I suspect that number is low. Considering the US spends 18% of GDP on health care and that the civilized world spends about 12% of GDP on health care with equal or better results, it seems pretty clear that the inefficiencies in our 'capitalist' health care system compared to the 'socialist' health care systems in the civilized world is enormous.

Now as to income tax, this country can't stand when about half its citizens don't pay a dime. They get too fat and demand far too much spending, because it doesn't cost them a dime. They need to pay something.

Seems I'm not alone is this thought ... [yes it is faux, so go to the survey not the messenger if you must]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/fox-news-poll-7-percent-say-all-americans-should-pay-income-taxes/

Fox News poll: 79 percent say all Americans should pay income taxes

By Dana Blanton

Published September 27, 2012


A large majority of likely voters believes all Americans should pay some federal income tax -- even if it is as little as one percent of what they make.

Seventy-nine percent say everyone should pay something, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.

...
The poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R).

---

Gary, I understand -- of course with the ACA now defined as including a tax, that number of 'non-payers' (who actually pay other taxes at a higher rate of income -- FICA, sales tax, etc.) than the 53%, might increase.

I noted before, a floor amount of say $100 on the first $10K of wages, regardless of deductions -- I've no problem with that.

As I've also noted, if folks in the '53%' -- particularly the decision making 1% to 5% want a higher proportion paying taxes, all they need do is provide higher wages.

Gary, to get back toward the source topic, Romney, who pushed for the mandate in Massachusetts in part to reduce ER traffic by those without insurance (which he decried as not cost effective use of resources), has now stated as part of his 'repeal the ACA' -- that folks would thus become 'uncovered' could use the ER.

I wish the folks pulling Romney's puppet strings could keep their story straight.

Gary, to get back toward the source topic, Romney, who pushed for the mandate in Massachusetts in part to reduce ER traffic by those without insurance (which he decried as not cost effective use of resources), has now stated as part of his 'repeal the ACA' -- that folks would thus become 'uncovered' could use the ER.

I wish the folks pulling Romney's puppet strings could keep their story straight.

Hmmm. In the past 1-2 weeks, I could swear I heard *him* say that, in the repeal, he'd *replace* it with something better, but it would *retain* the "best parts of" the ACA. In this version of the story, then, Federal Government still imposes health insurance of some kind. This rather than the states, localities or individuals.

Sarge, to *replace* ACA he'd need Congress. The Teapublican House hasn't even *met* regarding replacement discussions. You can't simply kill off pieces of the bill (absent the 5-4 Supreme legislature) -- it would be an either/or. If you kill it off, there would need to be new legislation. The thing is, (if one elects to be rational -- which means one can't be an elected Teapublican), if you include the pieces folks like -- that increases the costs for those who would *elect* to have coverage. The 'trick' with the mandate (which Romney approved of before he didn't approve -- what is it with Massachusetts politicians), was that it compelled broad insurance coverage -- which paid off the insurance companies with new victims (ah er new insured people). Then again, one reason that Massachusetts got away with compulsory insurance is that prior to the Romneycare bill, a much larger proportion of the population there was already covered.

Gary, to get back toward the source topic, Romney, who pushed for the mandate in Massachusetts in part to reduce ER traffic by those without insurance (which he decried as not cost effective use of resources), has now stated as part of his 'repeal the ACA' -- that folks would thus become 'uncovered' could use the ER.

I wish the folks pulling Romney's puppet strings could keep their story straight.

Hmmm. In the past 1-2 weeks, I could swear I heard *him* say that, in the repeal, he'd *replace* it with something better, but it would *retain* the "best parts of" the ACA. In this version of the story, then, Federal Government still imposes health insurance of some kind. This rather than the states, localities or individuals.

Sarge, he'll say whatever he thinks is expedient. At least he isn't an ideologue just merely a plutocrat. Then again he appears to ideologically adamant about the merits of a plutocracy.

---

Now as to income tax, this country can't stand when about half its citizens don't pay a dime. They get too fat and demand far too much spending, because it doesn't cost them a dime. They need to pay something.

Seems I'm not alone is this thought ... [yes it is faux, so go to the survey not the messenger if you must]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/fox-news-poll-7-percent-say-all-americans-should-pay-income-taxes/

If the poll had the following at the top, do you think any of the voters may have selected a different response?

At least one of the Founding Fathers supported progressive taxation, including a 0% rate group:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

source

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I am at a loss to understand the reasoning of some people.

1, They want less government officials.
2, They want everyone to pay federal income tax.
3, They want less social payments.

Surely these ideals are in no small part mutually exclusive.

If everyone pays income tax, then there will probably need to be more tax collectors.
If everyone pays income tax, then the poor will be poorer, and more people will be included in the poor bracket.
If the poor are poorer and there are now more poor people, then there will be a need for greater welfare payments or benefits.
If there is a need for greater welfare payments and benefits, then there will need to be more government officials to process the paperwork, check the claims, make the payments and to police fraud.

So by taxing the poor, it will increase the size of government, create more poor and increase social spending. ummmm logical? I'm not convinced.

Winter, it is a carrot and stick thing. If you want a well to do population reward the well off and penalize the less well off, that will create a greater incentive to be well off. Plutocrats think that way. The idea is that "The beatings shall continue until morale improves."

