Surtax the Rich, Stir up the Readers

Not sure how ad4hk2004 got to be a high earner, but it's certain it wasn't as a lawyer. A Bill of Attainder is a law that is retroactively applied to an individual or group. Thus a surtax on high earners could only be considered a bill of attainder if it were to be applied on past earnings. If it applied only to future earnings it is perfectly constitutional. Further paying taxes isn't punishment in the legal sense of the word.

Call me Joe the Plumber....

I personally paid for my 7 years of higher education with no help from my parents. I lived frugally and saved my money while my friends bought fancy cars and went on luxury vacations. Surprise, surprise when a business opportunity came my way and my savings account made it possible for me to buy the business.

So I built that business brick by brick and now I have 150 highly-paid employees. I've been in business for for six years and I still drive my 12 year-old Toyota Camry and my luxurious vacations are spent in a pop-up trailer in our national parks.

But do I get any tax credit for creating 150 high-paying jobs? To the contrary I get taxed to death to the tune of 40+%. What ever happened to the idea we all work for our own benefits? I already give a regular, significant amount of my yearly income to the charities of my choice (11% to be exact).

As I raise my kids I'm trying to teach them that they need to earn their own way--work to pay for their own school clothes, toys, etc. Yet our Federal Government advocates giving people benefits for free. Except it's not free.... I'M PAYING FOR IT.

So the idea of paying a 5.4 percent surtax that only the rich have to pay makes me very angry to say the least. Let's see both the middle class and the poor have to pay something as well--then raising taxes to improve healthcare will be a little more palatable.

Funny thing is, I'm at a distinct disadvantage in this debate because as soon as I crossed the line into the realm of the rich, the general populace of the U.S. immediately turned envious--and they'd like nothing more than to see a rich jerk like me pay for their expenses. In fact, if they had their wish I'd lose everything and rejoin them in the middle class.

But what do you think would happen to my 150 employees and their families??

The schemes of the Obama adminstration are simply based in redistribution of wealth.

THIS IS IT!

The healthcare reform bill released by the House Of Representatives is an excellent bill as I understand it. It is carefully written, and thoughtfully constructed, informed, prudent and wise. This bill will save trillions of dollars, and millions of your lives.

This is the type of bill that all Americans can feel good about. And this is the type of bill that has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of healthcare for all Americans. Rich, middle class and poor a like. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and all other party affiliations. This bill has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of life of every American.

The house healthcare bill should be viewed as the minimum GOLD STANDARD by which all other proposed healthcare legislation should be judged. All supporters of true high quality healthcare reform should now place all your support behind this healthcare reform bill released by the United States House Of Representatives, as the minimum Gold standard for healthcare reform in America.

You should all now support this bill with all your might, and all of your unrelenting tenacity. This healthcare bill is a VERY, VERY GOOD! bill for all of the American people. Fight tooth, and nail for every bit of this bill if you have too. Be aggressive, creative, and relentless for this bill.

AND FIGHT!! like your life and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. BECAUSE IT DOES!

SPREAD THE WORD

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)

God Bless You

Jack Smith — Working Class

Let's get rid of this bill and do single payer, everyone wants it, both taxpayers and providers. Wendell Potter on Bill Moyers Journal over the weekend pointed at the major problem: health insurers (the largest proble in getting reform) are being included in the reform. This will not work. We can't live with them, but only die or go broke!! We live in a plutocracy plain and simple, where Max Baucus (the hero of our reform) has blocked all efforts to bring single payer into the debate because he has been bought by the health insurance industry.

The health care expansion plan passed by the House will not be funded entirely by tax increases on the wealthiest Americans... not even mostly. The Post article by Ceci Connolly plainly states that over half the money will come from cuts to Medicare and other like programs. Probably a little more than 1/4 will come from this tax hike on the wealthiest Americans.

Although I'm not personally that fortunate to be in the highest 5% of income, some of my family is. And they are thrilled that they have the opportunity to do some good with their taxes. They are happy to know that the modest 1% tax on them will be helping to provide MUCH NEEDED health care for some 40 million American men, women and children. In essence, the 2 million folks lucky enough to be in the top percentages of American wealth will be personally guaranteeing the health care of 20 Americans. And lets not forget, the top 2 million holders of wealth in America have an average net worth of $5 million dollars each and live mostly in blue states. I think they will still be quite comfy with $4,950,000... let them do what they voted to do.

