The New Republic

I guess my question is what is wrong with the places Cassidy has worked at? By which I mean why do they appear to depend on the largess (or lack thereof) of a government insurance Programs? Why are they not attracting full fee customers and using Medicaid to help defray their fixed costs after having earned their primary income elsewhere? As we all know medical services are just like any other free market! Note:I know nothing of these instituitions, and it may be that they are provding charity care out of the goodness of their hearts. But that would just re-inforce Cohn's point.

- Nari224

December 17, 2010 at 5:24pm

Here's an anecdote about Medicaid. Not too many years ago I represented a pediatric orthopaedist, a member of the largest (and best) orthopaedic group practice in our area. He was the lowest paid partner in the group, and enlisted my help to change that. It turns out he was also the lowest producer (in terms of total revenues). His explanation was that almost half his patients were Medicaid eligible, so reimbursement rates were low and surgical expenses high (he performed no surgery in the group's outpatient surgery center because of the higher risk for children). I asked him why so many of his patients were Medicaid eligible, and his response changed my views about Medicaid (and my area): roughly the same percentage of children in our area (an "affluent" metropolitan area in Florida) are Medicaid eligible, and his patient base simply represented a cross-section of the children in the area. To repeat, half the children in our area are Medicaid eligible. Half! If that's the case in a growing area of Florida, what does that say about areas that are economically depressed. In any case, the orthopaedic group, which put my client prominenetly in its ads for the practice along with lots of smiling children with him, decided that he should be paid based soley on the revenues he brought to the practice. He quit, and moved on to a not for profit multi-specialty group practice. His income may not have increased by much, but his professional satisfaction went way up.

- rayward

December 17, 2010 at 5:35pm

I'm saddened to say I don't have the same generous spirit when it comes to giving out "benefit of the doubt" about these people. i think, at the end of the day, they really, really just don't give a fsck about the poor people. Money first, people second, and if you don't like it you should have the decency to crawl your sick butt into a ditch somewhere out of sight and die quietly so as to not disturb their happy little make-believe world.

- GSpinks

December 17, 2010 at 8:26pm

GSpinks, do you care about poor people? Are you giving half of your enormous salary to help poor people?

- seattleeng

December 18, 2010 at 2:17pm

Again a meaningless crack from seattleng, completely missing the point of the article and making a personal attack on a poster instead of proposing an idea. A sure sign of a person with nothing to say - and in this case there really is nothing to say because the abandonment of the poor is indefensible. No civilized state behaves this way. Meanwhile, Charles Blow (!) has characterized people upset with Obama's so-called "compromise" with the Right as "foaming at the mouth," and everybody who disagrees with this as "far left." What is going on out there? People around the world are writing in the NYT about this stuff. They honestly do not understand the US and the way a small minority of rich people and corporations have totally hijacked BOTH political parties, which have abandoned the people. And anybody who disagrees with the is a far leftist who is foaming at the mouth. Note - Blow's description of us exactly matches that of the far right's description of anybody to the left of the John Birch Society. This is a bad sign. Now, will somebody please explain to me why it is acceptable to allow ANYBODY in a civilized nation-state to go without food, shelter, medical care?

- Sophia

December 18, 2010 at 3:49pm

Sophia writes: "and in this case there really is nothing to say because the abandonment of the poor is indefensible" Sophia, you are among the wealthiest in the world. You have a PC with an internet connection, which only 20% of the world has. You are a king among the poor. I'll assume you have meals several times per day, enjoy electricity on demand, and dont' worry about sanitation and clean water. Again, your wealth compared to the rest of the world is borderline incalculable. So, tell us, how much of your income goes to help the poor? Or, like the Wall Street broker that complains about the cost of living in NYC, the cost of a second home, and the cost of private schools....are you going to tell us that you have nothing left to actually help the less fortunate?

