Administrator/owner: John (Dragonslayer) Administrator: Melinda (mig) WebAdmin: Timo (Timo) Administrator: Brad (wolverinefan)
· Tim (Dotyisle)
· Chelsea (Kiwi)
· Megan (Megan)
· Wendy (WendyR)
· John (Cheerful)
· Chris (fyrfytr187)
If you want to use this QR code (Quick Response code) just save the image and paste it where you want. You can even print it and use it that way. Coffee cups, T-Shirts etc would all be good for the QR code.
Why not implement a federal sales tax on all goods (tax everything, including food, clothing, and other necessities) of up to 1%, so that everybody can help bear the burden of the cost of universal health care?
A federal tax, hmm. In addition to what the individual states collect? (There currently isn't a federal sales tax on goods and services, except as I understand it for things like gasoline)
Originally Posted By: Jaybird
I previously said that a payroll tax would be better than a tax on individuals, and I still think that for the most part, but I wonder if this is a more effective way of paying for universal health care. I don't see it proper than any one group (e.g. wealthy...and, no, I'm nowhere near wealthy or will never see anything close to great wealth in my life unless I hit the lottery) should bear the majority of financial burden to subsidize health care for the entire country. Under a national sales tax, everybody contributes.
I don't think this would fly very well. If it's not adjusted for income, it would end up being more of a burden to poor people than the wealthy-
that same dollar in taxation that a poor person would pay for buying a food or a TV set, would be a larger percentage of their income
and then there's the effect that raising the price of goods & services would have on reducing our economy, higher prices means less purchases, when times are tough, people hold on to what money they have, part of the justification for the various stimulus packages, to get the money flowing again
One of the rationales behind the health care reform is that it is NOT supposed to actually end up costing more money in the long run, that the increase in productivity from having people be healthier, reducing costs by collectively bargaining with the health care companies, decreasing the costs of goods & services by lowering what both individuals and companies spend on HC, and thus compete better globally.
I know we all have doubts about that, especially as the HC companies re-direct their attention from their first goal of stopping any reform outright, to now concentrating on using their influence to weaken the proposals...
Originally Posted By: Jaybird
It will be interesting to see what twists and turns this debate takes after Thanksgiving. Personally, I think the do-nothings should be working in D.C. through Wednesday instead of going home and already start their holiday. Hopefully they will a lot of time (and receive earfuls of feedback) from some of their constituents.
right now, a strategy to reduce the impact of HC reform, is just to cause delays, using any means possible, in the hope that it will weaken it, more compromises will be made so that the people who are for it will negotiate, just so that they can get SOMETHING passed, because to not do so, would make them look like failures, reduce their chances for re-election in 2010...