Everyone on Facebook has been complaining this year about how everyone else seems to be posting political stuff, and they can't wait for November 6 to pass so everyone will just shut up and go home. It's not going to happen with me. I'm political ALL the time.
Why?
A few years ago, one of my best friends came to me in tears because she couldn't get a job. She was doing okay health-wise on her medication (she has epilepsy and bipolar, which cause her to be disabled when she doesn't have her meds) but here's the kicker - she could only afford her meds if she was on MEDICAID. If she got a job (she wanted to be a phlebotomist) it would pay her just enough to lose her Medicaid benefits, but she wouldn't get good enough health insurance benefits for her to be able to afford her own medication.
Um, so I pretty much hate the Democratic party for this. (And don't get me started on why I hate the Republican party, too!) Keep everyone dependent on the government and spend lots of money so you can keep your power and control over the people? It seems to me that this follows that the goal of the Democratic party would be to make everyone poor and make everyone slaves to the party/government. YES, I understand the actual goal is social liberalism and to make sure everyone has equal rights and life is "fair" ... but ... reality? You tend to make people poor, sick, and dependent on the government. And you don't treat people equally - you pick and choose favorites. Your favorites are the poor and disadvantaged and people who make bad decisions and you want everyone else to pay for it. Great. Thanks for forcing charity on me because obviously without your mandates I wouldn't be charitable.
It makes me see how vital a role religion and charity play in society, and why although regimes fall, religion carries on. There is a sense of choice with charity, and you understand why you have the desire to help those who are struggling. When you start attaching numbers to things, that sense of charity and personal responsibility and intrinsic motivation disappears.
Ugh.
Showing posts with label political stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political stuff. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Health Insurance
So Mace had his 6-month well-check at the doctor's office this morning, and as I walked into the clinic, I thought about the other patients there.
I thought about how some people who have the most expensive medical needs are those least able to pay for it. Medical conditions can be debilitating and expensive. It made me think about how ... I don't know ... if we want our country to thrive, if we want healthy, productive people in our society, we really need to find a way to make health care affordable and accessible for all.
How could we do that? I hate Obamacare. It looks like it's set to make costs skyrocket, while attempting to get everyone equal access to health care. The free market WOULD do a great job with health care if they didn't discirminate against sick people (which they should, if they want to minimize costs and maximize profits.) But how does it make sense to PUNISH the sick people by making them pay higher premiums?
This isn't like life insurance, where they are weighing out your probability of death in the next X number of years. If you are a smoker or if your sister is bipolar or if your father died of a heart attack at 40, you DO have some kind of risk of dying. But as far as health is concerned, we're ALL at risk of SOMETHING expensive catastrophic happening to us (ie. Mace's $20k fever in May. He just had a virus, but we spent 3 days in the hospital as they pumped him full of antibiotics to make sure he didn't have meningitis or something. That sort of thing, you know, KILLS 1-month-olds.)
And with auto insurance, which everyone has to have because car accidents are EXPENSIVE (just like medical issues!), people can CHOOSE whether or not they have a car, and whether or not they drive. With health insurance, it's like, "Hm, do I want to be alive, or not?"
I've always had really good health insurance. Mark and I got married right after my freshman year at BYU and we had BYU health insurance, which was WAY WAY CHEAP (I thought it was expensive because we had no money.)
After Mark graduated and got a job, we had pretty decent health insurance through his employer. His employer's health insurance was REALLY REALLY EXPENSIVE, though, because the company was small and I think someone had cancer and his daughter had some other medical issue. So the insurance companies saw that, and saw that the company was small enough that they could charge an arm and a leg for the group's health insurance. Or something.
Then we moved to Austin, and Mark had *amazing* health insurance. Like, we-had-no-deductible health insurance. I had Mace in a hospital with an epidural and it cost us $500, but if I had done it in a birthing center it would have been FREE.
Then last month, Mark got a new job (and we moved into a house, thus I haven't written in this blog AT ALL) and I had a new experience. I got to pick out MY OWN INSURANCE PLAN. First of all, it kind of made my brain explode ... but at the same time, it was kind of neat.
Our employer would pay up to a certain amount (say, $400) of the premium, and if the plan we chose cost more than that, we'd pay the difference and it would come out of our paycheck (before taxes, woohoo!) I had about a dozen options to choose from, and then I found three plans that were similar but had different copays, deductibles, and %-after-deductible paid by the insurance companies.
I chose the one I thought would fit best for our family for the next year. Next summer, we get to pick out a health insurance plan again for the next year. Let's just say I hope not to get pregnant and have a baby this year. ;)
It got me thinking, wouldn't it be great if everyone had the opportunity to do the same thing with THEIR health insurance plans? Wouldn't it be great if everyone could be a part of some kind of "group" plan (that, as far as I know, can't really discriminate against individuals) and everyone could choose what's right for them?