- seattleeng

December 18, 2010 at 3:54pm

I thought Rick Perry's threat to withdraw Texas from Medicaid was more about a strategy for Medicaid federal funds to be distributed as a block grant, without all of the many NEW federal requirements for Medicaid that will be an unfunded mandate on the states. or, in the case of New York, where Medicaid eligibility is the most expansive with 25% of New York residents now included, the new ACA law FORBIDS any state from changing Medicaid eligibility before 2014. a sneaky way to cover everyone by forcing Medicaid expansion. Meanwhile, where is the urgency to deal with the shortage of primary care physicians, nurses, and not-for-profit community health centers? All New York expansive Medicaid accomplished was a lot more fraud (see indictment of soon-to-be-former State Senator Pedro Espada and his use of Soundview Medical Centers as an ATM machine...) ACA (aka Obamacare) will consume the next two years, and not in a good way. and, NO, you do NOT have to have the Medicare-for-all federal option. Medicare is almost as bad as Medicaid in physician reimbursement. This congress should have considered delinking health insurance from employment, free tuition for primary care doctors who serve as such for at least ten years (a GI Bill for doctors!), and re-constructing a national network of NOT-FOR-PROFIT Blue Cross/Blue Shield instead of 2,600 pages of Federal dictates. Dealing with the end-of-life care that consumes a disproportionate amount of Medicareand Medicaid dollars should have been a priority. Screw the Dems fear of "death panels". I wish there was a panel who who make it easy to decide when to end life in this dysfunctional America. Sorry - just continuing the conversation I had last week with my specialist who is always on the verge of withdrawing from Medicare. He told me that the health care insurance carrier for HIS small practice in Manhattan first tried to increase 2011 premiums by 38%, with huge increases in deductibles, and then decided to stop covering any group with less than 20 employees. All in anticipation of Obamacare. The Dems really blew their once-in-a hundred year opportunity.

- K2K

December 18, 2010 at 6:05pm

it's ok Sophia, he is probably feeling very personally attacked because he considers himself a very generous soul who would never ask a poor person whose health insurance he voted to repeal to crawl off in a ditch and die. I'm sure he is very compassionate; I be he would gladly support physician assisted suicide for those poor people as a pleasant alternative, and a law allowing hospitals to write off the cost so that it does not unfairly burden those fine, religious and/or private institutions. Far more humane and sanitary than having dead bodies littering the ditches.

The thing that amuses me, Seattle, is this notion of giving out 50% of my salary to charity. Where'd you come up with a number like that? But, to answer your question, I don't know how much of my money I give away because I don't track it. Whatever I have left after the bills are paid is fair game, and I don't ask for any form of recognition or acknowledgement of my good deeds: I don't even use the tax write-off. Sadly, with the state of the economy, there's a lot less left after the bills are paid these days.

