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

California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

taxfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 363 posts

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#161

Post by _moof »

hourislate wrote: post #149
no_wizard wrote: post #4

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

Typical the argument is that a single payer system is to avoid waste. California Government would be the perfect candidate for this since they are so fiscally responsible and do such an amazing job managing their finances. God Speed.

California had a $75 billion surplus last year.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#162

Post by nomendos »

I am US Citizen living in CA, while also have lived (and am citizen) of other 3 countries, Canada as one prior to US. To remind all, Michael Moore's Sicko documentary is huge misrepresentation of how good socialized HC is, while it did point huge issues with the current privatized/greed-based private US HC with crooked HC+insurance industry.

So as not all is BW, from my experience with Canadian HC, socialization of the health-care system shall produce the following: 1. significantly lower the quality of services (same or lower number of staff, material, equipment serving higher number of people) 2. waiting lists shall start appearing slowly and then progress over the years 3. HC shall deteriorate slowly (look at the UK and many other countries) 4. Extended/add-on/"bridge" HC shall become popular to fill in the gaps for the working people who demand at least better minimum (in Canada this is the norm, where typical Canadian pays just for this add-on HC similar per paycheck amount as US employer for the whole today's HC!)

Populist government "figures" shall play any card to live for another day and "please voters" including "changing realities" or avoiding the real "put all on the table and have open conversation" approach.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#163

Post by mikestew »

Kye wrote: post #133
john_moscow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an outflow of people willing to produce value, and an inflow of people ready to consume it. It will work just great until suddenly there's not that many value left to feed all the hungry mouths. And then the mouths will take pitchforks and go raid the nearby granary because that's where they think the food is. Only to find it empty because the people willing to actually produce food left long time ago. USSR h…

Did you get your entire understanding of economics from an Ayn Rand novel? The idea that there are givers and takers is a nonsense understanding. Even billionaires provide a little value, though not much. I also don't see how the people providing the bulk of value, mostly in retail/service, could afford to leave with billionaires taking all the remuneration from the labor of others. Your analysis is complete bunk.

Did you get your entire understanding of economics from an Ayn Rand novel?

That's what it was reminding me of. (The USSR comparison should have given it away, but I can be slow that way.) Complete with the farmers going all "John Galt". Of course, what Rand forgot was that there's not going to be pitchforks at the granary. Like, what, folks are just going to let that land lie fallow? Like there isn't going to be some other steel company glad to have the competition out of the way? (re: Atlas Shrugged) Some folks like to fantasize that the world will miss them when they take their ball and go home. Some will later discover that the world is cruelly indifferent to them.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#164

Post by Maarten88 »

Fatnino wrote: post #109
jobu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the headline could easily be flipped with the subheading and most people's reaction would be drastically different. Overall I think a single-payer system is for the best. Having healthcare tied to your job creates another anchor to keep people tied to large, stable companies instead of taking risks with startups or small businesses. The main downside is that companies have started doing tiered healthcare costs…

Some system to earn tax credits if you can prove that you lead a healthy lifestyle. Maybe verified by the doctors in the unified health system.

A sugar tax will accomplish a lot and is much easier.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#165

Post by sokoloff »

dillondoyle wrote: post #82
no_wizard wrote: post #4

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

It goes beyond deductions too. Though maybe you're referring to total costs of premiums or company pays costs that probably come out of your comp. I was shocked to learn how much my parent's insurance costs. Even though ostensibly employed by a huge multi-national, my dad technically operates as his own S-corp so they have to buy on the market. That seems to be a trend in the gig economy which is worse for low 'wage'…

> By the time they are 75 or even older the cost would be insane if this continues.

That's more or less why Medicare exists.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#166

Post by hotpotamus »

onphonenow wrote: post #145
baq wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure why you're getting downvoted, came here to say exactly that. European countries (including the UK - actually one of the best examples of single payer health care) figured out that having a healthy population is a matter of national security, so it gets funded the same way.

Except UK is a disaster, 6M people waiting for service. Some longer than a year. Heartbreaking stories if you are paying attention.

How many millions are waiting in the US because they can't afford care?