It kind of sounds like a voucher system. EVERYONE would have the government pay the first $X00 of people's insurance policies (would it have to be a little more for families than for individuals?) and then we go out and pick an insurance plan we like.
The insurance companies have to charge everyone the same price for the same plan, so they better figure out how to balance their budgets and quick!!! That way, everyone has access to health insurance and health care just like Mark has through his work, only it's through the government, but the government is still letting the free market take care of individuals. Then, NOBODY needs Medicare/Medicaid because everyone has their basic insurance through the government. The very basic plan (the plan that is completely paid for by the government's subsidy) would cover basic wellness/preventative and emergency/catastrophic and prescriptions. But, seriously, let the insurance companies design the plans themselves and offer them to people. They'll find a way to do it effectively. The people will make sure of that (by not buying the crappy plans and switching the next year when they get to pick a new plan!)
This plan is about 1000x smaller than the behemoth they pushed through Congress, and encroaches on WAY fewer rights. Because people need health care to be healthy and productive, and frankly, not everyone can afford it, although our nation can afford it for them. The key is that everyone is treated equally, though ... rich and poor receive the same subsidy, but the rich can buy the fancy insurance if they want and pay the extra $1000 for it.
I thought about how some people who have the most expensive medical needs are those least able to pay for it. Medical conditions can be debilitating and expensive. It made me think about how ... I don't know ... if we want our country to thrive, if we want healthy, productive people in our society, we really need to find a way to make health care affordable and accessible for all.
How could we do that? I hate Obamacare. It looks like it's set to make costs skyrocket, while attempting to get everyone equal access to health care. The free market WOULD do a great job with health care if they didn't discirminate against sick people (which they should, if they want to minimize costs and maximize profits.) But how does it make sense to PUNISH the sick people by making them pay higher premiums?
This isn't like life insurance, where they are weighing out your probability of death in the next X number of years. If you are a smoker or if your sister is bipolar or if your father died of a heart attack at 40, you DO have some kind of risk of dying. But as far as health is concerned, we're ALL at risk of SOMETHING expensive catastrophic happening to us (ie. Mace's $20k fever in May. He just had a virus, but we spent 3 days in the hospital as they pumped him full of antibiotics to make sure he didn't have meningitis or something. That sort of thing, you know, KILLS 1-month-olds.)
And with auto insurance, which everyone has to have because car accidents are EXPENSIVE (just like medical issues!), people can CHOOSE whether or not they have a car, and whether or not they drive. With health insurance, it's like, "Hm, do I want to be alive, or not?"
I've always had really good health insurance. Mark and I got married right after my freshman year at BYU and we had BYU health insurance, which was WAY WAY CHEAP (I thought it was expensive because we had no money.)
After Mark graduated and got a job, we had pretty decent health insurance through his employer. His employer's health insurance was REALLY REALLY EXPENSIVE, though, because the company was small and I think someone had cancer and his daughter had some other medical issue. So the insurance companies saw that, and saw that the company was small enough that they could charge an arm and a leg for the group's health insurance. Or something.
Then we moved to Austin, and Mark had *amazing* health insurance. Like, we-had-no-deductible health insurance. I had Mace in a hospital with an epidural and it cost us $500, but if I had done it in a birthing center it would have been FREE.
Then last month, Mark got a new job (and we moved into a house, thus I haven't written in this blog AT ALL) and I had a new experience. I got to pick out MY OWN INSURANCE PLAN. First of all, it kind of made my brain explode ... but at the same time, it was kind of neat.
Our employer would pay up to a certain amount (say, $400) of the premium, and if the plan we chose cost more than that, we'd pay the difference and it would come out of our paycheck (before taxes, woohoo!) I had about a dozen options to choose from, and then I found three plans that were similar but had different copays, deductibles, and %-after-deductible paid by the insurance companies.
I chose the one I thought would fit best for our family for the next year. Next summer, we get to pick out a health insurance plan again for the next year. Let's just say I hope not to get pregnant and have a baby this year. ;)
It got me thinking, wouldn't it be great if everyone had the opportunity to do the same thing with THEIR health insurance plans? Wouldn't it be great if everyone could be a part of some kind of "group" plan (that, as far as I know, can't really discriminate against individuals) and everyone could choose what's right for them?
It kind of sounds like a voucher system. EVERYONE would have the government pay the first $X00 of people's insurance policies (would it have to be a little more for families than for individuals?) and then we go out and pick an insurance plan we like.