- GSpinks

December 18, 2010 at 7:30pm

Thanks, GS - Seattleng, with all due respect you are a schmuck. It's none of your business how much of anyone's meager income goes to help the even more poor but I'll tell you this much - I personally share what I can. And it's probably a greater amount proportionately than the slobs who want us to die are willing to give, you heartless Scrooge. And, by claiming that we Americans are "kings" among the poor you are once again comparing apples to oranges. Who’s going to argue that the US is wealthier than Somalia? Global resource distribution is a completely different discussion! Nevertheless you persist in throwing into every conversation about poor Americans. Why? Do you own a factory in Mogadishu? That subsists on formerly American jobs? Or what? Are you assuaging your conscience by making the claim that American poor people are kings of the poor? ROFLMAO! Poor Americans do not live in Somalia. Poor Americans live in the USA, where there is just no damn excuse not to help people in need, PERIOD, because there really is plenty to go around - and where the cost of living, just surviving, is vastly higher regardless. Poor people here or even lower middle class people really have to scrabble - and there are so few social resources – less than in many poor countries! Plus, poverty in the US is actually treated as a crime. That makes it even worse. The poor are castigated for being parasites, treated as completely worthless - throwaways. This is regardless of each person's unique value let alone whatever contributions or work he/she may do or have done - not that a person's work or intellect should be a measure of his/her value - consider the lilies of the field! That said - MANY poor people work their asses off. In fact just being poor is hard work you clown. When you are sick and poor, it's even more challenging. You don't go to a fancy clinic - oh nooooo. You go to a poor clinic, wait for hours, on public transportation regardless of how horrible you feel. People won't treat you at all if you lack the proper insurance! You don't see so well, your feet hurt - you are cold - you work harder for less! You have to scrounge for second hand clothes and shoes that MIGHT fit. It's such fun! A real Calvinist paradise! Oh my, in which we are "kings of the poor." Let's put on a musical! Newsflash: besides people who work hard, single mothers - people who never had a chance since they were born into poverty - many poor people are artists and intellects of real brilliance - teachers! - and therefore should qualify as "worthy" even to the worst, nastiest and most bigoted fool who thinks poor people are de facto worthless - - but who the hell cares about THAT in this corporatist world where the only value is on profitability even if that profitability is immediately and directly destructive? And - how many poor people for example are just old and/or sick, disabled, maybe from working too hard? Some of the hardest, most stressful, alternatively the most challenging and creative jobs - like being a secretary, a cleaning person, a gardener, a painter, an inventor - PAY THE LEAST and they take a real toll on the body, on the mind. Then - unless you die young nobody escapes being old - old and damaged and increasingly unable to survive alone. The costs of living, medical care and elder care have become so brutal and the safety net so thin that even formerly well-to-do Americans can rapidly slip below the poverty line so guess what: Nobody’s immune, dude - maybe someday you'll have nothing left to eat but your words. So - here's a preview for you! – poverty often means being cold, hungry, on the verge of homelessness whether you are here or in Africa. It means a loss of hope. It often means being exposed to violence, a victim of crime or serial crimes. It means living in marginal, even dangerous neighborhoods, living in rat or roach infested apartments, firetraps, streets with random gunfire, roving gangs - predators. It often means being degraded, in the workplace or out of it. People sense weakness, desperation - they seem to smell poverty – economic insecurity - use it - exploit it - or - they turn away, don't want to see, don't want to catch it. It means being desperate for work, even work that is totally unsuitable, immoral, illegal - dangerous or back-breakingly hard. We have slaves here in America – desperate immigrants, sweatshop workers, sex slaves – it’s appallingly easy for people to fall through the cracks and just disappear. At best - being poor means not having any real stability - living from week to week, meal to meal, living with the fear of losing everything. Especially as we get older, especially if we’re ill - for us “kings of the poor,” the loss of a mate spells disaster. Poverty means depression, despair and it shortens peoples' lives, PERIOD. Again though - as far as the totally meaningless comment about the poor helping others: in my experience poor and lower middle-class Americans are very likely to send money to poor people in need, and animals too, wherever they happen to be and that includes sending money we can ill afford to disaster zones around the world. Beyond that - all Americans pay taxes! So the poor also contribute – to local and global efforts - every time a poor person buys something there is tax on it - a tax vastly more burdensome to the poor than to the wealthy so HELLO? How dare you. There are people in America living in the cold. And you know who helps them? OTHER POOR PEOPLE - via taxes, rents, utilities or direct sharing - all of it goes back into the economy - even if it's just a few cents it's better than nothing. The same goes for sharing scarce dollars with service people - you know who gives tips to wait staff and entertainers, to the homeless on the streets? POOR PEOPLE. I could write a book about this. That's because we understand what it's like to work for peanuts. You know what? I like to see you actually singing for your supper, really creating something all by yourself and selling it. HAH. You probably don't know how. You think you can do it? This I'd like to see. You can send us the video. Then, you can add up all the hours and creativity you spent to perfect your talent and see how far it goes against the rent. If that's too hard - you can supplement your income by working off hours at Walmart for a few years, maybe living in your car! Then lecture us about the poor.

- Sophia

December 18, 2010 at 8:41pm

Sophia in America, There is a woman named Sophia in Somalia that believes YOU should be taxed at 50% to help her with her hard life. Why is she wrong?

- seattleeng

December 18, 2010 at 10:06pm

GSpinks writes "The thing that amuses me, Seattle, is this notion of giving out 50% of my salary to charity. Where'd you come up with a number like that?" The wealthy in this country are paying almost 50% of their salary in taxes of some sort. They are seeing an effective federal tax rate of 33%, and another 10+% at the state and local level. In return, they get very, very little back from government. Fire, police, roads, airports...the stuff needed to maintain civil order and create a society receptive for safe trade costs very little. If a wealthy person pays 45% in taxes, but "takes" only 5% of that in services, then what do you call the remaining 40%? It is charity or redistribution. Period. You can call it taxes if you wish. Now, the IPCC (the climate change folks) just had their meeting in Cancun. And a recurring theme was getting the wealthy nations to pay for the poor nations. And anyone with a computer and internet connection is wealthy by the IPCC definition. You might have trouble making your rent each month, your car might not run great. But you are still wealthy in their eyes. All I am saying is get ready. The term "have nots" is relative. If you love the idea of taxing the $1M earner at the 50% rate so that the $50K earner can have an easier life, then it's only fair to expect the $5K earner to want 50% of what the $50K earner has. It is amazing to me that you and Sophia cannot see the relative similarities here. You guys seems to have this idea of "screw the people outside our boarders. There are those in this country that make a lot more than me, and I want a big slice of that. But I am in no position to pay what I have to anyone in a lesser position" How ugly. BTW, Sophia, I am an engineer. I make and sell stuff for a living. It is what engineers do. I can go into Best Buy tomorrow and see several products that I have worked on. In my spare time, I also make music and furniture and guitars. The process of creating something people will pay for from absolutely nothing I am intimately familiar with.

