Rec this thread if you stand with the rich against the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans

For far too long, the rich have been taxed, the entitled have been taxed, and it's time for the working poor to bear the burden that unions and the middle class have borne for too long.

:sarcasm:

I've never liked that picture. The main reason Obama's compromising so much is the culture of passivity among the left of the electorate. We never should have chilled the fuck out and it turns out he didn't exactly have it all sewn up.


 

It takes time, and patience, and effort to steer left, or right. Harsh steering will capsize the ship.

The US is *REALLY* right.

Thus, the steering to the left is slow.

Heck, just getting decent basic healthcare has been a multi-month fight.

Imagine what it would have been like if the fight was for France-style healthcare: "Why should I have to pay for diapers!" "You pay women to not work?" "The government does laundry?"

It's a slow process.

The way to tack into the wind is to veer wildly from left to right. This is more like paddling upriver and there's this fat guy in the middle of the canoe bashing the paddlers over the head and calling them socialists and the president keeps saying "Just wear your head a little lower and we'll all call it a compromise."

No wait, that's not a perfect analogy either, but at least I got the bashing over the head part right.

Thanks for the laugh.

I'm working poor. The unions are pressing for the house plan, which taxes the wealthy. So what they want actually works for the benefit of middle class union members AND poor working class. If you're annoyed at union members saying they won't support Dems over it, I feel you. I was in an argument over that right here the other day. But ultimately we are on the same side.

But of those it does affect, a majority makes less than $200,000, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/21/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-health-care-reform-taxes-middle-class/

I don't feel a lot of sympathy for those making four times what 75% of the population makes.

Maybe I'm just mean.

Or maybe I don't think the top 25% should be setting the agenda.

From Census data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

So, a majority of the "somewhat rich" will pay for this. The actual working class* and poor will not.


*It's amazing what classifies as working class in the US these days. Here's my metric: If you make over twice minimum wage, you're not working class anymore. Others will disagree, and I ask that they post their own metrics, to explain what qualifies them as "working class".

just about any skilled union labor (carpenters, electricians, steelworkers, etc) makes more than twice minimum wage.
a lot of *non union jobs of the same pay more than $15/hour

I'm not sure if "working class" should be defined by how much you make, what you do, or a combination... but I do think it's laughable to claim a construction worker with a family of 4 making $45k/year isn't "working class".

Having lived in harsh poverty (living in my car, begging on the streets), and massive wealth ($300+ an hour), I wanted to know how others saw it.

What are the upper, and lower, boundaries of "working class"?

$200K a year seems a reasonable threshold to cite. When Obama promised not to increase taxes on families making less than $250K he was talking about the middle class.

And please be mindful, it is an upper threshold. You have in no way demonstrated that most of those affected would belong to this new 'somewhat rich' class you just invented. According to the Politifact article I linked, these 'cadillac' plans are often offered by state and local governments. While such employers are known for providing great benefits, few of their employees command salaries that would make them rich by any reasonable definition.

The implication in your OP is that the 40% excise tax would affect only the "rich". That's just plain wrong.

I don't consider families making over 50K in the US better than "middle class", but this varies. In my reference frame, they're the rich.

Hence, my request asking for others to explain their perspectives.

What would you call the "working class"? You stated an upper boundary, which I find shocking, but not a lower one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_class#United_States

Income of the top 1% is over $475K.

http://www.thislandvotes.com/

Using Obama's $250K threshold, the upper class would consist of the top 1.92% of households.



The professional/managerial middle class (AKA the upper middle class) has incomes that commonly exceed $100K. The Lower Middle Class has incomes ranging from $32,500 to $60,000. The Working Middle Class would have incomes of less than $32K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Vernacular_middle_class

These classes are ambiguously defined as I said, and you are welcome to draw your own lines. But when discussing these classes with others, however, it is useful to consider how most people define them.

Looking around you can find a number of different standard used in academia though I think I only agree with parts of different ones.

To me it's a blend of the type of work and how much is being made.
Maybe in Nebraska construction workers aren't making twice minimum wage but it's not unusual *at all* to find those workers in Ca making > $40k/year - and to me construction workers are about the epitome of 'working class'.

:shrug:

your thread is breath taking in it total and complete dishonesty.

Why can't we tax both insurance companies, and the rich (by income)?

it is taxing people with expensive plans, in hopes that the plans will be downgraded. There is no way that tax won't be passed on either directly by simply increasing the cost of the plan, or indirectly by making the plan more restrictive. Even the Obama team tacitly admits this by saying that the tax will lead to a decrease in cost of benefits.

How's "trickle down" economics working for you?

Any better since Reagan?

So Union workers currently w/ good insurance will have same insurance but higher co-pays, higher deductibles, more co-insurance, etc in order to reduce tax on insurance companies.

So the tax is paid indirectly by working class via increased healthcare costs.

We all need insurance and there isn't a good substitute. And, you can call me and everyone else Reagan till the cows come home and give birth to aliens but the fact remains, the Obama team is relying upon exactly what I am saying to happen. They claim that this will lower heath care costs by forcing people with these plans into less expensive plans. Now maybe they are all Reagan lovers too.

gee I didn't know living pay check to pay check qualified any one as the "Wealthy Elite"

If you live in anything more extravagant than a box, you're rich.

I hope you don't shiver, or suffer, like I did.

(shaking my head in disbelief)

Wow. That sounds exactly like something Glenn Beck would say.

The tax on the wealthiest is in the House bill, which traditional pro-Union, progressive, rank-and-file Democrats (as opposed to DLC shills) prefer over the excise tax in the House.

Not sure what your intent is here.