The insurance companies have to charge everyone the same price for the same plan, so they better figure out how to balance their budgets and quick!!! That way, everyone has access to health insurance and health care just like Mark has through his work, only it's through the government, but the government is still letting the free market take care of individuals. Then, NOBODY needs Medicare/Medicaid because everyone has their basic insurance through the government. The very basic plan (the plan that is completely paid for by the government's subsidy) would cover basic wellness/preventative and emergency/catastrophic and prescriptions. But, seriously, let the insurance companies design the plans themselves and offer them to people. They'll find a way to do it effectively. The people will make sure of that (by not buying the crappy plans and switching the next year when they get to pick a new plan!)
This plan is about 1000x smaller than the behemoth they pushed through Congress, and encroaches on WAY fewer rights. Because people need health care to be healthy and productive, and frankly, not everyone can afford it, although our nation can afford it for them. The key is that everyone is treated equally, though ... rich and poor receive the same subsidy, but the rich can buy the fancy insurance if they want and pay the extra $1000 for it.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
I love Canda!
Okay, I don't know everything about Canada or how their government works, or how their taxes work, or how their healthcare system works, but there are a few things I think I really like about them.
There are people on both sides of the fence when it comes to Canada's healthcare system. I admit I'm not familiar enough with it to feel strongly one way or another ("Obviously Natasha Richardson died because her skiing accident was in Canada!" ... um, sure?) But I think I personally would prefer a universal healthcare system (a single-payer system) to this behemoth Obamacare we've recently passed. It's full of great ideas, but dang, it's messy and complicated and inefficient and looks like it just sells us all out to the insurance companies who have always been able to do whatever they want with us, and will continue to be able to do so. O_o BUT THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY.
BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND: WHAT I LIKE ABOUT CANADA.
Parental leave.
It's not maternity leave, which is a special cool luxury American working moms have that makes me jealous. Granted, not all Americans get paid maternity leave, but dang. Sometimes I wish I had waited a bit longer to have kids so I could have a job, take some paid maternity leave, then quit. (Yes, my selfish inner desires are why employers hate pregnant women and are suspicious of them.) But the idea is that in Canada, you get a year off with 55% pay. Then you get to go back to your job. A year, people. Paid. And either parent could take it off. So if both spouses are working, each could take 6 months off, or Mom could take a full year off, or whatever. But if one spouse is working, then the working spouse could take the whole year off. That seems a lot less discriminatory than saying we want to give working moms all these benefits to make their lives easier. Hey, look over here, I've made sacrifices, too! Whatever happened to "all men are created equal" - why do they get special treatment and protection?
Canada's version of the "Child Tax Credit"
In the United States, we get something like a $1000 tax credit for each child. That's great and all, but Canadians get a $100 check every month for each child they have (something like that.) That adds up to $1200, by the way. ;) Anyway, like I said, I don't know how their tax system works, but that seems more straightforward than our "$1000 tax credit plus a bunch of random deductions like the child care tax credit that ONLY WORKS FOR CHILD CARE AND NOT PRESCHOOL." Again, one of those things that discriminates against stay-at-home parents. Why is it that working parents need all this help? If they need all this help, isn't that a sign that there's something wrong with what they're doing? If *parents* need help, help *all* *parents* and not just a certain subset of them that exhibit certain behaviors the government wants. It seems they want to pressure everybody into working and only having a few children. Isn't Europe kind of having a problem with its aging population...? How are MY kids supposed to support the Social Security needs of all the aging people if you're trying to stop middle-class people from having kids?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301108/empty-playground-and-welfare-state-ramesh-ponnuru << a great blog entry
Universal healthcare.
I could never write enough about this in a single entry. I don't think I could get it out in a bunch of entries. But here's the quick version: we already practically have "free" universal health care. Hospitals and doctors are required to treat their patients regardless of their ability to pay. A friend of a friend said, "Health care is totally free, as long as you don't need a good credit score and don't mind dodging a few phone calls!" Seriously, it's awful! My aunt works (worked?) for a hospital's billing department! It sounds like a nightmare job!
We have the ability to treat people and morally we should (something to do with the Hippocratic oath? or something?) and we DO and we bill people for it even if they can't afford it. It makes no sense. I got my hospital bill from having Mace and the bill made no sense. They charged the insurance company some amount, the insurance company paid them some other amount (like, 1/5 of what the hospital billed them), I paid my teensy hospital copay (I love my health insurance ... they cover 100% and I have no deductible!), and somehow we all called it good? Someone explain to me how this has ANYTHING to do with the free market. And when I came in, they asked me if I was insured or if I was paying out of pocket. Do they bill us differently? I bet they do. This makes NO SENSE.