- seattleeng

December 19, 2010 at 1:35am

SE: "In return, they get very, very little back from government. " Damn right. Somehow the rich never get to take those all-expense-paid trips to Afghanistan and Iraq the government hands out to the poor and middle class.

- krlong014

December 19, 2010 at 7:14pm

Nari, I can't tell whether or not your comment was meant to be ironic, but if it wasn't it exhibits real ignorance on your part about the challenges that hospitals like Earl P. Long face. The idea that such institutions can just buckle down and provide better service so as to gain market share in the "free market" for medical care is frankly ridiculous. First of all, the physical plant in such places is often way out of date. Most privately insured patients today expect a private room. The only way to fix that aspect of Earl P Long is to tear the building down and rebuild. Who's going to pay for that? I'll guarantee that that hospital was originally built with a combination of private charity and public money--the lion's share coming from government--and a modern, mid-sized community hospital development--I'm thinking 200-400 beds with ICU, high-dependency nursery, cath lab, cancer care +/- cardiac surgery and neurosurgery--is going to run $200 million plus. Who is going to make that investment? Private hospital groups? I doubt it. Not with the existing hospital's track record of failing to draw paying patients. Second--and this is where the whole idea of a "market" for hospital services falls apart--hospitals cannot turn patients away even if they are unable to pay. I've never been to Baton Rouge, but I'd just about guarantee that Earl P. Long is in the middle of a poor, predominantly black neighborhood. Its emergency department is therefore the closest to a large pool of people with Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance at all, people who, as a result ot their lack of access to primary care and medications needed to control their chronic diseases as well as their higher background rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and HIV infection, utilize hospital services at higher rates that typical privately-insured populations. So when such indigent patients show up in the emergency department at Earl P Long, Earl P. Long has to take them in and treat them, even if they can and will pay nothing. The same is true at privately run hospitals in more affluent communities, of course, but indigent patients don't make it to those ERs very often. When you're sick enough to need to go to hospital, you go to the hospital closest to where you live. With the above factors at work--aging physical plan, non-paying patients--it gets a lot harder to attract the best medical staff. If I'm a doctor (I am, actually) with a fancy diploma from a top med school, why would I choose to work at a hospital where 20% of my patients won't pay me at all and for the rest I get reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid at 80% of what private insurers would pay for the same services? To a certain degree such hospitals can compensate for this recruitment problem by partnering with universities--the VA system has done this wherever it can--good doctors who are in it less for the money than the intellectual challenge can sometimes be attracted to an academic hospital even if it has a predominantly poor patient population, but this isn't always possible, and it generally doesn't attract a significantly higher number of privately insured patients even if it can be instituted. So what you have is a kind of two-tiered ghettoization of hospitals: the patients are ghettoized--poor, non-white at hospitals like Earl P Long--and the doctors too: immigrant docs from Africa and the Indian subcontinent dominate at places like EPL. In general such docs are well-trained--to work in the US, they must have done there postgraduate training at an American institution--and they are no less dedicated than American-born doctors, but having a staff directory filled with names like Subramanian, Gupta and Butuswayu doesn't do much to attract elective business from the privately insured. There are hospitals in America where less than 10% of the patients treated have insurance other than Medicare or Medicaid. The proportion of patients with no insurance at all often exceeds the privately insured. Such hospitals are almost entirely dependent on "government largesse."

