15 ms·

I'm excited to see this show up on hacker news. As a Santa Monica resident, I'd gladly pay more in taxes for universal coverage. The only way that we are going

by wjossey 10y ago

I'm excited to see this show up on hacker news. As a Santa Monica resident, I'd gladly pay more in taxes for universal coverage. The only way that we are going to achieve federal universal coverage is via states paving the way. Just as "Romney care" was a predecessor to the ACA, so can healthy California pave the way for the US to join the rest of the modern world with guaranteed access.

__realtime 10y ago
Glad you have that luxury, CA has some of the highest taxes anywhere and I would definitely be opposed to more.
- Upvoter33 10y ago
  um, not really. the property taxes are so broken that many people own multi-million dollar homes and pay for them as if they were worth nearly nothing. that said, sales tax and state tax rates are high, so if you just mean that, you are right.
  - sharkmerry 10y ago
    >> that said, sales tax and state tax rates are high, so if you just mean that, you are right. This is a result of the property taxes being fixed(ish) though, isnt it? Since they cant get true value from that, they have to raise other taxes to make up for it.
- acdha 10y ago
  https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2016/ https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-20... “The five states with the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates are Tennessee (9.46 percent), Arkansas (9.30 percent), Louisiana (9.0 percent), Alabama (8.97 percent), and Washington (8.90 percent).”
  - refurb 10y ago
    That analysis ignores the income brackets. If I have the choice of living where the state income tax hit 8% at $50K vs. %9 at $200K, I'd gladly live in the state with the "higher" state income tax rate.
    - acdha 10y ago
      That wasn't the question, however, any more than the far more important question of what you get for those taxes.
  - jpobst 10y ago
    Tennessee has no income tax, so I'll gladly take 9.46% sales tax and no income tax over California's 8.48% sales tax plus 1% - 13.3% income tax.
    - 824ueirwfjd 10y ago
      on top of 40% federal tax rate for highest bracket... why would anyone want to start a business in CA?
  - DrScump 10y ago
    Most Californians live in areas with sales surtaxes, ending up at as much as 9.75%: http://www.boe.ca.gov/app/rates.aspx?LETTER=S&LIST=CITY http://www.boe.ca.gov/app/rates.aspx?LETTER=S&LIST=CITY
- r00fus 10y ago
  You're free to leave anytime. Why haven't you? If you have, then your opinion is moot.
darkstar999 10y ago
Just curious why you would gladly pay more? Can you elaborate?
- tylersmith 10y ago
  Because they can't afford the care they actually need and are trying to leech from others to extend their worthless (in a technical sense) life.
- __jal 10y ago
  Can't speak for the poster, but I live in the Bay Area, and also would happily pay more in taxes for this to happen. That's because I think long-term, single-payer is the only sensible way to handle health care. We have (the US has) a truly screwed up healthcare system that (nearly) everyone acknowledges is inefficient, too expensive, wasteful and less effective than it could be. Looking at other countries, this is obvious. Given the money involved, getting to single-payer will be a long-term project; now even longer, to clean up the mess currently being made. It'll involve more fighting, take longer, and be a more expensive transition than anyone likes. Given all that, we have to start somewhere. I'm happy to start in my state, even though I have great (employer-provided) healthcare, and could easily pay for my own if I didn't. There's also the aspect of doing the right thing, even at personal cost. I think single-payer is the right thing to do. So that's why.
  - dx034 10y ago
    It's certainly better than the current way, but single payer is not the only way. Look at Germany for example, where the government sets minimum coverage and the premium (in a band as a % of the salary which the state will pay if you don't earn enough), but coverage is then provided by not-for-profit entities. This allows some competition by eliminating inefficient providers while making sure that everyone receives the same treatment. I think such a system would work much better for the US as it's easier for the state to build such a framework than to come up with health care for everyone. The NHS (UKs single payer health provider) is the biggest employer in the state, which gives you some indication on how complex it is to provide universal healthcare for everyone.
jbscpa 10y ago
How much more would you be glad to pay? How much more would you be glad for your employer to pay on your behalf? How do you define "universal coverage"?

by wjossey 10y ago

__realtime 10y ago

Glad you have that luxury, CA has some of the highest taxes anywhere and I would definitely be opposed to more.

Upvoter33 10y ago
um, not really. the property taxes are so broken that many people own multi-million dollar homes and pay for them as if they were worth nearly nothing. that said, sales tax and state tax rates are high, so if you just mean that, you are right.
- sharkmerry 10y ago
  >> that said, sales tax and state tax rates are high, so if you just mean that, you are right. This is a result of the property taxes being fixed(ish) though, isnt it? Since they cant get true value from that, they have to raise other taxes to make up for it.
acdha 10y ago
https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2016/ https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-20... “The five states with the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates are Tennessee (9.46 percent), Arkansas (9.30 percent), Louisiana (9.0 percent), Alabama (8.97 percent), and Washington (8.90 percent).”
- refurb 10y ago
  That analysis ignores the income brackets. If I have the choice of living where the state income tax hit 8% at $50K vs. %9 at $200K, I'd gladly live in the state with the "higher" state income tax rate.
  - acdha 10y ago
    That wasn't the question, however, any more than the far more important question of what you get for those taxes.
- jpobst 10y ago
  Tennessee has no income tax, so I'll gladly take 9.46% sales tax and no income tax over California's 8.48% sales tax plus 1% - 13.3% income tax.
  - 824ueirwfjd 10y ago
    on top of 40% federal tax rate for highest bracket... why would anyone want to start a business in CA?
- DrScump 10y ago
  Most Californians live in areas with sales surtaxes, ending up at as much as 9.75%: http://www.boe.ca.gov/app/rates.aspx?LETTER=S&LIST=CITY http://www.boe.ca.gov/app/rates.aspx?LETTER=S&LIST=CITY
r00fus 10y ago
You're free to leave anytime. Why haven't you? If you have, then your opinion is moot.

darkstar999 10y ago

Just curious why you would gladly pay more? Can you elaborate?

tylersmith 10y ago
Because they can't afford the care they actually need and are trying to leech from others to extend their worthless (in a technical sense) life.
__jal 10y ago
Can't speak for the poster, but I live in the Bay Area, and also would happily pay more in taxes for this to happen. That's because I think long-term, single-payer is the only sensible way to handle health care. We have (the US has) a truly screwed up healthcare system that (nearly) everyone acknowledges is inefficient, too expensive, wasteful and less effective than it could be. Looking at other countries, this is obvious. Given the money involved, getting to single-payer will be a long-term project; now even longer, to clean up the mess currently being made. It'll involve more fighting, take longer, and be a more expensive transition than anyone likes. Given all that, we have to start somewhere. I'm happy to start in my state, even though I have great (employer-provided) healthcare, and could easily pay for my own if I didn't. There's also the aspect of doing the right thing, even at personal cost. I think single-payer is the right thing to do. So that's why.
- dx034 10y ago
  It's certainly better than the current way, but single payer is not the only way. Look at Germany for example, where the government sets minimum coverage and the premium (in a band as a % of the salary which the state will pay if you don't earn enough), but coverage is then provided by not-for-profit entities. This allows some competition by eliminating inefficient providers while making sure that everyone receives the same treatment. I think such a system would work much better for the US as it's easier for the state to build such a framework than to come up with health care for everyone. The NHS (UKs single payer health provider) is the biggest employer in the state, which gives you some indication on how complex it is to provide universal healthcare for everyone.

jbscpa 10y ago

How much more would you be glad to pay? How much more would you be glad for your employer to pay on your behalf? How do you define "universal coverage"?