The fact is, we don't understand anything about what healthcare costs. And there are emergencies. That's why we all have insurance, I think. And we all have copays because the insurance companies don't want us going to the doctor for FREE because then we'd go to the doctor for every little thing and A) the doctors would be overwhelmed and B) it would be freaking expensive. But it makes sense for preventative visits to be free (because insurance companies would probably rather catch something earlier than later because it would be cheaper to treat) and blah blah blah I don't think you find this interesting.
I think healthcare should be a common good because education is a common good. We want our society to be educated because that makes them more productive. We ALSO want our society to be HEALTHY because that will ALSO make us more productive. I have a friend who was "disabled" because she has bipolar and epilepsy - and without medication she is unable to function. But if she got a job, Medicaid would no longer be able to help her with her medical costs, but her job wouldn't be good enough to either A) provide medical benefits or B) pay her enough that she can care for her own health issues. THAT IS JUST WRONG.
I could go more in-depth about this, but that would probably best be left to someone who is actually an expert in the field and knows about healthcare and knows about insurance. Me? I just read stuff.
PS. I'm in love with this woman and her blog. Apparently she wrote about most of my issues years ago.
http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/category/women/
And gosh dang I wish I kept links to all of the blog entries that made me think about everything I wrote about in this entry. Oh, well. I will find more later, but the point is I need to get my thoughts out, y'know?
Coming up some day: if I ruled the world, what would it be like?
There are people on both sides of the fence when it comes to Canada's healthcare system. I admit I'm not familiar enough with it to feel strongly one way or another ("Obviously Natasha Richardson died because her skiing accident was in Canada!" ... um, sure?) But I think I personally would prefer a universal healthcare system (a single-payer system) to this behemoth Obamacare we've recently passed. It's full of great ideas, but dang, it's messy and complicated and inefficient and looks like it just sells us all out to the insurance companies who have always been able to do whatever they want with us, and will continue to be able to do so. O_o BUT THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY.
BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND: WHAT I LIKE ABOUT CANADA.
Parental leave.
It's not maternity leave, which is a special cool luxury American working moms have that makes me jealous. Granted, not all Americans get paid maternity leave, but dang. Sometimes I wish I had waited a bit longer to have kids so I could have a job, take some paid maternity leave, then quit. (Yes, my selfish inner desires are why employers hate pregnant women and are suspicious of them.) But the idea is that in Canada, you get a year off with 55% pay. Then you get to go back to your job. A year, people. Paid. And either parent could take it off. So if both spouses are working, each could take 6 months off, or Mom could take a full year off, or whatever. But if one spouse is working, then the working spouse could take the whole year off. That seems a lot less discriminatory than saying we want to give working moms all these benefits to make their lives easier. Hey, look over here, I've made sacrifices, too! Whatever happened to "all men are created equal" - why do they get special treatment and protection?
Canada's version of the "Child Tax Credit"
In the United States, we get something like a $1000 tax credit for each child. That's great and all, but Canadians get a $100 check every month for each child they have (something like that.) That adds up to $1200, by the way. ;) Anyway, like I said, I don't know how their tax system works, but that seems more straightforward than our "$1000 tax credit plus a bunch of random deductions like the child care tax credit that ONLY WORKS FOR CHILD CARE AND NOT PRESCHOOL." Again, one of those things that discriminates against stay-at-home parents. Why is it that working parents need all this help? If they need all this help, isn't that a sign that there's something wrong with what they're doing? If *parents* need help, help *all* *parents* and not just a certain subset of them that exhibit certain behaviors the government wants. It seems they want to pressure everybody into working and only having a few children. Isn't Europe kind of having a problem with its aging population...? How are MY kids supposed to support the Social Security needs of all the aging people if you're trying to stop middle-class people from having kids?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301108/empty-playground-and-welfare-state-ramesh-ponnuru << a great blog entry
Universal healthcare.
I could never write enough about this in a single entry. I don't think I could get it out in a bunch of entries. But here's the quick version: we already practically have "free" universal health care. Hospitals and doctors are required to treat their patients regardless of their ability to pay. A friend of a friend said, "Health care is totally free, as long as you don't need a good credit score and don't mind dodging a few phone calls!" Seriously, it's awful! My aunt works (worked?) for a hospital's billing department! It sounds like a nightmare job!
We have the ability to treat people and morally we should (something to do with the Hippocratic oath? or something?) and we DO and we bill people for it even if they can't afford it. It makes no sense. I got my hospital bill from having Mace and the bill made no sense. They charged the insurance company some amount, the insurance company paid them some other amount (like, 1/5 of what the hospital billed them), I paid my teensy hospital copay (I love my health insurance ... they cover 100% and I have no deductible!), and somehow we all called it good? Someone explain to me how this has ANYTHING to do with the free market. And when I came in, they asked me if I was insured or if I was paying out of pocket. Do they bill us differently? I bet they do. This makes NO SENSE.