---

Winter -- here's the deal, if the poor get poorer and are (of course) denied any health care coverage at all, the problem will solve itself by higher mortality rates for the poor. You just need to understand oligarchies better. <sigh>

Bobby, conflating ad valorem (property) tax with income tax, which did not exist when Jefferson wrote that, is a very interesting position.

---

But that might backfire, the poor might rebel, and as the US has very few restrictions on firearms, it could end up with serious problems.

Which would mean a large increase in the police and/or the national guard which would further increase government spending. Which would probably greater than first thought because they would need full military protection clothing and weapons more powerful that the AK47's and AR16's which the mobs have all obtained and converted fairly easily to full auto.

This of course would cause Canada and the UK, with some help from Aus and NZ, to intervene to protect the innocent, but in doing so would allow them to reclaim all US territory as their own.

Then we tax you to the hilt as reporations for the income we lost due to the first teaparty. LOL.

Gary, I understand -- of course with the ACA now defined as including a tax, that number of 'non-payers' (who actually pay other taxes at a higher rate of income -- FICA, sales tax, etc.) than the 53%, might increase.

If we are going to suddenly drag in a whole host of other taxes when the federal income tax was the sole one being discussed, then lets start with what proportion of the total federal tax collection comes from the income tax. Then for those 53%ers lets add in all the other taxes they pay. Oh, wait, can't do that, it would weaken the argument that they are underpaying their taxes.

I noted before, a floor amount of say $100 on the first $10K of wages, regardless of deductions -- I've no problem with that.

Nor I. In fact I'll go a bit more liberal. If they earn so little, the top rate they pay is the same as the top rate anyone pays up to the $100 floor. Example, they earn $200 for the year. Multiply by the top rate of 35% and they owe $70. Example, they earn $1000 for the year. Multiply by the 35% rate and get $350, but that is over the floor of $100 so they pay $100. Example, they earn $20,000. Work out the regular taxes and the larger of $100 or their regular taxes is what they owe.

The other thing I would like to see is people actually having to cut that $100 check on April 15. Give everyone a little stinger. Make them understand Government isn't free. And by everyone I mean everyone, even those who will be getting a refund check later.

As I've also noted, if folks in the '53%' -- particularly the decision making 1% to 5% want a higher proportion paying taxes, all they need do is provide higher wages.

Make something other than the fiduciary duty to the shareholder the primary duty. Of course that flies in the face of Citizens United.

---

Bobby, conflating ad valorem (property) tax with income tax, which did not exist when Jefferson wrote that, is a very interesting position.

Indeed, though clearly Jefferson agreed with the principle of progressive taxation when applied to the taxes that were collected in his era, and to find a comment from him, or any of the Founding Fathers, dealing directly with income taxes, might be a little difficult.

To put it another way, given the quote, what do you believe Jefferson would think of income taxes that result in persons earning $1billion p.a. paying a lower rate than those earning less than $200,000 in the same period?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby, conflating ad valorem (property) tax with income tax, which did not exist when Jefferson wrote that, is a very interesting position.

Indeed, though clearly Jefferson agreed with the principle of progressive taxation when applied to the taxes that were collected in his era, and to find a comment from him, or any of the Founding Fathers, dealing directly with income taxes, might be a little difficult.

To put it another way, given the quote, what do you believe Jefferson would think of income taxes that result in persons earning $1billion p.a. paying a lower rate than those earning less than $200,000 in the same period?

I'm not a Jeffersonian scholar nor do I pretend to be one. But, if I must, he couldn't comprehend how the Federal Government could have inflated the dollar so that any person could earn $1billion.

Why don't you ask a more germane question? Such as would he disagree with any of the categories of deductions.

---

Gary, the same question applies to earning a coupe of million.

---

Gary, maybe Jefferson just wanted to see Washington taxed for all his real estate wealth <smile>.

Gary, regarding taking in all those other taxes -- that's a fair point aside from the seeming attitude held by many Republicans which disregards those taxes entirely.

By the way, regarding the $100 tax -- not sure I'd want it on the first few hundred dollars -- but I'd not have a problem welfare and social security checks as part of 'income' as well.

The idea in no way is punitive - just a matter of ownership. Besides it might shut of the mean spirited 53% types.

Bobby, conflating ad valorem (property) tax with income tax, which did not exist when Jefferson wrote that, is a very interesting position.

Indeed, though clearly Jefferson agreed with the principle of progressive taxation when applied to the taxes that were collected in his era, and to find a comment from him, or any of the Founding Fathers, dealing directly with income taxes, might be a little difficult.

To put it another way, given the quote, what do you believe Jefferson would think of income taxes that result in persons earning $1billion p.a. paying a lower rate than those earning less than $200,000 in the same period?

I'm not a Jeffersonian scholar nor do I pretend to be one. But, if I must, he couldn't comprehend how the Federal Government could have inflated the dollar so that any person could earn $1billion.

Why don't you ask a more germane question? Such as would he disagree with any of the categories of deductions.

Germane it is. Given that Jefferson saw a case for a group of individuals be excluded from the taxes of his era, why is it that some quarters that claim to hold the views of the Founding Fathers in esteem believe that some (or all) taxes in the present era should be applied to universally?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...