AND THE END OF PROSPERITY (BANKRUPTCY)
I have long thought that universal coverage utilizing health insurance should be funded through an excise tax on premiums. If government's expenses under universal care consume 15% of the health care pie, simply charge a 15% excise tax to fund said costs. Rather than have cost shifting at every turn, how about one big shift that honestly addresses our obligations? Further, if we have a public option we can incorporate a modified Oregon Plan that will allow funding to determine the scope of coverage rather than a simple blanket entitlement.
HOW ABOUT SHIFTING COST TO THE CONSUMER SO THE WILL REENGAGE IN THE PROCESS, HOW ABOUT TORT REFORM, HOW ABOUT REMOVING THE DISTORTER OF PRICES IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT? DOPE AGAIN!
I went to high school with a kid that had a famously small penis. This poor guy established his reputation in his first day of PE and was called a variety of names including Slim Reaper, Sir Smallwood and Narrow Knob. I honestly hope that Acorn Andy has had a better life as an adult than he had as an adolescent.
Oh, yeah, and he also used the word "dope" a lot.
Funny that is not what they called me.
Jimmy Long D--g I think it was.
Post a Comment