The fact is, we don't understand anything about what healthcare costs. And there are emergencies. That's why we all have insurance, I think. And we all have copays because the insurance companies don't want us going to the doctor for FREE because then we'd go to the doctor for every little thing and A) the doctors would be overwhelmed and B) it would be freaking expensive. But it makes sense for preventative visits to be free (because insurance companies would probably rather catch something earlier than later because it would be cheaper to treat) and blah blah blah I don't think you find this interesting.
I think healthcare should be a common good because education is a common good. We want our society to be educated because that makes them more productive. We ALSO want our society to be HEALTHY because that will ALSO make us more productive. I have a friend who was "disabled" because she has bipolar and epilepsy - and without medication she is unable to function. But if she got a job, Medicaid would no longer be able to help her with her medical costs, but her job wouldn't be good enough to either A) provide medical benefits or B) pay her enough that she can care for her own health issues. THAT IS JUST WRONG.
I could go more in-depth about this, but that would probably best be left to someone who is actually an expert in the field and knows about healthcare and knows about insurance. Me? I just read stuff.
PS. I'm in love with this woman and her blog. Apparently she wrote about most of my issues years ago.
http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/category/women/
And gosh dang I wish I kept links to all of the blog entries that made me think about everything I wrote about in this entry. Oh, well. I will find more later, but the point is I need to get my thoughts out, y'know?
Coming up some day: if I ruled the world, what would it be like?
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Reservations about the Fair Tax
Oh snap! This was supposed to post weeks ago but somehow it never made it out of my drafts!! (August 27, 2012)
Okay, quick revert back to the Fair Tax.
I have a few reservations about it, because of the sorts of things that would be taxed. The whole deal about the Fair Tax is that "everything" is taxed ... except for education. One of the FAQ's asks, "Why not just exempt necessities, like food and medicine?" The problem is, that would open the floodgates for lobbyists and special interests to come in and be like, "Give me special treatment!" ... and isn't that what the whole problem is with our current tax system anyway?
(When I rule the world, all lobbyists will be fired. and if they don't go home, I will line them up and shoot them. I hate lobbyists and special interests. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist)
I mean, check it out:
It will make you crazy!
Random thought I just had: What qualifies as "education"? Would preschool count, or is it just like public kindergarten through college (or trade school, or whatever post-secondary training you want)?
Anyway. The Fair Tax also taxes RENT and HEALTH CARE. So ... you'd be paying tax on that $30,000 surgery. And then with the way insurance companies currently are, are you paying tax on what the hospital bills you, or what the insurance companies pay, or what? More about that in a second, I promise.
No, just kidding. I just wanted to say this wouldn't work because in my world, the bulk of health care would be a public good, not a private one. So maybe just the privately-run health care businesses would need to tax. I figure the basic government health care wouldn't be the best, so people can pay for fancier health care just like we pay for fancier private schools.
Back to rent.
It seems kind of crazy to tax rent because it would tack on $300 to a $1000 rent. (A 23% inclusive tax comes out to a 30% exclusive tax. I wasn't 100% positive of that when I wrote my previous entry because I couldn't remember the source I got it from so I didn't write the 30% number.) And I am renting our house in American Fork out to our friends, and it's confusing enough filling out the income tax forms on it. No, wait, scratch that, I think it's probably more complicated NOW calculating income and expenses and doing my income tax returns than it would be to figure out how to pay the sales tax to the government. But how would they even keep track of ME renting out MY place to my friends because we can't afford to sell our house ...? Fair Tax talks about how it gets rid of tax evasion problems (and oh yes it does, oh Fair Tax, how I love you and your simplicity) ... but ... like ... I don't know.
I guess I feel more comfortable about them taxing rent because you DO get to take your entire paycheck home. Your. Entire. Paycheck. Can you imagine?!?! And you get the prebate every month, so as your family gets bigger and you need a bigger place, you get a bigger prebate that covers more of your housing costs.
The Fair Tax also charges tax on interest. Currently, so much of our economy is based on borrowing (which, in case you don't remember, is a really bad idea, according to the prophets.) So a lot of people will be irritated that they're paying taxes on interest. But again - at the end of the day, is that such a bad idea? Maybe people will learn how to live within their means again!
Some people also complain that the FairTax isn't progressive enough, because the top 1% derive most of their income from capital gains, and that money is reinvested into the economy and isn't spent on new goods and services. But ... why are we taxing people for making money they're not spending anyway ...? A friend once asked me, "If the money's ultimately going to be spent somewhere anyway, does it really matter when it's taxed?" I think the answer is yes, and the two words I think that best describe it are: compound interest.