Why would the best and brightest choose to go thru 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 2 years to specialize and another serving a residency with little pay and sleep only to end up with hideous school loans and a 24/7 on call schedule?

Got to do it because the Republicans didn't do anything for years. Republicans don't want a healthcare plan. Just playing obstructionists. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

kshel1 wrote: "In fact, what's fair is the Scandinavian approach. (Extrapolate to apply to taxes.) If you are fined, for drunk driving, speeding, etc. you pay according to your income. I might be fined $100; that wealthy judge might be fined $278,000. Now, that's fair...because the bite is equivalent."

I'm not sure if they know what they just advocated for or not, but that sounds a whole lot like a flat tax. Everyone pays 10% (for example). The bite is equivalent.

It's easy to despise the "rich" because, of course, they smoke $100 bills and look down their noses at the rest of us swine. But in reality, they're by monetary definition, the majority of the people in the DC area. The surtax will hit people making as little as 150k. That's NOT rich. Certainly, if you're living on that in cities like DC, LA or NY. And, just like SS, we all know that the threshold will be lowered over time to offset the cost overruns that are sure to occur. Those "rich" people paying for this will be those earning $50k.

The product of health insurance is to provide you with medical coverage when you need it.
Unlike other businesses that need to provide you with their product in order to make any money, health insurance companies actually make more money for themselves when they restrict and do not pay claims.
In other words, they make more money when they do NOT provide the product that you have paid them for.

Read the 50 to 70 pages of your health insurance contract.
Pay particular attention to the section entitled “limitations and exclusions”.
People’s health is not a product that needs to be left to the whims of money motivated CEO’s and stockholders.
If that is your thinking, you might as well have your police and fire department protection based on insurance premiums you pay.
Then you can go to the police and fire protection insurance page for ‘limitations and exclusions’ on whether or not the police or fire department would come out to your house in the event of an emergency.

The point is, you would never think of discriminating against another citizen if he was the victim of a fire or crime.
So why would you be ok with health insurance companies discriminating against fellow citizens who have pre-existing medical conditions?

Shame on greedy, rich people, who have no sense of honor. You should be saying "thank you," to this great country that has provided you with so much opportunity, by allowing that all children deserve dental and medical care, and that young soldiers dying for your freedom, are dying for something we can all be proud of - not the freedom for you to take full advantage, but the freedom for you to see yourself as part of a society with duty and obligations, noblesse oblige, even for the wealthy.

Posted by: kshell1 | July 15, 2009 12:20 PM

It is so easy to give other people's money away isnt. Wow, I know lets have a luxury tax on all autos over 30,000 and houses over 300,000. Those evil rich people are ungrateful.haha I just cant believe anybody thinks that the government should have the right to take away more than half your income in taxes no matter how much a person makes.

"Privilege is an invisible status...because when you have it, you don't know you have it."

Oh, right - because most rich and privileged people are completely and utterly unaware that they have it better than anyone else. Most white people think black people have it all. Men have no idea that women work through any disadvantage in the workplace. They're all oblivious.

Get a grip.

It shouldn't just stir up the rich ... IT BETTER CONCERN ANYONE WHO WANTS A JOB !

Insurance is supposed to be about sharing the risk. You pay a periodic premium. In return, you receive peace-of-mind, knowing that your insurance company will come to your assistance should you require assistance. With health insurance in USA, this has been gamed. What used to be "hospitalization" insurance, has morphed into payments for drugs and free visits to see a physician, each with a small co-pay. Recently, the co-pays have been jacked up, without notice. And, should you require hospitialization, a massive fraud hunt ensues to find a smoking gun with which the insurance company is able, legally, to avoid paying. There's big money to be made running or owning a health insurance company. And that activity has little to nothing to do with sharing the risk. The side issue of a soak-the-rich scheme in which the undeserving rich fund the entire proposed government-sponsored health care system may be a monkey-wrench thrown into the debate to derail any change. Turn reform of a system that exists primarily to milk the disease resolution business cash cow into class warfare and you've got the basis for NOTHING happening. The existing arrangement has a funding model. It involves insurance premiums. So we're gonna throw that over in favor of funding health care from tax increases on the wealthy? I don't think so.

