Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”
Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”
Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
That may be the case, but do you have any evidence or reasoning? There are a certain number of people right now who don’t have insurance or who have very bad insurance, and a universal insurance would have to have to make up what’s missing for those people.
There’s a variety of ways to implement it, but the vast majority save trillions in the long run. https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/ has a couple sources listed, even a Koch-funded institute found it would save money.
The reasoning is simple: you cut out the middlemen who demand a portion of the premiums for themselves. Those costs are instantly removed, and there isn’t really anything that starts costing more in return.
There’s also collective governmental bargaining on procedures and medication which lowers prices.
I understand that it saves money overall. I don’t understand how it could save money for individual high-income tax payers. At some earning level, your taxes will be raised by more than you would pay for insurance. Even under a flat tax, that has to be the case, right? You would need a regressive tax to actually make it beneficial to every single resident.
ok, why should I care about the well off not getting to be quite the leaches they are now?
Under current economic conditions, economic wealth is necessary for the functioning of the economy. Some (including me) would advocate for a redistribution/government seizure of capital, but I don’t know of any economist who doesn’t see it as a problem if the wealth is lost altogether. If taxes are imposed on a national level, it is less likely that the wealthy will flee to other countries than it is if they are imposed on a state level. Unless the government seizes all capital, or bans capital flight, there will always be a risk of losing that wealth to emigration.
is it required? to an extent, yes. but do we need 60% of everything to be owned by 10% of the population?
As for the Capital flight, that is a myth, even the implementation of straight wealth taxes don’t see great multimillionaire migrations, because taxation isn’t a very strong factor, in fact a golf course or tow is a stronger pull, example Scotland vs Ireland when the UK was still part of the EU saw more ultra wealthy live in Scotland, a region with a higher tax rate, than Ireland, primarily for golf courses.
I’m not sure it’s even negligible between countries, but I am specifically talking about capital flight between US states, where there is a very low barrier to exit. Do you have any reason to believe that isn’t a phenomenon?
even less so,
https://sociology.cornell.edu/news/final-reading-flight-myth
That’s interesting, thank you. I’m still not sure it would be the same for them level of tax increase public healthcare would require, but maybe you’re right.
Depends exactly on what is taxed. Regardless, the tax increase would be so low that moving is almost certainly not paying for itself. The government could also just increase taxes by a flat amount rather than a flat rate.
Point is, there’s plenty of options that give zero reason to assume capital flight will happen.
So a regressive tax
Yes.
I would prefer a progressive tax which would be easier to do on the national level.