Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[DanaC]

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.

So you think income tax should be 4%? Really?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

I love you. :p That reasoning is WHY we have a graduating tax system in this country. But people who want everyone to pay exactly the same are usually people with higher incomes. And they make that argument, even though they pay much less taxes than they used to. The tax burden has increasingly shifted over time to the middle class and upper middle class.