- AaronW

December 19, 2010 at 7:19pm

Seattleng is wrong about this: "In return, they get very, very little back from government. Fire, police, roads, airports...the stuff needed to maintain civil order and create a society receptive for safe trade costs very little. If a wealthy person pays 45% in taxes, but "takes" only 5% of that in services, then what do you call the remaining 40%?" You've got to be kidding right? The Defense Department doesn't cost anything???? Our diplomatic efforts, which result or don't result in trade agreements, which result or don't result in war or peace, are cheap? The blood of America's children is cheap? WTF. So no - it isn't CHARITY. It's called paying a proportionate amount to help support the society that supports YOU. And - you are still wrong about the comparison between American poor people and medical care for them and redistribution of American poor people's wealth to help people in Somalia. What we can give - the world as a whole - is knowledge, food, trade - and money - but 50% of a poor American's salary won't buy anything for people in Somalia and it would bankrupt us. Helping the poor around the world is an international issue toward which we all do pay taxes and also voluntary charity. However, it's pointless unless warlords and arms dealers don't stop causing misery from which they make enormous profits. Global poverty is a complex issue and really has nothing to do with this discussion seattle so why don't you drop it and discuss the issue at hand? Again your apples/oranges comparison makes zero sense and doesn't contribute a single idea to this conversation. The only idea I get from you is that you don't think poor people should have medical care. Am I right?

- Sophia

December 20, 2010 at 12:52am

hey seattle, if you are so bothered about paying taxes I suggest you quit your job and go abroad and work in a charity. you would not survive a freaking week. you perpetual whining on behalf of the rich is inane and insane. If you compare my salary down here with what I can make in the states I am paying 70 to 80% in an effective tax rate. I do not even own a car. And screw you stating that there is a woman named Sophia in Somalia who thinks our Sophia should pay that amount, you have no damn idea what an average Somalian thinks. You are filled with such silly resentments, gspinks is right, you do not give a damn about the poor. So here is a challenge, I can give you names of plenty of organizations that can use an engineer and you can spend the next 15 years abroad and then we can talk.

- blackton

December 20, 2010 at 9:09am

Sophia, of course poor people should have medical care. That's what medicaid is for. That is what schip is for. But when you claim helping a person in Somalia would bankrupts our middle class, I'm reminded of the wall street broker's response when asked to pay more in taxes: "Do you have any idea how much private schools and an apartment in NYC costs? I cannot pay anymore in taxes. I just cannot" Either you believe in that taking from those that have a lot and giving to those that don't have a lot, or you don't. If you believe in that, then you must acknowledge that the US middle class is extremely wealthy, and they should give MUCH MUCH MUCH more to help the others in this world. As I noted, momentum is growing for this thus as the poor nations start to wonder what it would be like if everyone earning $50K per year just gave 10% of that to help them. The "warlords" you reference are merely an excuse. Every act of redistribution is fraught with waste and inefficiency. That is the nature of the beast. The US war on poverty is a perfect example of enormous waste (almost a trillion a year in spending, with hundreds of billions wasted. It would cost $70B a year to get clean water for the entire world each year (this is Lomborg's pet cause). The middle class in the US could easily pay for that, and many other programs. Should they? So, I'll ask you what must be the 10th time across multiple threads. Should those with much much more wealth help those with much much less wealth? If yes, why does that not apply to our middle class, who enjoy more wealth than 95% of the world? You really are demonstrating that this has nothing to do with helping people, and everything to do with your insatiable greed and envy, and rage towards those that have more "stuff" than you have....

- seattleeng

December 20, 2010 at 4:03pm

Blackton writes: "And screw you stating that there is a woman named Sophia in Somalia who thinks our Sophia should pay that amount, you have no damn idea what an average Somalian thinks." You might want to read what Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC said recently. They envision HUGE taxes on energy in wealthy countries, and those taxes flowing to places like Somalia. And poorer governments are licking their chops and the thought. So, yes, I do know what Sophia in Somalia is thinking. She is thinking $10/gallon gasoline would be great for Sophia in the US to pay, then $7 of each gallon could flow directly to poorer nations to help with their problems. And it wouldn't stop at petrol products. It'd include semiconductors and every electronic product imaginable, since those all have a carbon footprint. It'd include air travel. And on and on. So, get ready. There are Sophias all over this world that are scheming to find ways to tax the entire US (and EU) citizenry so that they can take from those in the US, and yes, even the middle class. Blackton, do you agree that the US middle class is wealthier than 95% of the rest of the world? Do you agree the US middle class (and wealthy) should be paying big taxes that flow to the rest of the world? This isn't hypothetical. It's happening. Right now.

- seattleeng

December 20, 2010 at 4:11pm

Sophia writes: "So no - it isn't CHARITY. It's called paying a proportionate amount to help support the society that supports YOU." Ah, so if what I pay in taxes is proportionate to my wealth, then it's OK? I agree with that. Except the wealthy are already paying more than their share of the wealth. And you want ot raise that higher, don't you? Am I right?

