5 ms·

How so?

brutus1213 10y ago
This will likely be funded from income tax. As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary and has zero hope of buying a house in the decent parts of the SF Bay area, I think this is another case of taking from the young to feed the old. We should totally do this single-payer thing and pay for it via a wealth tax (that takes the current price of your home into account). Lets make it tiny .. say 0.5% a year.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Your workplace probably pays $500/month for your health insurance. If the employer has to stop paying that and you pay $500/month in taxes instead, it will be about break even anyway. Or even less, since I more forsee a %1-%2 tax increase vs. the current %4-6+ tax that is health insurance.
  - stvswn 10y ago
    I think you're assuming that there won't be over-the-top optional healthcare that we'd all (as in, people w/ good insurance at the moment) have to buy in order to meet the same quality we currently have.
    - mahyarm 10y ago
      Just going by my experience in Canada, most people don't buy too much extra. You still have to get dental & vision although, but the costs for that are minor. Many don't buy any health insurance at all.
      - refurb 10y ago
        Canadians are also used to a very different level of healthcare. If you can convince a vast chunk of Americans to wait 12+ months for a joint replacement, then yes it could work.
- darkstar999 10y ago
  > As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary ... you can afford it. Moreso that others. You _are_ the wealth.
  - antimatter 10y ago
    Why are others entitled to his money?
    - darkstar999 10y ago
      You are arguing against the fundamentals of taxation. Why are others entitled to his money (for healthcare)? Because we decided that we are all good people and take care of each other.
      - Apocryphon 10y ago
        And, it's more humane to pay taxes for social welfare, than it is to pay taxes to soldiers to protect you by shooting the needy who would hang you for not giving social welfare to them.
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      He is arguing that they are not entitled to his money, but others should be entitled to others (home owners) money. Or as Pink Floyd might say "share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie"
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - stvswn 10y ago
    I'm in my 30s as well -- I make a great tech salary and own small house that cost me a ton to buy. I pay a lot in taxes. I support a family of four off of my salary. At the end of the day we basically live the same lifestyle that I grew up with, and my dad was a police officer, my mom a public high school teacher. Our house is smaller than the one I grew up with, the local public schools are about the same quality. I'm not complaining, because I'm staying in the Bay Area for a reason: I believe that my good tech salary can be an amazing tech salary if I build the right skills, climb the right ladders. I think it's a chance for upward mobility. But it's a tough call when I ponder what my life would be like if I took a slightly lesser paying job in a more reasonable area of the country. So, anyway, my point is that you can make the case that "you can afford it, your fellow Californians deserve it," and I'll roll my eyes because no one makes decisions that way. If I had to pay 10% more each year in taxes, I'd definitely be out of here. The other options are just way better at that point. So, there's a point where I'm simply going to move instead of pay. You can lecture me about what I ought to do all you like but I have a family to take care of, and our standard of living matters to me. Yes, we'd be fine with less money, but I want even more for my family and I really don't feel bad about it.
- mullingitover 10y ago
  Repeal Prop 13 for non-residential properties, pay for it with property taxes. Side effect: commercial property is used in a vastly more efficient manner.

How so?

This will likely be funded from income tax. As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary and has zero hope of buying a house in the decent parts of the SF Bay area, I think this is another case of taking from the young to feed the old. We should totally do this single-payer thing and pay for it via a wealth tax (that takes the current price of your home into account). Lets make it tiny .. say 0.5% a year.

mahyarm 10y ago
Your workplace probably pays $500/month for your health insurance. If the employer has to stop paying that and you pay $500/month in taxes instead, it will be about break even anyway. Or even less, since I more forsee a %1-%2 tax increase vs. the current %4-6+ tax that is health insurance.
- stvswn 10y ago
  I think you're assuming that there won't be over-the-top optional healthcare that we'd all (as in, people w/ good insurance at the moment) have to buy in order to meet the same quality we currently have.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    Just going by my experience in Canada, most people don't buy too much extra. You still have to get dental & vision although, but the costs for that are minor. Many don't buy any health insurance at all.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Canadians are also used to a very different level of healthcare. If you can convince a vast chunk of Americans to wait 12+ months for a joint replacement, then yes it could work.
darkstar999 10y ago
> As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary ... you can afford it. Moreso that others. You _are_ the wealth.
- antimatter 10y ago
  Why are others entitled to his money?
  - darkstar999 10y ago
    You are arguing against the fundamentals of taxation. Why are others entitled to his money (for healthcare)? Because we decided that we are all good people and take care of each other.
    - Apocryphon 10y ago
      And, it's more humane to pay taxes for social welfare, than it is to pay taxes to soldiers to protect you by shooting the needy who would hang you for not giving social welfare to them.
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    He is arguing that they are not entitled to his money, but others should be entitled to others (home owners) money. Or as Pink Floyd might say "share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie"
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- stvswn 10y ago
  I'm in my 30s as well -- I make a great tech salary and own small house that cost me a ton to buy. I pay a lot in taxes. I support a family of four off of my salary. At the end of the day we basically live the same lifestyle that I grew up with, and my dad was a police officer, my mom a public high school teacher. Our house is smaller than the one I grew up with, the local public schools are about the same quality. I'm not complaining, because I'm staying in the Bay Area for a reason: I believe that my good tech salary can be an amazing tech salary if I build the right skills, climb the right ladders. I think it's a chance for upward mobility. But it's a tough call when I ponder what my life would be like if I took a slightly lesser paying job in a more reasonable area of the country. So, anyway, my point is that you can make the case that "you can afford it, your fellow Californians deserve it," and I'll roll my eyes because no one makes decisions that way. If I had to pay 10% more each year in taxes, I'd definitely be out of here. The other options are just way better at that point. So, there's a point where I'm simply going to move instead of pay. You can lecture me about what I ought to do all you like but I have a family to take care of, and our standard of living matters to me. Yes, we'd be fine with less money, but I want even more for my family and I really don't feel bad about it.
mullingitover 10y ago
Repeal Prop 13 for non-residential properties, pay for it with property taxes. Side effect: commercial property is used in a vastly more efficient manner.