Dems call for taxes on wealthy at debate

[Dos Equis]

 

Dec 13, 3:08 PM EST
Dems call for taxes on wealthy at debate

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
 
JOHNSTON, Iowa (AP) -- Democratic presidential rivals called for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and on big corporations Thursday and said any thought of balancing the federal budget would have to wait.

"We're not going to be able to dig ourselves out" of Bush-era deficits in the next year or two, said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, one of six Democratic rivals sharing a debate stage for the final time before Iowa's leadoff Jan. 3 caucuses.

Asked about the importance of eliminating deficits, several of the Democrats responded by mentioning higher taxes on the wealthy and on big corporations.

"I want to keep the middle class tax cuts" that Congress passed during President Bush's tenure, said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. But she said she favors raising taxes for the wealthiest income-earners and corporations.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina readily agreed. "The truth of the matter is the tax policy has been established by the big corporations and the wealthiest Americans," he said. "What we ought to be doing instead is getting rid of those tax breaks."
 
. . .

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_DEBATE?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Decker]

I agree.  A wealth tax would be a good thing.  Keeps the money active.  We don't want these money-in-the-mattress types sitting on fortunes when the money could be put to good use.

Bush's unwise borrow and tax strategy has put this country into a fiscal pickle.

[Dos Equis]

The lesson here is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you become too successful and/or make too much money, then the government will take it from you and squander it.  I get the feeling Democrats want to turn this place into Canada (taking half of what some people make).    I'd like to lock them all in a room with Governor Linda Lingle for a day or two. 

[240 is Back]

The lesson here is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you become too successful and/or make too much money, then the government will take it from you and squander it.  I get the feeling Democrats want to turn this place into Canada (taking half of what some people make).    I'd like to lock them all in a room with Governor Linda Lingle for a day or two. 

The only justice, sadly, will be when the recession comes and your retirement package is a lot smaller than it is today.

You'll blame CLinton or Obama, who will inherit office about 2 weeks before it all comes crashing down.  You won't blame 8 years of record spending and elective wars.

You'll have your opinion and a lot less money.  240 disapproves.

[Decker]

The lesson here is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you become too successful and/or make too much money, then the government will take it from you and squander it.  I get the feeling Democrats want to turn this place into Canada (taking half of what some people make).    I'd like to lock them all in a room with Governor Linda Lingle for a day or two. 

I'd like to have Canada's health system for our country.

This country was formed with the idea that we maximize the life, liberty and happiness of each individual within a societal framework.  In other words, the US is not an aggregate of self-interested individuals.  It is an aggregate of self-interested individuals with responsibility to the country itself.  Tax dollars of our best citizens keep this country afloat.

The balance between every-man-for-himself and national prosperity always deserves to be re-examined.

[Dos Equis]

I'd like to have Canada's health system for our country.

This country was formed with the idea that we maximize the life, liberty and happiness of each individual within a societal framework.  In other words, the US is not an aggregate of self-interested individuals.  It is an aggregate of self-interested individuals with responsibility to the country itself.  Tax dollars of our best citizens keep this country afloat.

The balance between every-man-for-himself and national prosperity always deserves to be re-examined.

I have not heard good things about Canada's health care system. 

I'm all for everyone contributing to society.  That is in fact what happens.  What I object to is the demonizing of the "wealthy"; this persistent class warfare.  It is bad for the country.  The government does not manage our money very well anyway, so those in control of the purse strings should always be trying to figure out ways to let us keep more of own money.

There really isn't an every-man-for-himself attitude in this country.  We all need many other people to survive.  I don't think most people either want or try to live like Grizzly Adams.     
 

[Deicide]

The only justice, sadly, will be when the recession comes and your retirement package is a lot smaller than it is today.

You'll blame CLinton or Obama, who will inherit office about 2 weeks before it all comes crashing down.  You won't blame 8 years of record spending and elective wars.

You'll have your opinion and a lot less money.  240 disapproves.

You're a warmongering neo-con 240!

[Hugo Chavez]

The lesson here is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you become too successful and/or make too much money, then the government will take it from you and squander it.  I get the feeling Democrats want to turn this place into Canada (taking half of what some people make).    I'd like to lock them all in a room with Governor Linda Lingle for a day or two. 

Yes, because life liberty and the pursuite of happiness is totally wreched when you miss hitting your 100 million mark for the year...  What will they do...    Totally takes all the fun out of buying that classic ferrari

[Decker]

So when can get taxed to death to pay for mediocre health care the everyone can get?     I'm not giving up 1/2 my shit for someone who doesn't earn enough.  Try harder then.