Also, this is a problem I have with both the Fair Tax our current income tax system: Cost of living is different from city to city. So for someone in New York City to have the same prebate as someone with the same size family in Mississippi ... the money just wouldn't go as far. So I would think that local governments would have to determine poverty levels or prebate levels for families of different sizes, and NOT have it be a blanket federal number applied to the whole nation.
I believe more local(ized?) governments are more effective than the federal government. If only our government was set up a bit more like our Church leadership, huh?
Anyway, all in all, I think the Fair Tax is a pretty good idea, and a pretty fair idea (even though it "doesn't tax the rich enough"). I don't like lobbyists in Washington and I don't like how the government works so hard to influence people's personal decisions. Both the Democrats and Republicans do it in different facets of our lives ... and that's why I'm a Libertarian.
Have you heard of the great Libertarian conspiracy? They want to take over the government, then leave you alone.
Okay, quick revert back to the Fair Tax.
I have a few reservations about it, because of the sorts of things that would be taxed. The whole deal about the Fair Tax is that "everything" is taxed ... except for education. One of the FAQ's asks, "Why not just exempt necessities, like food and medicine?" The problem is, that would open the floodgates for lobbyists and special interests to come in and be like, "Give me special treatment!" ... and isn't that what the whole problem is with our current tax system anyway?
(When I rule the world, all lobbyists will be fired. and if they don't go home, I will line them up and shoot them. I hate lobbyists and special interests. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist)
I mean, check it out:
Random thought I just had: What qualifies as "education"? Would preschool count, or is it just like public kindergarten through college (or trade school, or whatever post-secondary training you want)?
Anyway. The Fair Tax also taxes RENT and HEALTH CARE. So ... you'd be paying tax on that $30,000 surgery. And then with the way insurance companies currently are, are you paying tax on what the hospital bills you, or what the insurance companies pay, or what? More about that in a second, I promise.
No, just kidding. I just wanted to say this wouldn't work because in my world, the bulk of health care would be a public good, not a private one. So maybe just the privately-run health care businesses would need to tax. I figure the basic government health care wouldn't be the best, so people can pay for fancier health care just like we pay for fancier private schools.
Back to rent.
It seems kind of crazy to tax rent because it would tack on $300 to a $1000 rent. (A 23% inclusive tax comes out to a 30% exclusive tax. I wasn't 100% positive of that when I wrote my previous entry because I couldn't remember the source I got it from so I didn't write the 30% number.) And I am renting our house in American Fork out to our friends, and it's confusing enough filling out the income tax forms on it. No, wait, scratch that, I think it's probably more complicated NOW calculating income and expenses and doing my income tax returns than it would be to figure out how to pay the sales tax to the government. But how would they even keep track of ME renting out MY place to my friends because we can't afford to sell our house ...? Fair Tax talks about how it gets rid of tax evasion problems (and oh yes it does, oh Fair Tax, how I love you and your simplicity) ... but ... like ... I don't know.
I guess I feel more comfortable about them taxing rent because you DO get to take your entire paycheck home. Your. Entire. Paycheck. Can you imagine?!?! And you get the prebate every month, so as your family gets bigger and you need a bigger place, you get a bigger prebate that covers more of your housing costs.
The Fair Tax also charges tax on interest. Currently, so much of our economy is based on borrowing (which, in case you don't remember, is a really bad idea, according to the prophets.) So a lot of people will be irritated that they're paying taxes on interest. But again - at the end of the day, is that such a bad idea? Maybe people will learn how to live within their means again!
Some people also complain that the FairTax isn't progressive enough, because the top 1% derive most of their income from capital gains, and that money is reinvested into the economy and isn't spent on new goods and services. But ... why are we taxing people for making money they're not spending anyway ...? A friend once asked me, "If the money's ultimately going to be spent somewhere anyway, does it really matter when it's taxed?" I think the answer is yes, and the two words I think that best describe it are: compound interest.
Also, this is a problem I have with both the Fair Tax our current income tax system: Cost of living is different from city to city. So for someone in New York City to have the same prebate as someone with the same size family in Mississippi ... the money just wouldn't go as far. So I would think that local governments would have to determine poverty levels or prebate levels for families of different sizes, and NOT have it be a blanket federal number applied to the whole nation.
I believe more local(ized?) governments are more effective than the federal government. If only our government was set up a bit more like our Church leadership, huh?
Anyway, all in all, I think the Fair Tax is a pretty good idea, and a pretty fair idea (even though it "doesn't tax the rich enough"). I don't like lobbyists in Washington and I don't like how the government works so hard to influence people's personal decisions. Both the Democrats and Republicans do it in different facets of our lives ... and that's why I'm a Libertarian.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
I love the Fair Tax!