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#167

Post by onphonenow »

oxymoran wrote: post #152
onphonenow wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got access to employer numbers. Grandfathered plans are an absolutely screaming deal. You can do an HSA plan with a $2000 deductible and low OOP max, fully fund the HSA ($7,200) and come out way ahead at modest cost. This let's you do things like vision / dental / chiro / accu / whatever day to day stuff on the HSA, then keep costs controlled (after 2K) for a major issue. If you don't end up using the HSA you ca…

It’s the preexisting injury part that jacked up the prices. They aren’t allowed to deny enrollment or charge significantly higher premiums if some was has cancer or something. And that totally makes sense morally, but that causes the risk burden to be offset on the aggregate of the subscribers resulting in higher premiums for everyone. It would be kind of similar to forcing auto insurance carriers to afford coverage…

I've NEVER seen an employee denied (or asked) about their medical conditions ever. The enrollment paperwork to the carrier is like basic address / name / effective date for coverage. That is it.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#168

Post by mjrpes »

SllX wrote: post #20

This will be one of the easiest “No” votes I’ll have ever filled out on my ballot. For those following along at home, this resolution would take the form of a Constitutional Amendment, if passed by Californians on the ballot that would raise per household taxes by $12,500/year. The important thing here is that Californians have to agree to pass it.

Everything in the bill is a highly progressive tax based on percentage of earnings/revenue by individual/business: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

$500,000 income (at 50+ org) would be taxed $7500+4500+750+2000 = $14,750/year

$300,000 income (at 50+ org) would be taxed $3750+2500+$750 = $7000/year

$150,000 income would be taxed either $1000 ($50,000 income would be taxed either $0 (So it's around $450,000 income that you hit that $12,500/year amount (2.7% of income)

Excise tax is separate factor.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#169

Post by john_moscow »

mr_overalls wrote: post #113
john_moscow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an outflow of people willing to produce value, and an inflow of people ready to consume it. It will work just great until suddenly there's not that many value left to feed all the hungry mouths. And then the mouths will take pitchforks and go raid the nearby granary because that's where they think the food is. Only to find it empty because the people willing to actually produce food left long time ago. USSR h…

The United States is still the only country in the developed world without a system of universal healthcare. Breathlessly comparing the USSR's economic policies with the raising of taxes to cover such a fundamental service betrays a staggering ignorance of economics and history.

Oh, I happened to live on both sides of the globe and have a fairly sound explanation. Europeans (that have the only universal healthcare system of comparable quality) have a concept of doing your duty. It's when a tool manufacturer won't deliberately put shittier wiring to make the motor fail short after the warranty expires. It's when a dentist won't claim you have 3 extra holes and then keep pretend-drilling your teeth for 30 minutes and bill you for it. It's when an advisor will actually try to find a solution fitting you the most (as opposed to the one paying the highest commission). U.S. culture is different. Like it or not, it's about making a quick buck and hopefully not ending up in prison. That's great for startups and high-risk ventures, but it will never work with setups when you just assume people to do their job well and not try to stiff you in some way.

Russian culture is very similar, so when USSR implemented centralized planning, people resorted to just stealing what they could. Like literally, your way to get some meat for the lunch would be to know the guy that works on a sausage factory, who would steal a piece for you in exchange for some vodka your cousin stole from the distillery. This eroded the trust between people to the point where you cannot start most types of business because your employees will randomly steal shit from you no matter how much you pay them. Hence, high petty crime. Hence, endless feuds between neighbors. You have no idea how low the ship can sink without people realizing that something is wrong.

What always worked in the entrepreneurial cultures like the American one is set proper incentives. Simple, transparent rules that people would agree upon, and let them compete with each other. If you have 10 dental practices, and 2 of them charge you for the holes you don't have, the customers will move to the remaining 8. If a hospital starts charging unreasonable fees to feed extra levels of bureaucracy, a bunch of pissed off MDs will open a competing one. But we are not doing that. We have low interest rates that allow established players to scoop up competition with cheap debt. We have complex bureaucratic systems that make opening a new hospital without a 8-figure investment virtually impossible, and then we wonder why people's entrepreneurial energy gets directed towards creative billing rather than actually delivering value.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#170

Post by uberman »

California would increase taxes by $12,250 per household

Let's take it at face value this is fact.

For my healthcare plan I pay 6k a year on top of what the company pays (more that 20k). Then I pay copays on top of that.

It seems perfectly plausible to me that I would come out ahead if the company and I switched from paying about 30k a year in healthcare costs to a single payer system with only 20k a year in costs to me and my employer!

We can split the difference and each is ahead 5k.

I think people need to do more than just read a headline.

Post reply on HN