5 ms·

Because it's largely not a (near-)required expenditure that bankrupts people.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Taxes are a required expenditure that bankrupts people [1]. As far as I know, most people pay more money in taxes than they do on medicine/health insurance. Does that necessitate tax reform? [1] Many studies purport to count medical bankruptcies. They use criteria like "> $1000 spent on medical costs in year prior to bankruptcy". Using that same criteria, we would probably learn that nearly all bankruptcies are caused by taxes.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Well, the amount that people spend in taxes has certainly not been going up by 15% a year. Hey, Obama probably cut your taxes more than Bush (unless you're making > 250k or so), so things are going the right direction there. We haven't had a tax increase since Clinton, in fact. Healthcare rates go up every year. Regarding tax reform: Sure. Our deduction system is crazy, Warren Buffet pays far less as a share of his income than I do. That's not fair, simplify the system and you can lower the rate across the board while collecting the same revenue. I'm consistent with these things :)
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Obama is using deficit spending to make my taxes low in the short term. Sooner or later, taxes will have to drastically increase. http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/WP_Obama_deficits.gif http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/WP_Obama_defi... Regarding taxes, you believe that a $1001 unexpected event will drive you into bankruptcy, but a sustained payment of $10,000/year will not? Note that if that $10,000/year were reduced to $8,999, there would be sufficient money available to pay for the unexpected $1001 payment.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      What, now all of a sudden deficit-financed tax cuts are a problem? :) Counter-cyclical deficit spending is pretty much the only time that the gov't should knowingly go into the red to hand out tax cuts -- otherwise, they should either cut stuff or raise the revenue necessary to stay in the black. Funny thing about those estimated future government expenditures.. if I had to give you one guess as to what the fastest growing component of those spending projections is, what would you guess? (Hint: it's abbreviated "HC")
- jbooth 17y ago
  Also, regarding your studies -- medical expenses are sudden, large and usually unplanned for. Taxes get deducted from paychecks throughout the year in most cases, and are very predictable if not. I'd say sudden, large shocks to cashflow are more likely to cause bankruptcy than known, predictable outflows. And that's without even getting into the whole thing where taxes are guaranteed to be less than 40% or so of your annual income, but medical expenses will always be the same amount no matter how much money you have in the bank.
- AlisdairO 17y ago
  Aside from the point of taxes being predictable expenditure, socialised healthcare schemes actually save the people most at risk of becoming bankrupt money: they're funded by taxation, and taxes are generally progressive. This means that the poor will end up spending substantially less on their healthcare. This holds for a lot of other expenditures: roads, for example. If the super-poor had to pay an equal share of road upkeep, they wouldn't be able to drive. In general, taxes save the poor money. I suppose one might argue that the poor could just do without healthcare and save even more cash, but that has too much of a whiff of 'let them eat cake' about it for me.

Taxes are a required expenditure that bankrupts people [1]. As far as I know, most people pay more money in taxes than they do on medicine/health insurance. Does that necessitate tax reform? [1] Many studies purport to count medical bankruptcies. They use criteria like "> $1000 spent on medical costs in year prior to bankruptcy". Using that same criteria, we would probably learn that nearly all bankruptcies are caused by taxes.

jbooth 17y ago
Well, the amount that people spend in taxes has certainly not been going up by 15% a year. Hey, Obama probably cut your taxes more than Bush (unless you're making > 250k or so), so things are going the right direction there. We haven't had a tax increase since Clinton, in fact. Healthcare rates go up every year. Regarding tax reform: Sure. Our deduction system is crazy, Warren Buffet pays far less as a share of his income than I do. That's not fair, simplify the system and you can lower the rate across the board while collecting the same revenue. I'm consistent with these things :)
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Obama is using deficit spending to make my taxes low in the short term. Sooner or later, taxes will have to drastically increase. http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/WP_Obama_deficits.gif http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/WP_Obama_defi... Regarding taxes, you believe that a $1001 unexpected event will drive you into bankruptcy, but a sustained payment of $10,000/year will not? Note that if that $10,000/year were reduced to $8,999, there would be sufficient money available to pay for the unexpected $1001 payment.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    What, now all of a sudden deficit-financed tax cuts are a problem? :) Counter-cyclical deficit spending is pretty much the only time that the gov't should knowingly go into the red to hand out tax cuts -- otherwise, they should either cut stuff or raise the revenue necessary to stay in the black. Funny thing about those estimated future government expenditures.. if I had to give you one guess as to what the fastest growing component of those spending projections is, what would you guess? (Hint: it's abbreviated "HC")
jbooth 17y ago
Also, regarding your studies -- medical expenses are sudden, large and usually unplanned for. Taxes get deducted from paychecks throughout the year in most cases, and are very predictable if not. I'd say sudden, large shocks to cashflow are more likely to cause bankruptcy than known, predictable outflows. And that's without even getting into the whole thing where taxes are guaranteed to be less than 40% or so of your annual income, but medical expenses will always be the same amount no matter how much money you have in the bank.
AlisdairO 17y ago
Aside from the point of taxes being predictable expenditure, socialised healthcare schemes actually save the people most at risk of becoming bankrupt money: they're funded by taxation, and taxes are generally progressive. This means that the poor will end up spending substantially less on their healthcare. This holds for a lot of other expenditures: roads, for example. If the super-poor had to pay an equal share of road upkeep, they wouldn't be able to drive. In general, taxes save the poor money. I suppose one might argue that the poor could just do without healthcare and save even more cash, but that has too much of a whiff of 'let them eat cake' about it for me.