5 ms·

> In comparison to our peers the U.S. is under taxed. The OECD average is 34.2%. What makes the average person feel overtaxed is the combination of federal inco

• sykic 8y ago
  The problem I have with this relabelling is that decent health care is largely dependent upon how rich/nice your employer is and it costs lots of money at the point of contact. Healthcare in the U.S. is not provided to citizens in a way that resembles a government program.
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Healthcare in the U.S. is not provided to citizens in a way that resembles a government program. Except for the ~1/3 of Americans who get healthcare through one or more of the government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, etc.)
    • sykic 8y ago
      I fail to see what your point is. You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax because - using your statement - 1/3 of the people receive healthcare via a department of the federal government?
      • dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I fail to see what your point is. The point is exactly and only what the text of the comment said. > You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax No, I never said that. Nor, AFAICT, did anyone upthread. The claim rb808 made seems to be more "comparing tax rates between countries where there is a substantial difference in the extent to which essential services are provided through tax funded programs is of limited utility".
        • sykic 8y ago
          I know that you didn't say that. Hence the question. I didn't claim you said it. But rb808 sort of did claim this: ...if we relabeled health insurance as a tax, US tax rates would be very high... Your original comment doesn't appear to be relevant or to add to the conversation to me because VA, DOD, Medicare, and Medicaid spending are already taken into account when computing tax rates. I really don't understand what you are getting at with your original comment. The healthcare expenditures you mentioned are already part of the calculation for the tax rate in the U.S. So there is nothing to add with regard to the programs you mentioned when making the comparison to OECD average tax rates.
          • dragonwriter 8y ago
            > rb808's comment is that the totality of healthcare spending ought to be added to the tax percent when comparing tax rates amongst OECD countries. rb808 does not say it ought to be. He says that the comparison is complicated, and that it would be different if it was added in, not that it should be added in. One could with more justification interpret him as describing a problem and noting the effect of one plausible method of attempting to resolve the problem, rather than claiming that that particular method is necessarily correct. > Your original comment doesn't appear to be apt to me That's because you are trying to view it as an argument in defense of the position you've read into rb808's post rather than a tangent responding only to the specific claim in your post that was quoted, from someone who doesn't even agree that the position you've read into rb808's post was likely even rb808's position and who, in any case, wasn't arguing in defense of any position, actual or inferred, posited in rb808's post.
        • sykic 8y ago
          I think I may have upset you. I don't understand your original comment in the context it was made. From my perspective rb808 thinks that health care expenditures ought to be added to the U.S. tax computation to make comparisons to other OECD nations' tax rates. I don't agree with this for the reasons I stated. As an aside I think if one doesn't view something as a tax then it shouldn't be added to the tax calculation. If one wants to say we are both taxed low and in return don't receive as much government services and so it balances out then have at it. I don't agree with that perspective either but it's a logical one to make. If you agree with rb808 I wish you well in convincing others with your point of view.