1         France
2         Italy
3         San Marino
4         Andorra
5         Malta
6         Singapore
7         Spain
8         Oman
9         Austria
10        Japan
11        Norway
12        Portugal
13        Monaco
14        Greece
15        Iceland
16        Luxembourg
17        Netherlands
18        United  Kingdom
19        Ireland
20        Switzerland
21        Belgium
22        Colombia
23        Sweden
24        Cyprus
25        Germany
26        Saudi Arabia
27        United  Arab  Emirates
28        Israel
29        Morocco
30        Canada
31        Finland
32        Australia
33        Chile
34        Denmark
35        Dominica
36        Costa Rica
37        United  States  of  America
38        Slovenia
39        Cuba
40        Brunei

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Canada provides better health maintenance services than the US.  It is based on the same privatized system of sharing risk to reduce catastrophic results for any single family.  The difference between Canada and the US is that you are also lining the pockets of private insurance companies when you overpay for coverage.  That's a big reason why our coverage costs more than it does in countries with universal care.

If you want to pay more for less then stay with the current privatized system.

The Universal system in England provides better results and costs 40% less per person than it does in the US.

The private interests getting rich off of the current system in our country want you to believe that we are No. 1 in service and in cost.  In truth we are NO. 37.

So we can put away the giant No. 1 foam finger b/c it's just propaganda.

[Decker]

I have not heard good things about Canada's health care system. 

I'm all for everyone contributing to society.  That is in fact what happens.  What I object to is the demonizing of the "wealthy"; this persistent class warfare.  It is bad for the country.  The government does not manage our money very well anyway, so those in control of the purse strings should always be trying to figure out ways to let us keep more of own money.

There really isn't an every-man-for-himself attitude in this country.  We all need many other people to survive.  I don't think most people either want or try to live like Grizzly Adams.     
 

Canada's health system is more effective than the US's.

The wealthy 1% should be demonized b/c they work to return us to the Gilded Age where they held all the economic and political power.  That's unamerican.  The wealth inequality is fastly approaching that of the 1920s.

If you look at the popular conservative platform of rugged individualism that's been prevalent since the early 1980s, I think you can see an 'every man for himself' value shining through.

[Hugo Chavez]

man... we really do take greed to an obscene level

[Tre]

We are already over-taxed.  The problem is and has always been the inflated cost of admistration. 

Decker - I wholeheartedly agree that we need to keep the money flowing in order to keep our economy growing, but severe taxation does not help us to achieve that end.  Yes, I can seek out all sorts of legitimate deductions, but at the end of the day, giving ONE-THIRD of what I earn to the government does not inspire me to stimulate the economy by spending. 

Like many, I'm forced to hoard whatever I can in order to preserve my own future...a secure, comfortable future that those in power DO NOT want me to have. 

[Decker]

We are already over-taxed.  The problem is and has always been the inflated cost of admistration. 

Decker - I wholeheartedly agree that we need to keep the money flowing in order to keep our economy growing, but severe taxation does not help us to achieve that end.  Yes, I can seek out all sorts of legitimate deductions, but at the end of the day, giving ONE-THIRD of what I earn to the government does not inspire me to stimulate the economy by spending. 

Like many, I'm forced to hoard whatever I can in preserve my own future...a secure, comfortable future that those in power DO NOT want me to have. 

There are many ways to address overtaxing.  I don't think healthcare should be part of that equation.  Private employer provided coverage is already putting a crushing burden on employers...some employers just forgo it altogether.  So our healthcare turns into a race to the bottom. 

As for an unrelated moderate wealth tax funding part of the healthcare, I would see no problem with that.  Wealth inequality inexorably leads to political inequality.  To me, that's unamerican.  A moderate tax on wealth (not income) could address that.  I would also re-up the estate tax aka death tax.  I don't want an aristocracy in the US.  That was also a driving factor in the founders choosing democracy for the US.

If england can provide much better results at a per person cost basis that is 40% less than what we pay in the US, how is that an overtaxing/losing proposition?  Privatized healthcare is a free market failure.  That happens.

Something just strikes me as strange when the US is the last industrialized country not to offer universal healthcare.

[Dos Equis]

Yes, because life liberty and the pursuite of happiness is totally wreched when you miss hitting your 100 million mark for the year...  What will they do...    Totally takes all the fun out of buying that classic ferrari

Yeah.  All those big bad rich people pumping millions into the economy, employing Americans, paying most of the taxes, etc.  How dare they buy expensive cars (although most American millionaires don't spend their money on cars). 

[Dos Equis]

Canada's health system is more effective than the US's.

The wealthy 1% should be demonized b/c they work to return us to the Gilded Age where they held all the economic and political power.  That's unamerican.  The wealth inequality is fastly approaching that of the 1920s.

If you look at the popular conservative platform of rugged individualism that's been prevalent since the early 1980s, I think you can see an 'every man for himself' value shining through.