Okay, so there's this thing I love. It's called the FairTax. Basically, imagine this:
There's no income tax. There's no corporate income tax. There's no IRS. There's no April 15.
What there IS, is a 23% federal sales tax on consumption of new goods. That means, you go to the store and buy something, you pay 23% tax. You get a haircut, you pay 23% tax. You buy a new car (or a new house!), you pay 23% tax. You buy something from a consignment shop. No tax. You buy a used car. No tax. (Well, no federal sales tax.) But guess what? You get to take your WHOLE PAYCHECK HOME.
But our current tax system is "progressive," you say! I put "progressive" in quotes, because now that I think about it, the 15% investment income tax rate makes it so that people who make most of their money from investments (ie. those super-rich investors the 99% are complaining about) end up paying at a lower income tax rate than those who make their money doing physical work. And most people who have so much money to invest hire someone else to do the investing so it's not like they're doing much work to earn those dividends, right? Investing IS valuable and important to the economy (when people want to start up a business they need capital) but is it really worth giving these people special income tax treatment?
Oh boy, sorry, I really don't actually want to get into that conversation right now. Ahem.
Progressive taxes ... the idea that those who have less pay less in taxes because they need more of their income, and those who have more can afford to give more in taxes because they can provide for their own basic needs and then some. So supposedly there are people below the poverty level who pay no tax (or negative tax), and then there are people in varying tax brackets who pay the same percent in tax up to a certain level of income, then a higher percent of tax for the next level of income, then when you make a ton of money you're supposed to give up even MORE of that in taxes ... So the marginal returns you get as you make more money get smaller because more of it gets eaten up in taxes. Something like that. In theory. And if you are married and have to provide for your family (spouse, kids, etc) then you get to claim these exemptions and stuff so you get to keep more of your money. Because, let's face it, if you earn the same amount of money as another guy but you have 2 more kids, if you both pay the same amount in taxes, you're going to have less disposable income because you have to feed, clothe, and house your kids.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks
The FairTax works out being "progressive" because it looks at a whole household and estimates the amount of money they'll need to provide for the basics (ie. what's the poverty level for a given household size?) Then every household gets a "prebate" check from the government to cover their basic expenses. So if you spend money at the poverty level, your prebate check equals your sales tax. If you spend more than that, it's like you pay a little bit of "income tax" (spending/consumption tax) ... up to a limit of 23%. So if you're a millionaire and you spend a million bucks on new goods, the amount of sales tax you pay is gonna be WAAAAY over that little prebate you got and your effective tax rate will be 22.9999999%.
Your household is determined by the number of people who live in your house with valid social security numbers. THAT'S IT.
The nice thing about this is that it taxes everybody so it makes it hard for people to evade taxes. You know, illegals getting paid cash under the table don't pay income taxes. But here, if they don't have a valid social security number, not only do they NOT get a prebate, they also have to pay federal sales tax on the new stuff they buy! Booya! That would encourage people to gain citizenship, wouldn't it? This also solves one of the same-sex marriage problems. It doesn't discriminate according to marital status. It gets the government out of married, so homosexual couples can have the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples ... and, hey, polygamists too and people who just want to live together. Why not? It's just taxes.
Anyway. You might want to check it out.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs
Chew on it for a while. It sounds totally weird at first, but it might just grow on you.
Gary Johnson 2012!
I can no longer deny that I am a libertarian.
(There will be a future post about some of my reservations about the fair tax ... but that would be too overwhelming in one post. This post is too long already.)
There's no income tax. There's no corporate income tax. There's no IRS. There's no April 15.
What there IS, is a 23% federal sales tax on consumption of new goods. That means, you go to the store and buy something, you pay 23% tax. You get a haircut, you pay 23% tax. You buy a new car (or a new house!), you pay 23% tax. You buy something from a consignment shop. No tax. You buy a used car. No tax. (Well, no federal sales tax.) But guess what? You get to take your WHOLE PAYCHECK HOME.
But our current tax system is "progressive," you say! I put "progressive" in quotes, because now that I think about it, the 15% investment income tax rate makes it so that people who make most of their money from investments (ie. those super-rich investors the 99% are complaining about) end up paying at a lower income tax rate than those who make their money doing physical work. And most people who have so much money to invest hire someone else to do the investing so it's not like they're doing much work to earn those dividends, right? Investing IS valuable and important to the economy (when people want to start up a business they need capital) but is it really worth giving these people special income tax treatment?
Oh boy, sorry, I really don't actually want to get into that conversation right now. Ahem.
