told ya

[RIJIMMY]

tax, spend, tax, spend....change??????? I also hear that there may be a tax on my health insurance to pay for people that dont have it. F them, they're not getting another dime from me.

Tax Hikes, Coming Soon!
Posted Jun 30, 2009 01:43pm EDT by Joe Weisenthal in Investing, Recession
From The Business Insider, June 30, 2009:

Every politician (except Michael Dukakis) has campaigned on some version of "no new taxes" and most ended up breaking that promise.

It's how we do things in America, and as voters we've come to accept how it works. We're masochists. We like to be lied to.

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000, a promise that's technically already been violated by new taxes on cigarettes and his pledge to sign cap & trade if it gets through The Senate. His aides would say those don't count.

But evens setting those aside, real tax hikes are almost certainly in the works, if only due to the massive amount of new spending (particularly on healthcare) this government has planned. The idea that it can all be financed on the (dwindling) $250k+ crowd is absurd.

Roger Altman of Evercore Partners and formerly of the Clinton administration writes today in the Wall Street Journal:

Only five months after Inauguration Day, the focus of Washington's economic and domestic policy is already shifting. This reflects the emergence of much larger budget deficits than anyone expected. Indeed, federal deficits may average a stunning $1 trillion annually over the next 10 years. This worsened outlook is stirring unease on Main Street and beginning to reorder priorities for President Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership. By 2010, reducing the deficit will become their primary focus.

Why has the deficit outlook changed? Two main reasons: The burst of spending in recent years and the growing likelihood of a weak economic recovery. The latter would mean considerably lower federal revenues, the compiling of more interest on our growing debt, and thus higher deficits. Yes, the President's Council of Economic Advisors is still forecasting a traditional cyclical recovery -- i.e., real growth of 3.2% next year and 4% in 2011. But the latest data suggests that we're on a much slower path. Probably along the lines of the most recent Goldman Sachs and International Monetary Fund forecasts, whose growth rates average about 2% for 2010-2011.

A speedy recovery is highly unlikely given the financial condition of American households, whose spending represents 70% of GDP. Household net worth has fallen more than 20% since its mid-2007 peak. This drop began just when household debt reached 130% of income, a modern record. This lethal combination has forced households to lower their spending to reduce their debt. So far, however, they have just begun to pay it down. This implies subdued spending and weak national growth for some time.

Altman believes that sometime next year the Congress will be forced to bring up a new tax, possibly some kind of Europe-like VAT scheme.

Others have suggested that Obama will wait until after the 2012 election, when he's a lame duck though that may be too long a wait if the budget situation continues to deteriorate.

Bear in mind, this isn't all coming from Wall Street or conservative publications eager to undermine Obama's presidency.

Liberal commentator Matthew Yglesias penned a highly praised piece for the American Prospect arguing that liberals needed to embrace taxes sooner rather than later, and that selling Americans on the idea of higher taxes should be part and parcel with selling Americans on the idea of a more active role for government in life -- which Obama has done pretty well, both in the campaign and since taking office:

Are broad-based tax increases politically viable? Nobody can say for sure, but polling during the campaign season consistently showed that despite Obama's promises, around half of the public anticipated paying more taxes if he won the election. And a Rasmussen poll showed in March that 66 percent of the public believed Obama was likely to raise taxes on voters making less than $250,000 a year. Yet his approval ratings are high. Politicians who labor under suspicion of being tax raisers might be better off defending tax hikes on the merits rather than denying the charge. The White House and its allies vigorously contest conservative charges that auctioning off carbon permits amounts to a tax, when they should be acknowledging that conservatives are correct and explaining why such a tax is necessary.

Progressive taxation is an important principle. But the idea that further changes to the tax code should exclusively target the wealthy is ultimately counterproductive. Making the case may be difficult, but refusing to try to make it amounts to conceding defeat. At the end of the day, persuading people to support a more active role for government means persuading all of them that such a government is worth paying for.

None of this will make business leaders very happy (though more and more are eager for a national healthcare system that shifts that particular burden to the government), but this is about political reality. Thinking the government can occupy more space than it currently does without costing more is dreamy.

[tynan19]

Working at a hospital and seeing all the people that get treated under free care, has given me a lot of ideas. It is amazing to see the amount of homeless who can afford to get totally passed out drunk, then get a ride to the ER in a $500 to $900 ambulance ride, then stay for a $1200 visit with free food, medication, consult, etc. The best part is when they leave and show up within 2 hrs to start over. Now multiply this by 7 days a week 52 weeks a year for one person. My other favorite is all the addicts who show up with a toothache or stomach pain and ask for percs. Get some and leave and then show up again the next day.

[Fly Rod]

Government spends all of our tax dollars plus more that they can get away with.

[Joe]

Spot burner....Now I can look forward to a big line - good luck getting my percadans tomorrow.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

F them, they're not getting another dime from me.

Oh yes they will. And you'll pay it.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by tynan19

Working at a hospital and seeing all the people that get treated under free care, has given me a lot of ideas. It is amazing to see the amount of homeless who can afford to get totally passed out drunk, then get a ride to the ER in a $500 to $900 ambulance ride, then stay for a $1200 visit with free food, medication, consult, etc. The best part is when they leave and show up within 2 hrs to start over. Now multiply this by 7 days a week 52 weeks a year for one person. My other favorite is all the addicts who show up with a toothache or stomach pain and ask for percs. Get some and leave and then show up again the next day.