Please, give me a break. The poor and middle class are being taxed all the time, by regressive taxes, like gasoline, heck, the price of bread and milk. If you still have enough money to buy a jet after you've paid your taxes, I don't feel too sorry for you. If, on the other hand, you barely scrape together to pay rent, food, utilities, clothes, medical care, fuel, etc...then a tax increase is a very different matter.

In fact, what's fair is the Scandinavian approach. (Extrapolate to apply to taxes.) If you are fined, for drunk driving, speeding, etc. you pay according to your income. I might be fined $100; that wealthy judge might be fined $278,000. Now, that's fair...because the bite is equivalent. We need to look at the bite and the remanat incomes....not the absolute value. If the wealthy think our taxes are so onerous, they can move...and try the taxes anywhere else!

Privilege is an invisible status...because when you have it, you don't know you have it. If you did, it would convert to gratitude, and you would be pleased to spare a pittance of your income so that others may have the most very basic necessities. Shame on greedy, rich people, who have no sense of honor. You should be saying "thank you," to this great country that has provided you with so much opportunity, by allowing that all children deserve dental and medical care, and that young soldiers dying for your freedom, are dying for something we can all be proud of - not the freedom for you to take full advantage, but the freedom for you to see yourself as part of a society with duty and obligations, noblesse oblige, even for the wealthy.

"The Insurance Industry does not want to compete with the federal government that would have overhead less than 5%. Social security has an overhead of less than 1%.
That scares the jeebers out of them.

The industry will use third parties behind the scenes to attempt to buy and scare off democrats from voting for real reform. The industry wants to maintain the status quo where they make billions and billions of dollars at the expense of the health and welfare of the american people."

The insurance Industry does not want to compete against the Federal Government because the FED Gov. does not need a profit to stay in business. They can offer low rates and loss money and stay in business. That is the purpose for the public option. You provide cheap health insurance to drive out all insurance companies and you end up with a single payer system. A system that rations care. One that says your father is too old to have a hip replacement or heart surgery, this is how you control costs. Make MRIs take a long time to get.

I am sorry, I do not know why a "tax the rich" option is the best option. This is not how a market economy works. Like some of the posters have said, it is nothing more that a redistribution of wealth, making the rich pay for the poor's health care. I do not know why the rich always get singled out. It is due to the fact that those earning less are bitter and resentful that they have not been able to make as much? I am by no means anywhere near the rich category, but in general principle I am not sure why the rich are taking so much heat. Why not let the rich keep the money they earn. They earned it. Why should they be penalized for their success? If you do not like the fact that the folks from Wall Street can bring down the economy and still get large bonuses, you should demand more regulation by your government, not blame those who receive the cash. It is like the old saying goes, "dont blame the player, blame the game".

I really would have hoped the Dems leaders would have addressed the fundamental problems with today's health care coverage. In the short time I have been working, I have seen my healthcare coverage plans change and premiums go up, as well as employer coverage decrease. These seem to be the things that Congress should address. Why have the services changed, how do we improve the level of benefits we receive. I do not think creating a government run healthcare system is the right approach, it only masks the real problem. And I am afraid that my health coverage through my company os only going to cost more, and provide even less serives once this "plan" is approved.

What's really funny about this debate is that PBS had the former VP of Cigna Wendell Potter on the air and he mentioned the following: "in 1996 95% of the health care dollar went to patient care, now only 80% does" and the Health Care Insurance Industry thinks 80% is still too high.

The Insurance Industry does not want to compete with the federal government that would have overhead less than 5%. Social security has an overhead of less than 1%.
That scares the jeebers out of them.

The industry will use third parties behind the scenes to attempt to buy and scare off democrats from voting for real reform. The industry wants to maintain the status quo where they make billions and billions of dollars at the expense of the health and welfare of the american people.

What's really funny about this debate is that PBS had the former VP of Cigna Wendell Potter on the air and he mentioned the following: "in 1996 95% of the health care dollar went to patient care, now only 80% does" and the Health Care Insurance Industry things 80% is still too high.

The Insurance Industry does not want to compete with the federal government that would have overhead less than 5%. Social security has an overhead of less than 1%.
That scares the jeebers out of them.

The industry will use third parties behind the scenes to attempt to buy and scare off democrats from voting for real reform. The industry wants to maintain the status quo where they make billions and billions of dollars at the expense of the health and welfare of the american people.