Live data from Hacker News

US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

peoplespolicyproject.org

201–210 of 534 posts

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#201
post #134
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a basic visit. I attended a first-aid training for new parents here in my home country and the general advice was to seek help if in doubt, at night times by calling an ambulance or visiting, well, the emergency room. In two years we were there with our baby two times. Not charged a penny. During this time, I went once, my wife went once. In all instances we were reassured that it was appropriate to visit the h…

Yeah, taking a kid with a high fever to the ER in Toronto is a total no-brainer since it's 100% covered by OHIP. Now living in SF, and I've found myself mentally doing risk probability calculations, and concluding I'd be better off skipping the ER and instead following the instructions from off-the-shelf motrin because the ER visit is likely not worth the cost. My wife firmly believes the US healthcare system is a gi…

> My wife firmly believes the US healthcare system is a giant scam where insurance companies leech off people without actually providing any value.

Health insurance in the US is built around providing value to employers. Most employers are concerned about which network is going to upset the fewest key employees and cost the least amount of money for the employer, while fulfilling all legal obligations, without making the employees spend too much time dealing with the insurance company when they could be working. Nicer employers may want to cover more of the cost, or want to upset fewer employees, or have specific things they want covered that aren't legally obligated.

There's also the problem that different groups of people want totally different things from the system. I like integrated care, because it provides me with a single place to go, that handles everything, even though it may not always be the best care. Other people are more focused on getting the best care, and are ok with (or prefer) to pick the individuals who provide each service, even though it means visiting multiple locations. Nicer employers offer you a choice of providers, but it would probably be less expensive for them if everyone was on one plan, at the cost of upsetting more employees.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#202
post #87

Like to bring this up when we talk taxes: I think it's totally crazy that we give the feds 25% or more and our states soo soo sooooo much less. I think it should be the other way around: 5% for the feds, and maybe 20% to the states. The reason is that our cities are filled with bums, and have absolutely no money to either give them jobs or make new programs. The feds don't give a shit and are busy making missiles or…

This is actually a huge lever of control for the federal government, and I think has contributed greatly to increase of federal power over the states. The reason being that states can tap into that large federal stream... If they meet the federal criteria. This kind of carrot system is actually how many federal laws that seem to effect the states work. For instance, no state was ever mandated to implement the No Chil…

Yeah, like did you know that 18 is the legal drinking age in the US? That's why 18 year old soldiers can drink alcohol in the military. BUT, if a state increases the drinking age to 21 in their state then they get sweet sweet federal highway funds. For a long time Louisiana was a holdout, so 18-21 year olds would go there to party for mardis gras, and the road quality showed it.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#203
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US you can happy if your cost for seeing a doctor is less than 4 digits. My wife and I have never paid four figures for a doctor visit, despite having two surgeries (one oral), a calf strain, and a dislocated shoulder (with ER visit) between us. The state of medical care in the US is bad enough as it is; you don't need to make up hyperbolic bullshit to make it seem worse.

I went to the ER thinking I was having a heart attack, and it turned out there was nothing wrong. The doctor who saw me afterwards thought it might have been intestinal spams. I got to pay $6,000 for that bit of entertainment.

Did you pay the bill outright without negotiating?

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#204
post #21

The Canadian figures seem insanely low. 11.5% total? When I lived in BC making an approximately average income, my effective tax rate alone was 21% [EDIT: originally put 23%]. I paid pension, health insurance, and unemployment deductions on top of that. And that only counts the employee side of deductions. This example is "married with two kids", so it's possible that there are massive offsets that I didn't have acce…

Maybe federal tax, but that starts at 15%. I mean when they say effective maybe they're talking about the average people pay after deductions? Who knows, 11% still seems incorrect.

There is a base income level not taxed at all (~12k CAD), after that it is up from 15% + province tax.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#205
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's the opposite. I moved from Denmark to the US, and I pay around $400 in health insurance premiums (health, eye, and dental) for a whole family. In Denmark, only health is covered, so for eye and dental many go out-of-country to get it cheap. The US is much cheaper for all health insurances, except if your poor. Obama tried to fix that, but made it worse and more expensive for everyone (socialism).

According to the article, workers in Denmark see 26.7% of compensation go to "compulsory payments" including taxes and health care. Workers in US pay 43.2%. Why should I trust your figures over the article? Are you including the "employer contribution" toward your taxes and health care premiums?