I've heard about problems with accessibility with Canada's healthcare system.  People having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. 

Decker you have a jaded view of the "wealthy."  I think many Democrats in Congress and at the state level share your outlook.  They pander to voters with this "we're here to help the little guy" approach.  I don't buy it.  We shouldn't be pitting groups of people against each other, particularly those who pay most of the taxes in this country. 

I disagree with the individualism argument, because people who happen to make a lot of money and/or have a high net worth are dependent on many others:  employees, advisors, government services, etc. 

I would encourage you again to read "The Millionaire Next Door" and it's sequel "The Millionaire Mind."  It might impact your view of the "wealthy" in this country.  Some real eye opening info. 

[Decker]

Yeah.  All those big bad rich people pumping millions into the economy, employing Americans, paying most of the taxes, etc.  How dare they buy expensive cars (although most American millionaires don't spend their money on cars). 

An expedient point my friend.  I don't think anyone's calling for an end to wealth.

I do tire of hearing multi-millionaires--like Rush Limbaugh--piss and moan about taxes.  Only in this country do the wealthy squeal like pigs about taxes while their homeless brothers are digging for peach pits in garbage cans.

The US does not have confiscatory tax rates.  Income taxes affect the little guy most.  The very wealthy pull in much of their income from capital gains which are taxed at a rate comparable to that of the lowest income tax bracket.

On an anecdotal note, I've seen this change in priorities happen.  My uncle was a self-proclaimed "new deal" democrat.  He became a republican at about the time he made his first million.  Once people get a taste of the big bucks their priorities change.  They become different.  Why he told me how he had to hire many people to manage his money b/c he had so much of it.  Quite the burden.  He also lamented the fact that he missed a tax break opportunity upon inheriting the estate of his deceased mother.  It was...touching.

The more some of these people make, the more they want, the more they hoard.  And the more they forget about societal obligations.

Everyone hopes to be rich someday.  But with great power comes great responsibility.  Ok, I am spiderman.

[Decker]

I've heard about problems with accessibility with Canada's healthcare system.  People having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. 

Decker you have a jaded view of the "wealthy."  I think many Democrats in Congress and at the state level share your outlook.  They pander to voters with this "we're here to help the little guy" approach.  I don't buy it.  We shouldn't be pitting groups of people against each other, particularly those who pay most of the taxes in this country. 

I disagree with the individualism argument, because people who happen to make a lot of money and/or have a high net worth are dependent on many others:  employees, advisors, government services, etc. 

I would encourage you again to read "The Millionaire Next Door" and it's sequel "The Millionaire Mind."  It might impact your view of the "wealthy" in this country.  Some real eye opening info. 

I have heard that access to care in Canada is great.  I heard that Canadians are very hesitant about traveling to the US without first purchasing insurance.  See, if they get injured here, they could be bankrupted by the insanely high costs of our care if they had no additional insurance coverage.

I think discussing top marginal tax rates is not class warfare Beach Bum.  If we ever have a French Revolution in this country, then you'll see what class warfare looks like.

The progressive income tax scheme is predicated on the idea that those earning the most pay the most.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Speaking of pitting one group against another, how are unions doing these days?  How about equal access to one's political representative? 

The class war has been won hands down by the elites in this country.

Have a great weekend my friend.

[24KT]

I've heard about problems with accessibility with Canada's healthcare system.  People having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. 

If you live in Cali, and are to be treated at Johns Hopkins, guess what? That's a 2000 mile trek cross country.

I know what you are implying, but that is extremely rare, ...but does on occasion happen. It has to do not with a faulty inefficient system, ...but rather due to the efficiency in the Canadian healthcare system. No one is going is place a major state-of-the art 1000 bed healthcare facility in a remote town with a population of 15 people (6 Adults & 9 kids).  Take a look at the map of Canada below. It is a vast, VAST territory! with a population base less than 1/10 the size of the USA's. 80 - 90% of our population lives either along the thick blue line or south of it, within 100 miles of the US/Canada border. Of that, 80 - 90%, a good 50 - 60% or more of those live in or around those 3 solid black dots which represent Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.  Take a visit to downtown Toronto's hospital row on University avenue. You've got 3 world renowned facilities side by side. Sick Kids, Mount Sinai, Princess Margaret. It's feasilbly impossibly, not to mention recklessly stupid were it even possible to allocate huge healthcare infrastructures to those little outlined circles. So ya, if someone in one of those outlined circles needed sophisticated surgery or diagnostics, ...they'd be travelling hundreds of miles to get it. But we've got air ambulance, ...and it's covered. I have colleagues who live in Medicine Hat, Alberta in the prairies. When they get on an airplane, ...they can expect to set their cruise control, tie a belt to the steering wheel, and go for a nap, cause it's 4 hours drive one-way down a straight road, no bends, no curves, just straight, ...just to get to the airport. Contrast that to Hawaii. My goodness you could drive circles around Hawaii a few times in 4 hours. That's just the nature of the beast when living in vast unpopulated areas. I knew people in Wyoming who had to wait 6 months for a phone 'cause they were so far out remotely, and the ground was too frozen to dig phone lines. The geographical & demographical considerations that impact heathcare or the provision of other infrastructure services in Canada would not be applicable to a USA Universal care system. Your population base could make our system shine south of the border, and for a lot less money provided the for-profit motive was done away with.

