Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
24. A number of problems with your theory
Mon Sep 18, 2017, 05:09 AM
Sep 2017

First, virtually every plan I've seen includes a payroll tax to pay for it, so the money the employer pays for premiums now just gets paid to someone else.

Second, if you tried to do it only based on taxes on income and not a payroll tax it's still a hit. I'm assuming you are doing corporate income as well as individual so there is where that money goes. And even if you only hits raise taxes on individual income you still hit small businesses, who employs a huge chunk of our workers, hard. If that busiess owner saved $40,000 in insurance premiums but sees her individual taxes go up $30,000 she is just going to take that savings as profit to offset her increased tax burden.

There isn't any free lunch- the supply of money is the same so when it's getting spent on X it isn't there to spend other places. You may change the source but it's still the same amount of money leaving the system to pay for it (and then back into the overall system).

We just can't be afraid to just tell people, individual, corporations, that their tax rates are going to go up to pay for this and just just how it's going to be becuse it's the right thing to do.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'm for SP, but recognize problems. Employers are going to pay a payroll tax under Single Payer. Hoyt Sep 2017 #1
Health insurance has also been a union perk. trof Sep 2017 #6
It's not a "perk," it's a bargained benefit. WhiskeyGrinder Sep 2017 #15
Semantics. It was part of my compensation package. trof Sep 2017 #25
The could spend more time and effort Mariana Sep 2017 #21
No. Single-payer is funded through the general fund (general income tax) not payroll tax. PSPS Sep 2017 #9
Look at Sanders proposed funding sources he put out Wednesday, and get back with us. Hoyt Sep 2017 #12
Industry has been on a "let's focus on our core competency" craze for decades unblock Sep 2017 #2
Well, the latest proposal is based upon a 7.2% payroll tax, and I bet it will have to be more. Hoyt Sep 2017 #5
Any proposal based on a payroll tax is not a workable model. PSPS Sep 2017 #10
Not if employers don't pay big piece. California, Vermont and Colorado ran into your canard Hoyt Sep 2017 #11
So, Sanders proposed tax on employers is for an unworkable plan? Hoyt Sep 2017 #13
If the plan relies on payroll tax, it won't work. PSPS Sep 2017 #14
You better tell Sanders. Most of his proposed funding comes from a payroll tax, another tax on Hoyt Sep 2017 #16
LOL. OK, champ. Whatever you say. PSPS Sep 2017 #18
First, they currently spend a lot toward health care unblock Sep 2017 #20
And good plan offerings help retain workers. Hoyt Sep 2017 #22
Single payer doesn't mean it's necessarily free for everyone does it? MLAA Sep 2017 #3
That is exactly what single payer means dsc Sep 2017 #7
No. You just don't pay at the point of service. You pay through taxes or premiums to Hoyt Sep 2017 #17
That's what I thought, one could pay Medicare instead of the Insurance company. MLAA Sep 2017 #19
I provide health insurance for my employees. Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #4
Companies are full of cash and capital and they aren't rushing to hire. That is trickle down thinking wasupaloopa Sep 2017 #8
Plus, when millions of Americans are sick less often, they can work more KelleyKramer Sep 2017 #23
A number of problems with your theory Lee-Lee Sep 2017 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Another benefit from sing...»Reply #24