201–210 of 569 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NY has low property taxes compared to most no-income-tax states
Where is that? My parents lived in North County and paid 13k+ a year on a $350k house. Their current place in Tampa is about 400k and the taxes are less than half of what they were in NY. Maybe Florida is a special case?
it will be interesting to watch NY (and/or CA) put something like this in place and observe from afar. i strongly feel that states should be much more aggressive running policy experiments if their constituents desire them, and at the national level we all get some benefit of seeing how things turn out in real time. all that said, assuming there is some tangible tax increase, NYC high earners are going to be knocking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think funding the elderly is a lofty goal, but I don't see a good intellectual argument for FORCING our children to pay for our healthcare. You shouldn't view your child (nor your neighbor's child) as your own personal piggy-bank to extract from when you get ill. IMO our goal should be to hand down resources from parent to child, not the opposite direction. If I made this story a bit more personal and wrote ("I am…
What alternative do you propose? Suicide booths?
If this is anything like the ACA then the vast majority of New Yorkers will end up paying twice for insurance. Once in taxes to subsidize the single-payer marketplace, and then again for their own employer-based insurance. Have to start somewhere though, I guess.
Nooo! Public option is not a half measure, it's a ~zero measure. Single payer >>> public option. Public option is really easy to kill, just kneecap it any of a hundred ways, call it a failure, and then sell killing it as a tax break. It has the staying power of a cobweb on a car wheel. Failure is inevitable and it won't just be dead, it'll be held up for decades as proof that our government is uniquely incapable of d…
>Contrast to single payer, which is hard to kill because people are yes paying a tax but also seeing a benefit and seeing a benefit that they didn't have before
Isn't that true for a public option as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed. Every population graph I can find show a small decline over the last few years but it's still above 2000 and they've had population dips before (1970-1980) that then recovered. This comment reads like my in-laws who always talk about how "people can't get out of CA fast enough", um the population numbers say otherwise.
CA is losing population: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-countie... It isn't crazy fast but it is happening. We will see if the trend holds...
I can't speak for CA but I see parallels in Seattle, though there's only movement to other cities within other WA cities (mainly the east side).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent is not tax, what an absurd comment.
The point is, the apartment owner pays property tax and collect rent from tenants to pay for that. If property taxes go up, property owners raise rents to compensate. So the tenants are paying the property tax, albeit indirectly.
Your mistake is assuming that people who bought up housing stock are guaranteed future profit on their speculative investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount paid per capita and whether you would pay more taxes are not exclusive things. I’m not sure why people keep bringing up Europe - the USA is not Europe. For one doctors are paid more in the USA compared to Europe, medicine is more expensive here, more of the R and D originates here, etc
Maybe good question to ask is what makes it more expensive? Is it bloated administration and insurance system? Or is there some fundamental other difference?
50% of health resources are used in the final 5 years of life. The young should not pay for the healthcare of the elderly. Society should be apportioned into different age categories, and funded separately, with a 'base' tier for all citizens and legal residents, and a higher tier for those with private or employer insurance.
> The young should not pay for the healthcare of the elderly. The same way responsible drivers should not pay for reckless ones? Or responsible homeowners shouldn't pay for reckless ones? The whole idea of insurance is to distribute the costs so that no one has to bear long tail costs alone...
edit: correction, ACA permits charging tobacco users extra. But not, for example, weed users.
50% of health resources are used in the final 5 years of life. The young should not pay for the healthcare of the elderly. Society should be apportioned into different age categories, and funded separately, with a 'base' tier for all citizens and legal residents, and a higher tier for those with private or employer insurance.
Health care should not be limited to just living in CA or NY or the rich.
side note: this site for tracking bills at the state level is kind of nice. Wish other states had this. This is what I have to deal with in TX