The Democrats could pay for much of the health care bill by taxing people who make a million dollars a year in income. Or, they could pay for much of it by taxing so-called ‘Cadillac’ health care plans that cost way over the national average. Never mind that Cadillac’s General Motors recently went bankrupt, the name is still supposed to have some caché. And the auto workers who build those Cadillacs have Cadillac health care plans because they negotiated for them in lieu of pay raises. Labor hates the idea of seeing those plans taxed so that millionaires can keep their money.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) announced Friday he’s collected more than 100 signatures on a letter to Pelosi asking her not to support the tax on health plans. The tax on benefits, he said, violates Obama’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.
“It shifts the burden of who’s really going to pay to those making below $250,000,” Courtney said.
It’s counterintuitive that a representative from our richest state, Connecticut, is leading the charge to protect Labor and stick it to the investment bankers. So, make a mental note: Joe Courtney is one of the good guys. Not so for freshman Jared Polis of Boulder, Colorado. He may be popular to some because he is one of the very few openly gay members of Congress, but he’s not looking out for the little guy.
None of the three versions of the healthcare bill passed by committees in July include the tax on benefits. Pelosi and most House leaders have long backed an income surtax on the wealthy to pay for the portion of the bill not funded by “squeezing the savings” out of the Medicare system.
But the surtax is unpopular among many business-minded New Democrats, centrist Blue Dogs and freshman facing their first re-election test next year.
As soon as the surtax plan was unveiled in July, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a New Democrat from a wealthy district, led the charge against the tax. He circulated a letter with the signatures of 20 fellow freshman protesting the burden it would place on small businesses.
We talk a lot about the schism between the progressives and the Blue Dogs, but this is a schism between the suburbanites and the blue collars. We have been winning lots of traditionally Republican suburban districts lately. We’ve been winning because the Republican Party has become too Southern and too culturally conservative to represent northern and coastal suburban voters’ values. But that doesn’t mean that affluent people have ceased being tax-averse. Obama pledged to raise taxes only on people making over a quarter of a million dollars a year because he wanted to win those suburban districts. Ironically, the Dems that represent those districts now want him to tax people making less than that to protect the many millionaires in their districts.
Go figure. Most Blue Dogs oppose a public option even though it is the best solution for the budget. Many New Dems oppose a surtax on the wealthy, even though it will protect the vast majority of their constituents from seeing a tax-hike.
This is probably the first time I’ve seen the progressives take a position that is not only in the interest of the poor, but also the best position for budget hawks and the tax-averse. The public option with a surtax on millionaires is the best policy for the entire Democratic Party, across every constituency and every district. I think, ultimately, that is why we will succeed. But, we might not get everything we want in the first pass. That doesn’t worry me too much, though, because the logic is on our side. And, when it comes to the budget, logic actually does prevail in the end. Money is found where it causes the least amount of political pain. We’re fortunate to have logic on our side for once.
on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions?
Never mind those, what about the yearly operating costs of all the US military bases in Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Philippines, Kuwait, …
Or the yearly cost of the war on some drugs? Or the US (private for-profit) prison system?
There are a lot of things that could be cut to fund health care.
To say nothing of agribiz subsidies, corporate tax loopholes, new highway construction, fossil fuel subsidies, and a whole long list of goodies for the haves. And of course the prime of primes, the Bush/Reagan tax cuts. I wish I believed the Dems would find the guts to overhaul the entire tax system from scratch, as is desperately needed. But that would require deep electoral reform first. Which would require tax reform….
Or the fact that a strong public option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates saves nearly $10,000,000,000 annually and going all in on single payer means many times more saved each year. That the present system is hopelessly inefficient and costly is well known so the only reason for concern about “how are we to pay for all this?” is if real reform isn’t intended. If that’s the case then the cost of millions more participating in this existing broken down system has to be found somewhere.
Wait a minute, Mu, those bases in Europe have some of he finest gold courses in the entire network of US bases. You wouldn’t want our officer corps to experience depression, would you? My God, what would happen to morale if our generals couldn’t get their golf games in?
I think we must keep our priorities straight and what is more important, national health and welfare or maintaining the privileges of the privileged class?
Tax increases on Wall Street would be nice. A pennies-per-share add-on & a per-trade surcharge could rake in millions. The per-trade tax would have the added benefit of attacking Wall Street at one of it’s best money-makers: high-speed trading that many firms use to get ahead.
Better would be to remove the deliberate loopholes which allow Goldman Sachs et al to have their trading profits taxed as capital gains. Even better, eliminate the preferential taxation of capital gains altogether.
Not all together. Say you buy stock in 1970 for $50 and now you sell it for $70. You have no real gain. The cost-basis should be adjusted for inflation and you pay tax on the real gain at the same rate as salary. Most capital gains would be taxed higher, some lower, some would not be taxed at all as in my example.
But there is no justification for a flat 15% rate, except Reaganomic theory.
I almost mentioned how capital gains are taxed in the U.K. as a good example because over there they use an inflation index provided by Inland Revenue to eliminate inflation related gains. I was obviously wrong to think the impact of inflation was too ‘technical’ for this forum. It’s nice to know there are readers out there who can actually read these comments and reach logical conclusions about their strengths and weaknesses.
Good to know that somewhere there is a sane government. I regard our present government as schizophrenic, while conceding that is an improvement over the last administration which was totally delusional.
Don’t be afraid to be too technical. If we don’t understand, we’ll ask. And ask politely, this isn’t MyDD.
if it is true that both employers and labor are opposed to the decoupling health insurance from the workplace, it might just be time to start looking for a new party!
The scuttlebutt is that they would tax plans that had no deductibles, health spa coverage…valued over $30,000 a year today. How is that “middle class?” THis is another banker lobby.
The rate was raised in the Finance bill, but here’s some analysis.
$21,000 total premium for family coverage must be skating on the line for many, very many, white collar employees of fortune 500 firms and I would venture to say most blue-collar workers belonging to big unions like the UAW and the USW.
My parents are life-long Dems that have excellent health care through BC/BS of MN since they work for the state. Any attempt to tax their plans would pretty much end their support for anything Obama.
Polis is a big disappointment. I don’t get it. His district is liberal.