Dude, a freaking tax credit? Seriously. The vast majority of the people who are not currently in the system have no use for a tax credit. They don't file returns in the first place. They have no use for the tax credit and frankly, no mechanism to therefore redeem it.
I think this is relatively well-known out in LJ Land, but I'm a tax attorney. Got the LL.M. and everything. Those are my bona fides. Using the tax code to shape public policy is a crapshoot. Sometimes it works great -- homeownership, rehabilitation tax credits. Sometimes it's horrific -- like REITs and 1031s. I'd rather not through further weight on a drowning ship.
Al Gore's system of tax credits was a nightmare waiting to happen. Hillary's plan back in the 90s was a well-intentioned disaster waiting to happen. If John Kerry even had something approaching a coherent proposal than I must have missed it, but frankly, like the candidate, I sure it would have been void of anything worthwhile. Bush's is non-existent -- HSAs are silly. (And his most recent ideas about taxing really high end benefits is so out of left field it's almost silly.)
Honestly, this just isn't an area where the market can be trusted to yield an equitable result.
Great, you're a tax attorney. Perhaps I'm using the wrong word. I mean the type of money off of your taxes that you get whether you owe taxes or not. If you don't owe taxes, you get the money applied to your refund.
What's the right term? Tax credit? Rebate? Refund?
Also, people not paying taxes? You mean illegals? Because I don't think your universal health care would cover them - at least it damn well shouldn't if they're not paying into the system in the first place.
No, I'm talking about the vast (and I do mean vast) number of people who usually don't file at all. They still pay taxes through mandatory employer withholding -- they just don't file a return. They see no reason to because (a) the government generally doesn't bother them and (b) they feel they are unable to navigate a 1040 successfully. Why? I dunno, I think with things like the EITC and the like, most of these folks would probably get a refund back, so the IRS figures that non-filing probably does the fisc's overall bottom line good. These people are generally the poor, who, coincidentally are disproportionately members of the uninsured. A tax credit does them no good.
What you're generally referring to is a deduction. An above-the-line deduction is the one you get at the bottom of the first page of your return and is generally seen as more valuable than the other kind because it reduces your adjusted gross income which is what determines your individual bracket. A below-the-deduction is what happens on the top of the second page. Below-the-line no longer affects your bracket, but it does determine whether you've paid enough in taxes, not enough or too much. Below-the-line, most folks generally just take the standard deduction rather than itemize because they don't have enough in itemized (which already includes a potential recoup for unreimbursed medical expenses) deductions to make it worth their while.
Ok, what I'm talking about is a big, fat, check. It doesn't matter how you file, if you file, whether you have state income tax. The government issues you a check provided you prove you have purchased health insurance. Or, as my shoe analogy prescribes, you go to a government office, fill out some papaer work for a voucher, take it to the private company, and the government pays the company directly.
Either way, the government is paying for it. The only difference is whether the government is paying itself - a massive and ineffectual monopoly - or private companies which compete to lower prices and offer better services.
Good question. This is where my limited knowledge limits me. I don't know the details of why we would use health insurance in this case. Likely so that all the people paying in put their money in the hands of the insurance companies, who invest the money to make more money to pay out to cover their customers.
Well, I'm with you on that. It seems our system of paying a middle man in order to pay the care provider is a vestige of a bygone era. I get your general distrust of putting piles of money in the hands of government bureaucrats with no motive to spend it efficiently. But the flip side is that I have even more distrust of private middlemen situations -- like tied house alcohol distributorships, title insurance and, of course, private insurers.
The latest intriguing compromise that I heard about is most likely DOA because it gores one too many oxes -- lowering the age eligibility for Medicare to 55, upping the payroll tax commensurately and instituting some needed tort reform on med mal claims. And then federally subsidizing insurance for catastrophic health care in much the same fashion as we do for flood insurance.
Well the notion of insurance in general is certainly not altogether gone. A lot of us pay monthly, some of us draw out. It makes sense. If all the money is coming from a single entity anyway, I'm not entirely sure the notion still makes sense. In my (Giuliani's, Bush's, etc.) privatized scheme, the insurance would still be necessary since some would elect to pay above what the tax credit pays for.
Although I didn't bring it up, I'm kinda in favor of needing to be below a certain level of income/net worth/whatever is fair for the tax credit paid health care. I kinda think people that can afford it should have to pay it and the government should just pay for the poor people. That would allow the government to pay more for the poor and everyone wins.
I think this is relatively well-known out in LJ Land, but I'm a tax attorney. Got the LL.M. and everything. Those are my bona fides. Using the tax code to shape public policy is a crapshoot. Sometimes it works great -- homeownership, rehabilitation tax credits. Sometimes it's horrific -- like REITs and 1031s. I'd rather not through further weight on a drowning ship.
Al Gore's system of tax credits was a nightmare waiting to happen. Hillary's plan back in the 90s was a well-intentioned disaster waiting to happen. If John Kerry even had something approaching a coherent proposal than I must have missed it, but frankly, like the candidate, I sure it would have been void of anything worthwhile. Bush's is non-existent -- HSAs are silly. (And his most recent ideas about taxing really high end benefits is so out of left field it's almost silly.)
Honestly, this just isn't an area where the market can be trusted to yield an equitable result.
Reply
What's the right term? Tax credit? Rebate? Refund?
Also, people not paying taxes? You mean illegals? Because I don't think your universal health care would cover them - at least it damn well shouldn't if they're not paying into the system in the first place.
Reply
What you're generally referring to is a deduction. An above-the-line deduction is the one you get at the bottom of the first page of your return and is generally seen as more valuable than the other kind because it reduces your adjusted gross income which is what determines your individual bracket. A below-the-deduction is what happens on the top of the second page. Below-the-line no longer affects your bracket, but it does determine whether you've paid enough in taxes, not enough or too much. Below-the-line, most folks generally just take the standard deduction rather than itemize because they don't have enough in itemized (which already includes a potential recoup for unreimbursed medical expenses) deductions to make it worth their while.
Reply
Either way, the government is paying for it. The only difference is whether the government is paying itself - a massive and ineffectual monopoly - or private companies which compete to lower prices and offer better services.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The latest intriguing compromise that I heard about is most likely DOA because it gores one too many oxes -- lowering the age eligibility for Medicare to 55, upping the payroll tax commensurately and instituting some needed tort reform on med mal claims. And then federally subsidizing insurance for catastrophic health care in much the same fashion as we do for flood insurance.
Reply
Although I didn't bring it up, I'm kinda in favor of needing to be below a certain level of income/net worth/whatever is fair for the tax credit paid health care. I kinda think people that can afford it should have to pay it and the government should just pay for the poor people. That would allow the government to pay more for the poor and everyone wins.
Reply
Leave a comment