- seattleeng

December 20, 2010 at 4:18pm

krlong14 writes: Damn right. Somehow the rich never get to take those all-expense-paid trips to Afghanistan and Iraq the government hands out to the poor and middle class. You are aware that the top 20% of earners in this country are OVER represented in the military, aren't you? The poorest in this country are UNDER represented in the military. In other words, the top 20% are doing more than their fair share of military service. So your statement is wrong.

- seattleeng

December 20, 2010 at 5:10pm

Thank you, and well said, Sophia and Blackton.

Seattle, thank you for finally at least admitting that which you've studiously avoided saying for some time now: "the wealthy are already paying more than their share of the wealth." There really isn't much more to say; that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you've done a horrible job of defending it. Not that I think it's terribly defensible anyway, but your arguments are always either wrong or just make no sense. So just give up trying to justify yourself and admit you're a selfish git who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

- GSpinks

December 20, 2010 at 5:32pm

GSpinks writes: "There really isn't much more to say; that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you've done a horrible job of defending it. " It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The OECD studies this stuff. The top 10% in the US earn 33% of all the income, but pay 45% of the taxes. That 12% gap is more than Ireland, Italy, Australia, UK, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, France, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Belgium, etc... http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html Think about this: The top 10% in the US grab only 5-8% more wealth than Germany and France, but they pay 15-20% more in taxes. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link. dont eat the link.

- seattleeng

December 20, 2010 at 10:10pm

seattleeng: "The top 10% in the US earn 33% of all the income, but pay 45% of the taxes." So what? Do you think those who are having trouble paying essential bills and putting food on the table should pay any taxes at all? If not, then the absence of tax on lower income groups has to me made up somewhere, and it's obviously going to be at the higher end of the scale. Unless, of course, you think the middle class should be taxed more instead. No one really believes in a true flat tax, not even Steve Forbes. So what constitutes a group's "fair share" is hardly obvious. And I've seen studies that show that when all taxes are considered, our system is remarkably (and embarrassingly) flat. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/ By the way, do you believe in public education? Because if you think that those who couldn't afford the going "market rate" for eduction should get one anyway, then you're essentially in favor of subsidies that take from those with much more wealth to give to those with much less wealth.

- dsimon

December 21, 2010 at 12:42am

Dsimon writes: "So what? Do you think those who are having trouble paying essential bills and putting food on the table should pay any taxes at all?" Yes, the pain of taxes must be felt at all levels. Europe is really good at this. They tax their middle class and lower middle classes at levels that are, frankly, astounding: much much higher than the US. And this is good (and important) because it ensures the citizenry is invested in the success of government. Without it you just have people putting out a bigger hand each year, wondering why they can't have more from the government. I'm not advocating a flat tax. I'm advocating that if someone has 20% of the income, then they should pay 20% of the taxes. Our wealthy are paying much more than their share, and middle class are paying much less than their share. Europe is much more equitable in this regard. IN other words, if we adopted France or Germany or Finland or Canada's tax system, our middle class would see their effective tax rates skyrocket, and our wealthy would see their effective taxes drop. Betcha didn't know that, did you? :)

- seattleeng

December 21, 2010 at 11:00am

Seattle, see, you make much more sense when you stop trying to pretend you're not a bad person. And yes, it is your OPINION that a person's fair share of taxes is equal to their share of the income, although perhaps you need a refresher on the flat tax rate? While you're at it, you may want to research the economic theory of communism a little more in depth; then again, maybe that's the point of your hatred of social programs, they are such an economic burden on the wealthy. Am I right? Is it really that hard to just admit you hate poor people?

- GSpinks

December 21, 2010 at 2:49pm

seattleeng: "I'm not advocating a flat tax. I'm advocating that if someone has 20% of the income, then they should pay 20% of the taxes." How is that not a flat tax? Isn't that precisely what a flat tax is? If each dollar is treated the same, then someone who makes 20% of the total income will pay 20% of total taxes. "the pain of taxes must be felt at all levels." If you bother clicking on this link, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/, you'll see that's already the case when all taxes are considered. Not only are taxes felt at all levels, our system as a whole already is pretty flat. A progressive income tax is one of the few items that prevents our overall system from being regressive. I find it amazing that someone believes that households that are having problems putting food on the table should have to pay anything in income taxes. It's basically saying that even if you're working a full time job--and paying all sorts of other taxes (such as payroll taxes, which start at the first earned dollar)--your kids should go without food so that everyone feels the "pain" of income taxes too. "Our wealthy are paying much more than their share, and middle class are paying much less than their share." Again, that assumes that what constitutes "their share" is some objective fact not open for debate. You can't win an argument by assuming the result you want. But I'm starting to believe that no amount of evidence will shake you from what you seem to want to believe so badly.

