The Senate Health Care Bill
Keith Hennessey has an early analysis on the tax side of the Pinky Reid’s (D – Palookaville) behind closed doors health care train-wreck-in-the-making bill.
You can find it here and, as always, Hennessey should be taken seriously.
I think this point is especially pertinent:
Leader Reid’s bill would use new Medicare payroll taxes to finance a new health entitlement outside of Medicare. His bill would turn Medicare payroll taxes into a general financing mechanism like the income tax. There is a slippery-slope argument against this that I would normally expect from the Left. If Republicans (or my former boss) had proposed this, I would expect AARP to come unglued and raise fears among seniors that, if this proposal becomes law, future Congresses might take payroll tax revenues and use them for highways or defense or other non-social insurance spending. I am interested to see how AARP reacts. Will they support the Reid bill as they did the House bill? (Reporters: There’s a story for you. Ask AARP.)
In addition, Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes have always worked from the bottom of the wage scale upward, because they are traditionally tied to benefit eligibility. Leader Reid is now creating a “donut hole” in which there are three rate “brackets.” This initiates and lays the groundwork for the future expansion of a progressive tax rate structure for payroll taxes. This makes it easier for future lawmakers to raise payroll taxes to finance other parts of government, because they’re just “taxing the rich.” While the Reid proposal applies only to wages at the top of the distribution, the principle would be in place to justify raising payroll taxes in that $106K – $200K in the future. Watch out.
Watch out indeed.
AARP is part of the problem. They make lucrative income off of Medicare supplements and D policies, partner with UnitedHealth, and are a special interest. Screw them and the for-profit health insurance they ride in on.
Payroll taxes are regressive, and were used by Reagan as a way to finance tax breaks given the wealthy. If they become more progressive, I will not shed a tear.
You wouldn’t’ shed a tear if incomes were capped.
[...] text here, if you’re of a mind. Dave Budge discusses tax implications at Electric City [...]
Honest, Dave, you’re losing your mojo. I haven’t felt a good sling from you in weeks. At times you seem to be coming apart a bit.
Now knuckle down, come up with a good insult, lay it on me, make it hurt. You’re better than this.
Mark, for some reason I haven’t been as cranky as normal of late. Secondly, at least for now, you’re not the most stupid commenter here. But these things are dynamic.
Nah – not feeling it.
Please sir, I’ll have another!
Could we have a popcorn emoticon down here?
Thanks in advance.
Mark T. is an interesting example of Socialist confusion.
He begins his rant with “….They make lucrative income off of Medicare supplements and D policies, partner with UnitedHealth, and are a special interest….”
Then insists that more government legislation which creates even more special interest groups – the very thing that represents what he hates – would be a good thing.
Socialists are masochists. If they haven’t killed themselves with their bizzare economics, they ask for the bizarreness to accelerate.
Reid’s going for the Saturday afternoon vote.
Which means if the Bobcats lose, it’ll pass.