Comments on: Health and Debt: The Commission, Part II

By: Anne's thoughts

Anne's thoughts — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:02:27 +0000

The government health care bill will have increased because thousands of American citizens don’t have jobs.

These people have a right to be added to the health care. I think the health care will crash if they do.

Maybe then Congress will agree to go on the same health care bill that American will have.

Maybe not– they will probably add Mexico ciizens which will increase our debts and let American citizens and their children go hungry and become homeless.

I wish more of our citizen would use common sense and realize what is going with our country.

We need to bring our service guys home so they can protect our borders. They will be safer here and so will we. That is if Obama quits giving up the things that protect us!!!!! I

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:48:53 +0000

Bruce, I think Jennie’s main idea was that the progressive tax rates of the New Deal consensus were eliminated following the Reagan Revolution. This is supported with a historical examination of the tax table. Please see towards bottom of this link for top marginal tax rates in the 60′s and 70′s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) This was a significant loss of government revenue. Debt can be eliminated through either cuts in entitlements or greater taxation, neither of which are popular.

By: John Seater

John Seater — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:19:48 +0000

So I have a question. England, France, Canada, and other countries have communised medicine (let’s stop the euphemism of calling it socialized medicine). Their economies still exist. What I want to know is this: Suppose we retain all the current schemes – Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – as they now exist. Suppose all levels of government also continue to do everything else they new are doing – running schools, providing national defense, and so on. What fraction of the economy would government have to collect in taxes to pay for all that, assuming no more deficits and no finance by printing money (i.e., assuming truly balanced budgets)?

By: Frank Timmins

Frank Timmins — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:31:13 +0000

Sorry Jennie, American jobs “going overseas” had nothing to do with the tax reforms of Reagan. The supposition that it did would be best described as “Voodoo Economics.

The answer to getting back on track is to concentrate on policy to make the economy grow, not punish those on top of the economic scale. Try to envision the economy as a dynamic, ever changing phenomenon instead of a static defined amount of money that must be managed like a trust account. Until you accept the reality of this you will never be able to understand “how on earth there can be entitlement reform”.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:36:11 +0000

Louis, how is the economy going to grow at 3.5% without capital injections? In case you haven’t noticed the Obama administration plans to tax the hell out of capital. Didn’t you hear Obama’s answer on this during the election. He is for a higher capital gains tax on principle — even if it doesn’t raise any additional revenue.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:32:40 +0000

Jennie, are you unfamiliar with the tax distribution tables. High income taxpayers are bearing a greater share of the burden of taxation than ever before in recent history. And it’s 90% due to Republican tax policies. At the same time, almost half the population had been remosved from the tax rolls — the lower half.

By: Brian Williams.

Brian Williams. — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:09:24 +0000

The Fiscal Commission will cost approximately $500,000 to operate. I hope each Member of Congress is assessed a proportional amount of that cost, since the Commission is doing the work that Congress OUGHT to be doing. Instead of solving national problems, Congress is spending its time naming post offices and deciding how far one is allowed to fly on a plane leaving from Reagan National Airport.

On a more somber note, the Fiscal Commission will almost certainly suggest ways to generate more federal revenue (read: taxes). But it is not at all certain they will propose anything that will solve the unfunded entitlement crisis.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:27:59 +0000

Doesn’t look good for the future. And the younger you are, the worse it looks.

By: Gerald Musgrave

Gerald Musgrave — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:20:40 +0000

John is an optimist. A VAT might be the worst of the ideas in the nightly news. Among genuine social engineers, a wealth tax is the real objective. Here the value of your home (over a certain value), your car ( again with a deduction), all your savings accounts, investments, land, and personal property like your furniture and electronic equipment would be taxed. It is not just a social planners dream, it is a reality in France for example. This is one of the motivations why the Administration has targeted MSAs, and IRAs in the new tax bill.

By: Virginia

Virginia — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:00:08 +0000

I don’t think that congress will make any meaningful changes until there is blood running in the streets. There are too many people out there that have too big of a stake in the status quo.

I like John’s comment about how hard it is to judge future health care costs. When I was in college, I always estimated how long it would take me to finish a project by doubling my estimate, and then adding 4 hours. That usually put me within 30 minutes of the actual time to completion.

Perhaps saving for medical and retirement is the same way. Add up what you think you’ll need, triple it (just for good measure), then add $400,000. (I once heard of an architect doing that for a construction cost estimate, and his number was within $100 of the final cost.)