Live data from Hacker News

US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

peoplespolicyproject.org

331–340 of 534 posts

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#331

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…

You might have a skewed sense of what median Canadian income is. And your job might be further above that median than you realize. Median Canadian individual income is ~$35,000 [0]. In B.C., your average 2019 tax rate would be 13.34% not including non-refundable tax credits (and so the effective rate would likely be a point or two lower). [1] A median tax rate of 11.5% against a median Canadian individual income seem…

That 35000 number includes retirees (though I don't know to what extent retirements are income-funded in Canada) and kids still in high school and college (and possibly post-graduate education).

The median income for 45-54 year olds from that site seems to be $49,100. Median for 35-44 is 48,000. It's not $60-80k as you say below, but not $35k either.

One other interesting note is that there is a pretty big difference by gender. Median income for _males_ 35-44 is $56,300 while females are at $41,400. For 45-54 year olds those numbers are $58,000 and $42,400 respectively.

Those differences are big enough that I wonder whether this is being affected by the relative incidence of part-time vs full-time work. The statistics here seem to be looking at people with any income at all (including investment income), not "salaries"... Depending on the demographics of the people you talk to (full-time jobs, 35-55 years old, maybe toss in "male"), $60k is not an unreasonable thing for them to feel a "typical" experience is.

I agree that people with educations and in "good" jobs tend to over-estimate the median income, but I also think that once you account for lifecycle effects the median income of what people think of as a "typical worker" (which is not a 17-year old nor a 70-year old) is higher than the summary statistics suggest. And of course the thing that can really hurt is if you can't find full-time work at all....

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#332
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yea but how many billionaires does your country have. Hah!

not only billionaires. How about completely unauditable $700B defense budget producing beauties like F-35 plus additional supplemental couple hundred billions per year on actively establishing and maintaining democracy in a bunch of places far far away! correction - wow! the first ever audit has finally happened https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/11/15/heres-what-t... : "But department officials were quick to…

I always felt great to serve in the military and fight for freedom (of oil).

Next up: Venezuela.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that a lot of employers don't tell workers how much they are paying for health insurance. Because for large companies the number gets rolled into a negociated contract. In my case I do know. My employer pays $930 some a month. My rent used to be $860/month. The other thing the happens is just because you have insurance doesn't mean that healthcare providers aren't trying to jack more money out of you. An…

Employer’s share of premium is on your W-2 tax forms, box 12 code DD. https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/form-w-2-reporting-o...

Yeah I only pay like 20% of the cost of the premium for my plan for my wife and I. Which means the actual premium is over $1k a month... yikes. At least the deductible is only a few hundred dollars...

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#334
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…

our cities are filled with bums, and have absolutely no money to either give them jobs or make new programs. New York City spends about $30k per homeless and you still cannot walk a block without seeing one. It's not about the money...

If New York was more efficient with that money and took half the homeless people off the streets, they'd be paying about 60k per homeless person.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#335
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Where did I say that was my position? My comment was purely an accounting claim; there is little opportunity for spin.

So... you don't think it's insolvent then and agree with the OMB that the bookeeping gets complicated but that money exists to pay the existing claims in full for the next few decades? What is your position if you aren't claiming it's going to go up in a big kaboom?

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#336
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"If you're Neither of those even resembles a claim that it will "blow up before the end of the Trump administration"

Ugh. Why do these threads always turning into such a strawman mess.

"Big accounting problem", in fact, were MY words upthread when replying to a claim that SS benefits might not exist by then. And I agree, a ~20% shortfall is a big accounting problem. But it's not a social disaster and doesn't need to be treated like one.

Consider: reduce benefits by 7%, increase the FICA payroll tax by 7%, adjust incentives so people reduce their benefit-years by 7%. Seems like our society can survive that without planning on retirement without government assistance.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#337
The only problem with the ‘Medicare for all’ system is that it won’t reduce that insanely high ‘stealth’ taxation - it will just add to it... However, at least with efforts like Oklahoma’s Surgery Center etc one stands a chance to escape the compulsory racket through market efficiency. Potentially.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#338
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With insurance, more complicated births aren't that much more. We were out of pocket $4k for the birth of our twins (maxed our deductible). The total 'sticker price; was over a million USD (they spent a combined 10 weeks in the NICU).

Over a million for 10 weeks in nicu? Who sets these rates?

[deleted]

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#340
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But even that doesn't include the real sting on the tail of US medicine. You pay a fairly high health insurance premium, but if you actually need health services you then pay again through the nose even with insurance "discounts." That's mostly not true if you have an HMO plan, but your employer may not offer HMO plans if it offers insurance, the HMO may not be a good one if it is available, or it may not cover goo…

Employers have to offer HMOs.

Employers of a certain size have to offer insurance that covers at least 60% of the cost of certain services and meets certain affordability requirements. They are not required, under federal law, to offer HMO plans.
Post reply on HN