Surprise! Obama considers taxing the wealthy
Health care. President Obama has asked for legislation to be enacted before August of this year. To this end, there have been several proposals put forth. In essence they all require-yes, require; under penalty of law, that all Americans carry medical coverage. The key proposal involves a Federally operated exchange, although states could offer an exchange for citizens use also. Senator Kennedys' proposal is gaining steam. His scheme requires employers to supply health care for ALL workers; part-time workers included. Another cost to be passed on to the consumers of course.
The interesting aspect to this entire mandatory health care is we are talking about 17% of the working population. The Democrats estimate there are about 46 million uninsured citizens in the country of a population of over 300 million. So, our entire health care infrastructure and insurance industry will be overhauled and remade; more taxes will be levied-for the 17% of our population without health care. This is a tough subject as almost everyone has an anecdote involving themselves or someone close who has had financial difficulties due to medical problems. But, principals are involved here as well as the question of just how much government involvement do we as a nation want in our daily lives and how much independence do we want from our governments. Do we want entrepreneurs to flourish in this nation or do we desire government run businesses? I mean, more so than now.
I'm not going into detail on the specific health care schemes at present as so much of it is up in the air right now. The one aspect any of the plans have is the enormous cost involved and the increased bureaucracy that will be created to manage this beast. Any bets on how the Obama administration is proposing to pay for his universal health care?
According to a story carried by Bloomberg.com, President Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans. In an interesting twist, he isn't calling for increased tax rates; he is instead going for the traditional Obama obfuscation. Instead of raising the tax rate, his proposal is to reduce the number of deductions. According to Bloomberg, "Obama’s own proposal would set a 28 percent cap on tax deductions for items such as mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable gifts for Americans in the two highest tax brackets, which would be 36 percent and 39.6 percent under his proposals. Without the cap, they would be able to deduct 36 cents and 39.6 cents on the dollar for those expenses, respectively. Obama also proposes new taxes on securities dealers and life insurers, and to raise revenue by prohibiting certain estate-planning techniques." The story goes on further for other ways to raise revenue, "Lawmakers have a plethora of proposals to raise the hundreds of billions estimated to be needed for an overhaul, including new taxes on soda, beer, and wine, and a partial tax on employer-provided health insurance for the first time". Nothing like discouraging citizens from planning ahead and taking care of their estates.
Can anyone explain why the Democrats believe all moneys earned by Americans belong to the government and is only "loaned" to the citizens? Why does the Democrat party insist on confiscating wealth from those that have earned it and "leveling the financial playing field" by giving it to those that have not earned it. Why do we as a nation, continue to punish those that have succeeded and reward those that have not been as successful? Why have the Democrats not been able to figure out the simple little rule that business and corporations pay no taxes, expenses, fines, etc. They are all passed on to the consumer. The question that looms in my mind, is what happens when the cost can no longer be passed on to the consumer before the product or service being sold is higher than the consumer wants or is able to pay? What happens to the entrepreneur or stockholders then? And the employees, landlords, supporting businesses........ and of course the tax money.
Within the story is the comment, "The tax-free nature of employer-provided insurance is the biggest tax expenditure in the federal budget." Here again is a reference to the government "LOSING" money as if somehow a business or citizen somehow manages to keep some money through various deductions, exemptions, tax breaks/credits, or some other "nefarious" means of keeping money from the rightful owners; the government. Obama adviser David Axelrod, speaking for the article is going to rectify this problem saying there is a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits. Apparently, if an employer is already providing health benefits they could now face paying taxes on those benefits. Obama is trying to avoid taking that step at present.
Another interesting comment in the article is one made by Axelrod. “We have to bring down the cost of health care,” he said. “If we do that and make it affordable, people are going to buy it, mandate or no mandate.” This point is referenced quite a few times. Bring down the costs. How is this going to be done? Is the government going to do to doctors as they did to CEOs of the bailout businesses and place a cap on their salaries? Will he pay their student loans? Place a cap on prescription medicines? Will they also place a cap on lawsuits and caps on malpractice insurance rates? Are they going to place a cap on the cost of hospitalization so it will be as cheap to stay there as a Motel 6? The plan would place new restrictions on private insurers, including a bar on excluding coverage for those with “pre- existing conditions.” That is going to lower costs? How? The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that the annual health care costs for an individual with diabetes are approximately $13,000. Will the insurer have to charge government mandated lower rates and suck up the remaining amount of a confirmed loss? Or has Obama, et al discovered a miracle cure for diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer that will automatically result in lower costs? The point is almost all of these examples are of private businesses and corporations-not charities or government run institutions. Yet.
I can be E-mailed at outrider@ohnoanotherconservativeblog.com if you have suggestions, questions, or would like to see a particular story written.
This page added to Google cache Cached: http://google.com/search?q=cache:http://ohnoanotherconservativeblog.com/2009/06/08/surprise--obama-considers-taxing-the-wealthy.aspx?ref=rss&ei=AFQjCNHajN_OX0kgxzx7UGA1yBfPoRn TubedfWq
Reply to this