Yeah, that's the thing. The true cost is somewhat hidden because of the employer part of the premium. And the costs you pay out of pocket when an actual health event happens.

I imagine you can still pay $1000+ out of pocket to have a baby in a US hospital, even if you have great insurance.

Also, the article talks "average", while I imagine US health costs are highly variable depending on whether you are young, old, smoker, non-smoker, fat, skinny, pre-existing conditions, etc...

Some people pay $1500 per month in health care. And some, $400.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a private company holds treasury securities, we don’t call that a fiction. What’s the difference?

It's different because the private company didn't issue the securities itself. The equivalent for a private company would be creating $3 trillion in bonds, "selling" the bonds to itself, then claiming to have $3 trillion.

In this analogy, they’d be different departments or subsidiaries with different balance sheets, so there’s no need for the scare quotes: they really are selling the bonds. And they didn’t issue $3 trillion in bonds, they issued $20 trillion and sold most of them to other parties on the same terms.

At the very least it indicates that the company prioritizes the finances of that one department much more than any other.

The other problem I have with this complaint is that it implies that things would be different if it didn’t hold treasuries. If it had $3 trillion in a bank account, would that make it “real”? The US government issues dollars too, and can devalue the currency at will, so it’s not really better.

Ultimately, it’s a commitment mechanism. If SS were paid out of the general fund, it could be cut off to fund other projects at will, as long as Congress were willing to piss off old folks. (Which is already a big obstacle, admittedly.) By funding benefits from a gigantic trust fund holding government debt, cutting off SS to fund something else would require imploding the world economy.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#207
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Norwegian ethical stance is against the US starting wars in the middle east and killing people to make their oil a bit more valuable. I mean the American ethical stance, as demonstrated numerous times by various popular votes, is also against war. However, that does not change the fact that countries benefit from it. Ultimately, while perhaps making some countries hypocritical, none of what you said changes the arg…

No. Both countries do not benefit from it, otherwise they would view these wars as just and support them. The political machines in both countries support these wars and force the populace into them - in part (in the US at least) by being a two party system without any way to politically express a desire to not go to war, one party is more hawkish but both parties are full of hawks. As an American I am happy to say,…

> otherwise they would view these wars as just and support them

So the claim is that it is only possible to benefit monetarily from things that are ethically sound?

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#208
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to the ER thinking I was having a heart attack, and it turned out there was nothing wrong. The doctor who saw me afterwards thought it might have been intestinal spams. I got to pay $6,000 for that bit of entertainment.

Did you pay the bill outright without negotiating?

Yes. I couldn’t find an angle to negotiate with. I could afford to pay, so trying to use hardship as a lever to bring down the bill wouldn’t have been honest.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#209
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be an intervention. Not so long ago it was nice to have a couple of tank divisions located in West Germany doing nothing. Doing nothing. Just looking at their Soviet colleagues stationed across the border.

I assume that's precisely what the parent comment meant, that the appearance of force was enough to keep people in line - it's only when America flexes their muscles that things move into the grey area.

The appearance of force costs money. If appearances were free, then hollywood wouldn't need so much money to make movies.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#210
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US you can happy if your cost for seeing a doctor is less than 4 digits. My wife and I have never paid four figures for a doctor visit, despite having two surgeries (one oral), a calf strain, and a dislocated shoulder (with ER visit) between us. The state of medical care in the US is bad enough as it is; you don't need to make up hyperbolic bullshit to make it seem worse.

I fell down the stairs and had a muscle spasm in my back. Had to go an ER. I had insurance that was considered good and it still cost me $350 for 10 minutes with the doctor and a bottle of muscle relaxers.

What is included in that fee is malpractice insurance premiums (because it isn't that nothing can go wrong in that 10 min interaction which causes you to sue the doctor) paid by the doctor.

On the top of that, he didn't charge you for what it was, but for what it wasn't and confirming it.

Take for instance if that muscle spasm actually lead to something darn serious, the doctor ruled that out, that's why he sent you back after 10 mins. For some weird reason (or counter-intuitive economic reasoning which everyone has got), if you had a serious problem, and the doctor had identified it in that 10 mins, then you'd be ok with that billing.

See it this way, if you're tech security contractor and the CEO calls you urgently to come take a look at suspicious behavior on his computer which he thinks might be a hacker hacking his computer, but it turns out to be a quite known windows bug, that doesn't mean you shouldn't charge him your regular fee if it was an actual hacking attempt. You're getting paid for being on call.

Post reply on HN