- dsimon

December 21, 2010 at 11:15pm

settleeng: "Either you believe in that taking from those that have a lot and giving to those that don't have a lot, or you don't." So do you believe that people who can't afford the market price of education should have access to some kind of government program (public education or vouchers), or should they go without? If it's the former, then don't you believe in taking from those who have a lot and giving to those that don't? After all, any program is going to be funded more by those who have more since, by hypothesis, the poorest won't be able to pay for the programs on a per capita basis. So which category do you fall into?

- dsimon

December 22, 2010 at 12:09am

that's just it, dsimon. he thinks they should go without. or, and most, only receive a portion of the services equivalent to what they've contributed to the government. Of course, government is just an unnecessary burden, a parasite, whose sole purpose for existing is to take away from him what is his and give it to someone who didn't earn it; and it's just waste to have a government that taxed people only to give back what's theirs. so in his world, at the end of the day, either a person has the money to get by, or pulls themselves up by their bootstraps and makes something for themselves, and the remaining parasites can crawl off and die.

and you are correct, no amount of evidence is going to matter to him. evidence appeals to reason, but he has faith in his idea of how things should be.

the sad part is that he is (supposedly) an engineer, yet does not fully understand the difference between a fact, on which all practical science firmly rests, and an opinion.

- GSpinks

December 22, 2010 at 4:31pm

Ahh yes Seatle is still using the lame rhetorical trick of taking someone's name and imagining them in some African country, so he can make what he thinks is an unaswerable point. Pathetic. Of course his point has NOTHING to do with taxation/income distribution in this country. If he wants to argue with a member of the World Federalist Society, OK but if not it is silly. Don't bother showing him those graphs/charts. As Roid said in another thread he has a bulletproof ideal of how the world works and nothing is going to change that. Roid even busted him for using a very misleading graph with a log scale on one side to make his libretrain point. If he wants to argue the middle class should pay more, I don't necessarily disagree. But his references to Europe are misleading. He would not really want the generous social programs that benefit the poor more here because that would still mean the rich are paying more than their fair share for free-loaders The ultimate point of all this is to say the rich are getting a royal screwing in America. To believe this you would have to be blind: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/enough-is-enough-on-tax-cuts-for-wealthy/ Don't eat the link...har...har

- MikeB.

December 25, 2010 at 10:45pm

Seattle is a liar whenever he makes numerical claims, and the rest of the time an economics ignoramus. Income in the US is far more skewed to the wealthy than in any other advanced industrial economy. The top 10% now take 50% of national income, up from 33% in 1980 when libertarian nuts like seattle took control of our economy, relived only briefly under Clinton. That extra 17% of GDP, the increase in their share alone, is $2.5 trillion dollars, enough to pay the entire operating cost of the Federal government. Since they did paid taxes in 1980, that means the top 10% could pay all Federal expenses other than social security and Medicaid and still have a larger share of net income than in 1980, when the nuts took over. What do we have to show for their nuttery over the last 30 years? Slower growth, sharply rising inequality, financial fragility, and an epic economic bust. So, of course the libertarian nuts advocate more of the same with their Randian nonsense.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2013 at 12:02am

Seattle is a liar whenever he makes numerical claims, and the rest of the time an economics ignoramus. Income in the US is far more skewed to the wealthy than in any other advanced industrial economy. The top 10% now take 50% of national income, up from 33% in 1980 when libertarian nuts like seattle took control of our economy, relived only briefly under Clinton. That extra 17% of GDP, the increase in their share alone, is $2.5 trillion dollars, enough to pay the entire operating cost of the Federal government. Since they did paid taxes in 1980, that means the top 10% could pay all Federal expenses other than social security and Medicaid and still have a larger share of net income than in 1980, when the nuts took over. What do we have to show for their nuttery over the last 30 years? Slower growth, sharply rising inequality, financial fragility, and an epic economic bust. So, of course the libertarian nuts advocate more of the same with their Randian nonsense.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2013 at 12:02am