Canada's healthcare system is pretty damned good, ...but what do I know? I'm only Canadian!   


click map to enlarge

[Cap]

Canadian wait times are well known and that's why people ignore idiots like Moore.  Nobody should be forced to pay for other's health care especially for ineffectual care like what is seen in Canada.  What's the point of coverage when you wait long times to get the care?  Again I ask, why do people who make money and provide for their families have to pay for other families?

One example: http://moorelies.com/2007/10/11/canadas-expectant-moms-heading-to-us-to-deliver/

[24KT]

Canadian wait times are well known and that's why people ignore idiots like Moore.  Nobody should be forced to pay for other's health care especially for ineffectual care like what is seen in Canada.  What's the point of coverage when you wait long times to get the care?  Again I ask, why do people who make money and provide for their families have to pay for other families?

One example: http://moorelies.com/2007/10/11/canadas-expectant-moms-heading-to-us-to-deliver/

Well if those darned westerners would stop voting for Conservatives, they wouldn't be in that pickle.
They were still covered. Of course there was going to be a spike. Didn't you hear about the snows storms last year?

ps: If Canada's care is inneffectual, ...what does that say about the USA's? Ours rank higher than yours 

[Decker]

Canadian wait times are well known and that's why people ignore idiots like Moore.  Nobody should be forced to pay for other's health care especially for ineffectual care like what is seen in Canada.  What's the point of coverage when you wait long times to get the care?  Again I ask, why do people who make money and provide for their families have to pay for other families?

One example: http://moorelies.com/2007/10/11/canadas-expectant-moms-heading-to-us-to-deliver/

If the long long waiting lists are so bad why do almost no Canadians cross the border for the US's superior care?  Why did private insurance companies give up on policies for Canadians seeking care that would kick in if the wait for treatment was over 30 days?

"Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian NPHS indicated that they had received health care in the United States during the previous twelve months, and only twenty indicated that they had gone to the United States expressly for the purpose of getting that care."  http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=snow&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT#R13

And as for universal care itself, we already have medicare which is a kind of UHC...or is that mediscare..shoot, that was a good one.  That's a very popular program even with the Bush attempts to damage it.

Again I ask, why do people who make money and provide for their families have to pay for other families?

Because universal coverage lowers the overall costs (the British system is 40% cheaper on a per person basis than the US system and the British system has better results) and improves the medical results, people do not have to make choices between feeding and clothing their families when faced with a medical emergency and little or no insurance. 

[youandme]

No matter how you spin it, it won't work in the U.S psychologist have been saying this for years. We are a token economy that works for incentives, period. UHC will drive the cost to the M.Ds bank accounts, that is why you see contracts now for Canadian doctors where they must stay in Canada for a specified period of time and practice, you see the age of the doctors are on the rise because the younger doctors are migrating to the U.S.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd101703b.html

[Decker]

No matter how you spin it, it won't work in the U.S psychologist have been saying this for years. We are a token economy that works for incentives, period. UHC will drive the cost to the M.Ds bank accounts, that is why you see contracts now for Canadian doctors where they must stay in Canada for a specified period of time and practice, you see the age of the doctors are on the rise because the younger doctors are migrating to the U.S.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd101703b.html

As a matter of course, private doctors under our system can really score some big paychecks. 

The doctors working in a UHC country are not exactly shaking the tin cup for spare change.

You equate the motive to practice medicine with chasing the dollar.  I'm sure that's a factor.  Not the only one though.  Love of medicine, of being a healer, of the prestige etc may also play a role in the choice of the medical field as a career.

Medical Specialists in Quebec earn, on average, over a quarter of a million dollars a year.  That's not too bad.  And that's $100,000 less than the Canadian national average.  http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/8/861?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=physician+salary&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

[gcb]

I always laugh when I hear someone say I don't want the government to take away my hard earned cash. The truth is we enjoy a standard of living unparalleled in our history and it is mostly to do with infrastructure and lots of little cogs in the machine doing thier job. I challenge anyone making six figures or more to drop themselves in the middle of the congo jungle with none of that infrastructure behind them and see how many millions of dollars they make.