I see that too whenever, infrequently, I need services, I pay 150 bucks to get in the door, the above are serviced before me and pay nothing, get everything they need. This makes me upset

[tynan19]

All about the ambulance ride and being the squeeky wheel. Most get what they want so they shut up.

[RIJIMMY]

casey, please leave the political forums, you're too nice a guy and once you're in you can never leave............................................. ............

[tynan19]

Lol. This topic bugs me, might as well have univeral healthcare. We are paying for it anyways. I am all for hospital not being able to refuse treatment. But seeing the same person 1-2-3 times a day for ETOH abuse (drinking) is getting a little frustrating. To me treat them once. Make them take a trash bag with them, clean the streets. Fill it maybe get a ride next time. Something needs to be done so that they are not allowed to keep living off the system in this fashion. Oh how about the overdose patients that come in blue. They get their narcan and then they want to fight us and hate us cause we ruined their high. Some have been revived over 8 times. What purpose does this individual serve in our society?

[Fishpart]

Why, because these people and their familys vote and they typically vote dummycrat.... Obama and his contemporaries are trying to (successfully I might add) create a block of voters who's only stake in the election is how much they can get off the backs of the producers. Once you add them to the affluent do-gooders who never experience the results of decades of failed social programs, the people who produce don't stand a chance.

[Offshore24]

Socialized medicine is on it's way. 15% of americans don't have health care so 85% of americans will pay for them to have it. Compund that with unemployment and those who don't want to work (I won't say everyone on the dole wants to be there) and we'll be looking at what they have in Canada and England before Obama's first term is over.

[Fly Rod]

The hospitals in this country have been giving FREE medical for years to those that could not afford it and to illeagals in this country.

What will happen if they pass socialized medicine? Those that have a medical plan through their company will end up losing that coverage. What employer will keep paying for health care at $12,000.00 per year per family?

The Presidents press secretary was asked the other day by the press corp if he knew of any country where they have socialized medicine that worked and his answer was, NO. He could not name one.

[PaulS]

RIJImmy - if you have comp. provided life insurance, your already taxed for any portion over either 50k or 70K (I forget where it kicks in)

[striperman36]

If we could as Tynan stated find a way to limit those that abuse the system we could find a significant amount of savings. However, the moment we start to restrict access some bleeding liberal will start screaming about socialistic actions by the state and then the ACLU will get involved and it will end up a real legal battle costing us yet more money to end up with the status quo.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by striperman36

If we could as Tynan stated find a way to limit those that abuse the system we could find a significant amount of savings. However, the moment we start to restrict access some bleeding liberal will start screaming about socialistic actions by the state and then the ACLU will get involved and it will end up a real legal battle costing us yet more money to end up with the status quo.

Before we stop people from abusing the medical system, let's stop people from abusing the Welfare system. Mostly the same people anyway.

In CT, if you're on State Medicaid, you *have* to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. Doesn't matter if it is for a bloody nose and you live across the street.

When I was an EMT in Harford, I literally drove a guy from his "home" across the street the ER for a "cough I've had all week." It was actually further for me to take him to the ambulance entrance than it would have been if he walked in the front door.

That's $400 of state money well spent.

My opinion, if you refuse to contribute to society, you don't get to reap any of the benefits - including gov't health aid, gov't assistance for college, gov't housing. Eventually, the lazy good-for-nothings will die off, crime will decrease and we'll all live happily ever after.

If that gangster can't get free medical care to sew up his gunshot wound, then they'll finally start killing each other off.

[striperman36]

It does go very deep in the entitlement system, which is the challenge on how to reform it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Before we stop people from abusing the medical system, let's stop people from abusing the Welfare system. Mostly the same people
My opinion, if you refuse to contribute to society, you don't get to reap any of the benefits - including gov't health aid, gov't assistance for college, gov't housing. Eventually, the lazy good-for-nothings will die off, crime will decrease and we'll all live happily ever after.

I agree JD, but government entitlement programs are so deeply entrenched no politician ,from either party, has the guts to make the needed changes.

From what i have seen their main purpose has always been geared to get votes, keep people quiet and not to to give people the incentive to work and contribute.
So it goes on and on.

Imho, most of these problems were started with and continued with the New Deal,The Great Society war on poverty, and the give away programs after the 60's riots.
Why should they contribute when they have been given just enough to be kept quiet and happy in their current lifestyle? There is no incentive to contribute.

The politicians need to get back to JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Seems like things have gone too far to get back to anything like that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree JD, but government entitlement programs are so deeply entrenched no politician ,from either party, has the guts to make the needed changes.

I'd agree but would also note that corporate welfare is just as entrenched. Yes, we have a very high corporate tax rate on average, but the big industries have lobbied their way around this over the years.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd agree but would also note that corporate welfare is just as entrenched. Yes, we have a very high corporate tax rate on average, but the big industries have lobbied their way around this over the years.

-spence

Agreed Spence, but the difference being, big industries have created jobs, provided benefits for their employees and through research, invention and production created the best economy in the world.

Not perfect, but great contributors.