Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

peoplespolicyproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 534 posts

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#431

Post by arethuza »

lazulicurio wrote: post #229
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem to be a major problem for the EU, which has unrestricted internal migration but social programs are administered by the individual member states. The idea that the poor will mass migrate to California and the rich will mass migrate to South Dakota is pretty unrealistic. The poor can't afford to live in California even with social assistance, and the rich don't want to live in South Dakota no matter…

> This doesn't seem to be a major problem for the EU, which has unrestricted internal migration but social programs are administered by the individual member states I might be off the mark here, but from my understanding wasn't unrestricted migration one of the big drivers behind Brexit? Or at least the idea that the "poor countries" were "taking advantage" of the "rich countries"?

The studies I have seen referenced suggest that EU migrants to the UK are generally net contributors as they pay their taxes like everyone else but tend to travel here without dependents, be younger and eventually go home before they are too old. Migrants from outside of the UK on the other hand tend to be older and come with families so tend to be a net drain on services.

Leaving the EU will mean more migrants from outside of the EU - so will actually cause the situation a lot of Leavers were worrying about to get a lot worse.

See Robert Peston's WTF? for details.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#432

Post by dhimes »

rhacker wrote: 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 a cornerstone of traditionally "conservative" viewpoints in the US. I am now in favor as well.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#433

Post by alehul »

cjrp wrote: post #430
alehul wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people who are fans of the "Scandinavian model" in the U.S. try and hype it up, this is what they seldom understand (or at least publicly recommend). In Sweden, until you hit ~$65,000 in yearly income, all of the taxes you pay on income (which is a relatively high rate) goes to your local government. Only after that point, your extra income goes to the federal government. [1] This model cuts out the immensely la…

Is there some kind of balancing which prevents the nice areas (i.e. containing more affluent people) from becoming really nice, and the poorer areas becoming worse?

Good question! I wondered the same.

There isn’t explicitly, and I know that’s part of what the federal top-down model tries to prevent, but is it really working? The United States’ affluent areas are night-and-day to the poor ones.

If we think about the per-capita income in poorer areas of the States, and what can be taxed off of that, it seems like it’s still enough for that community to function.

The current U.S. model seems to result in everyone getting a much smaller pie, even if the government manages to change the portions of who gets what.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#435

Post by jccalhoun »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #216
Someone1234 wrote: post #19

I moved to the US from a country with socialised medicine. When you include premiums then taxes in both were roughly similar if not a little higher in the US (ignoring cost of living differences). 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 "disc…

Can't even find out what stuff costs beforehand either. I had to get a blood test. I had gotten burned before where my insurance said they covered a physical, but it turns out their definition of a physical didn't include the doctor's definition, which included blood tests. So before I had my blood drawn, I asked them to tell me what the tests would cost if my insurance didn't cover it. "It depends on how it's coded,…

The billing for health care in the USA is also rediculous. Last week I got a bill from the doctor's office for a visit back in November that my insurance company decided not to pay. What other business takes 4+months to send a bill?

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#436

Post by apercu »

rxhernandez wrote: post #369
kradroy wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're employed and your employer is generous, then your insurance premiums can be inexpensive (low double digits per month if you're single, low triple digits if you have dependents) . My wild speculation is that most employers aren't as generous as they could be. If you're "poor", insurance is actually cheap, because that's when you get public insurance. However, if you're just middle income, health care is a no…

When I made less than $30k/year in Los Angeles and had Obamacare, I was paying $144/month to see a nurse associated with a second rate doctor (I also went to a couple urgent care facilities with nearly the same level of quality). The wait times were an average of two hours and I paid at least $75 /visit without any real resolution to my allergy problems. I probably had 10 visits without that needed resolution. When I…

"Obama" care is a far cry from single payer.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#438

Post by fabricexpert »

dandare wrote: post #434

Tangential: As a non-native speaker, I find the word PREMIUM highly problematic. You need a lot of contexts to understand that the article is talking about health care costs not covered by health insurance.

It's not because you are a non-native speaker. It's not a widely used English term without the word Insurance in front of it, however it is a standard American English term.

It is also not the costs "not covered by health insurance", rather the insurance premium is the cost of the policy itself.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#439

Post by fabricexpert »

mattlondon wrote: post #415
tptacek wrote: post #126

Just a quick note that health insurance premiums do not in fact get plowed directly into rents and administrative redundancies; we pay more than Europe (and Medicare) does in administrative costs, but far-and-away the largest components of health care expenditures in the US are in inpatient and outpatient procedure billings (outpatient by a factor of almost 2x inpatient, itself something like 3-4x all administrative…

What I was wondering about was how much money is needed for the sheer administration of processing claims and payments in the US system? In the UK in the NHS, there is none of the layers of beurocracy and paperwork related to call-centers and payment handling and claims inspectors (as far as I know anyway) that I assume is commonplace in the US hospitals and insurance companies. You go in, see the doctor, then leave.…

This argument does hold significant validity, unfortunately there is an irrational need to ensure that a minority are not exploiting the system, even at the cost of those who pay for the system.

For example, I think all buses in London should be free. Look around the bus and you'll see that most people aren't directly paying (under 16, over 60, on benefits) and by taking away the need to check for payment we could get people on and off the buses much faster and completely remove the need for card readers.

Re: US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums

#440

Post by fabricexpert »

philjohn wrote: post #405

So - in the UK you pay national insurance, which ostensibly pays for the NHS and retirement benefits. If you earn £150k a year (top 2% of salaries in the UK) you pay £6,964.16 a year. That's an astounding deal. There are no deductibles, no co pays for hospital stays, GP visits are free, as are any tests and investigations. You do pay £9 for each item on a prescription, but if you get more than 3 items a month you can…

You pay around 40% effective tax rate at £150k. It doesn't really matter exactly where the money goes, at the end of the day the budget has to made by the chancellor and they'll funnel money from NI to other areas and vice versa if they need to.

Still a good deal though.

Post reply on HN