Progressive taxes ... the idea that those who have less pay less in taxes because they need more of their income, and those who have more can afford to give more in taxes because they can provide for their own basic needs and then some. So supposedly there are people below the poverty level who pay no tax (or negative tax), and then there are people in varying tax brackets who pay the same percent in tax up to a certain level of income, then a higher percent of tax for the next level of income, then when you make a ton of money you're supposed to give up even MORE of that in taxes ... So the marginal returns you get as you make more money get smaller because more of it gets eaten up in taxes. Something like that. In theory. And if you are married and have to provide for your family (spouse, kids, etc) then you get to claim these exemptions and stuff so you get to keep more of your money. Because, let's face it, if you earn the same amount of money as another guy but you have 2 more kids, if you both pay the same amount in taxes, you're going to have less disposable income because you have to feed, clothe, and house your kids.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks
The FairTax works out being "progressive" because it looks at a whole household and estimates the amount of money they'll need to provide for the basics (ie. what's the poverty level for a given household size?) Then every household gets a "prebate" check from the government to cover their basic expenses. So if you spend money at the poverty level, your prebate check equals your sales tax. If you spend more than that, it's like you pay a little bit of "income tax" (spending/consumption tax) ... up to a limit of 23%. So if you're a millionaire and you spend a million bucks on new goods, the amount of sales tax you pay is gonna be WAAAAY over that little prebate you got and your effective tax rate will be 22.9999999%.
Your household is determined by the number of people who live in your house with valid social security numbers. THAT'S IT.
The nice thing about this is that it taxes everybody so it makes it hard for people to evade taxes. You know, illegals getting paid cash under the table don't pay income taxes. But here, if they don't have a valid social security number, not only do they NOT get a prebate, they also have to pay federal sales tax on the new stuff they buy! Booya! That would encourage people to gain citizenship, wouldn't it? This also solves one of the same-sex marriage problems. It doesn't discriminate according to marital status. It gets the government out of married, so homosexual couples can have the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples ... and, hey, polygamists too and people who just want to live together. Why not? It's just taxes.
Anyway. You might want to check it out.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs
Chew on it for a while. It sounds totally weird at first, but it might just grow on you.
Gary Johnson 2012!
I can no longer deny that I am a libertarian.
(There will be a future post about some of my reservations about the fair tax ... but that would be too overwhelming in one post. This post is too long already.)
Monday, May 2, 2011
Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!
In case you missed it, they found Osama bin Laden yesterday and killed him.
Favorite quotes from my friends' Facebook feeds last night:
"A prince gets married, the bad guy is dead. It's a real Disney weekend."
"R.I.P Osama Bin Laden - World Hide And Go Seek Champion (2001 - 2011)"
"I think Obama is postponing his statement on purpose so he can air instead of Trump and The Apprentice :) Sneaky comeback."
"BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump demands Bin Laden death certificate. ;)"
{Kamis's own personal thought: Obama killed bin Laden about as much as Al Gore invented the Internet. It doesn't make this any less cute, though. ;) }
"Osama is dead. Praise Allah... oh wait."
"somewhat disappointed that it wasn't an alien invasion"
"Bin Laden's last spiteful act against the United States: giving up the ghost on Obama's watch to get him reelected."
"Carmen Sandiego, Waldo, and Osama bin Laden in epic hide & seek showdown - WHO WOULD WIN?"
"With Bin Laden dead, who am I supposed to hate? I feel aimless. This is like when the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004."
"Fun fact: 66 years ago today, Hitler was confirmed dead."
"Was watching Return of the Jedi with Zacky, when Emperor is dropped, then the twitter feed of the Osama news came. Good things happen when you watch Star Wars."
Obviously, this isn't the end of terrorism by any means, but it is a good day in the world. It's good to find a reason to celebrate. :)
Favorite quotes from my friends' Facebook feeds last night:
"A prince gets married, the bad guy is dead. It's a real Disney weekend."
"R.I.P Osama Bin Laden - World Hide And Go Seek Champion (2001 - 2011)"
"I think Obama is postponing his statement on purpose so he can air instead of Trump and The Apprentice :) Sneaky comeback."
"BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump demands Bin Laden death certificate. ;)"
"Osama is dead. Praise Allah... oh wait."
"somewhat disappointed that it wasn't an alien invasion"
"Bin Laden's last spiteful act against the United States: giving up the ghost on Obama's watch to get him reelected."
"Carmen Sandiego, Waldo, and Osama bin Laden in epic hide & seek showdown - WHO WOULD WIN?"
"With Bin Laden dead, who am I supposed to hate? I feel aimless. This is like when the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004."
"Fun fact: 66 years ago today, Hitler was confirmed dead."
"Was watching Return of the Jedi with Zacky, when Emperor is dropped, then the twitter feed of the Osama news came. Good things happen when you watch Star Wars."
Obviously, this isn't the end of terrorism by any means, but it is a good day in the world. It's good to find a reason to celebrate. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)