lifehouse51

You were probably misinformed about the new bill. It did NOT create a Canadian nor UK NHS style health care system. It did NOT create a government-run insurance (The So-called Public Option). What it did was increase regulations on private health insurance companies in ways that make more people able to buy insurance. Other things included are expansion of the Medicaid program to cover more people, federal subsidy for health insurance for eligible people.

snowbunny

The bill is "health care reform" and not "universal coverage." Unfortunately.

chartreuse

Well, on that basis most of the population could complain, not just immigrants.

Precisely and, while your concerns may be different, they're rooted in the same crappy bit of rulemaking, so we have common cause.

The best solution I was offered was "Oh, they'll find some way to sort it out." But they never did. Turns out the fines are going to be collected by the IRS, but they don't have a budget for enforcing it and will just deduct it from refunds due and ignore the other cases. So the smart thing would be to earn nothing and be due fsck all.

Or, be really sensible and say "Fsck playing by the rules and getting a green card, just go illegal".

dakota44

I would disagree with that. The rich you people you refer to are a very small percentage of the population. The middle class, and below, likely do not have any significant investments to be taxed on to a large degree. They should be so lucky. FICA is income based as a percentage of income with a ceiling, so the lower incomes pay less overall. Gas taxes etc. are minimal at best. Property taxes for the rich are significantly higher because their homes are significantly more expensive and in high tax areas. Mortgage interest deduction likely knocks out the effect of property taxes, which I believe are also deductible, for most middle class folks.

We got a full refund of all taxes withheld and another $2,200 because of tax credits and the Educational Opportunity Grant for the daughter in College. The other daughter claimed her own Educational Opportunity Grant and got all of her taxes back and another $1,600. So we not only paid no taxes (except FICA), but got an additional $3,800 back, over and above the full tax refund. As nice as it is, it's ludicrous. And keep in mind that we had no mortgage interest deduction, no State Income tax deduction, no sales tax deduction to reduce taxes. Just a straight forward return with no extra deductions. Now wouldn't we have been far better off to have paid some taxes and had guaranteed health care? You bet. Fact remains that 40% of tax filers pay no Federal tax and receive refunds via credits etc. Yet many of them manage to afford the huge flat screen, the pool, the second car, the boat yadda yadda yadda. That is no way to fund a nations expenses. No wonder the U.S. is in debt up to it's ears with no way out unless they print up more money than they have paper to print it on.

The same income in Canada would have yielded no refund. Not to mention the 8% Provincial tax and the 5% federal tax on almost everything you buy, higher gas tax, higher sin taxes (cigs and booze etc). And Canadians do quite well with the higher tax situation, with the second car, the boat, the big flat screen yadda yadda yadda. Of course they don't need to shell out 10 or 12k a year for health insurance, no deductibles or co-pays and won't go broke if they get seriously ill. When my fellow Americans begin to realize that you can't have a free ride, things might get better.

And no, my conscience didn't tell me to send the money back. But I also won't complain when the tax situation changes and such refunds are no longer forthcoming.

snowbunny

Hmmm.... I guess then I'll work really hard on never being overwithheld!

chartreuse

Sorry, I was not as clear as I should have been. I was talking about the fines for not having the mandated insurance cover. I don't know which bunch of jackbooted thugs collect (from the sponsor) the moneys that one's sponsee received but shouldn't have.

dakota44

One would think, though you certainly can't be sure of reasoned logic in such matters, that spouses and children who are on a green card would qualify for inclusion in any family health plan and resultant assistance. One would hope, but clearly it is a question not considered during preparation of the bill. The fact that the bill refers only to illegal or undocumented aliens being ineligible should be a good sign. But who knows. Keep your fingers crossed.

Michael

The mandatory requirement to purchase insurance doesn't start for about 4 years. It starts the same time that the subsidies kick in to help you purchase the insurance.

Giantaxe

I guess I don't follow your logic. You get fined for not having health insurance. Presumably as a non permanent resident you are not eligible for the available subsidies to help buy said insurance if your income is under certain levels. Why is that unreasonable?

snowbunny

In my case, I am a sponsor to someone who will not be on my family plan. Divorce does not cancel the sponsor's responsibility.

snowbunny

Not everyone will be a permanent resident who is also eligible for MTB with no penalty to their original sponsor - even in four years. There's no guaranteed path to end the sponsorship clause; the immigrant has to gain US citizenship or pay into SS for 40 quarters. The sponsor has no say in whether those conditions will be met.

dakota44

That definitely makes a difference. Have you considered assassination?

dakota44

Can your ex not file for citizenship? It's only a three year wait after green card, isn't it? I'll be pushing citizenship for my OH and kids in another 2 years.

Michael

The top 1% of earners reported income that is 23% of the total income in the US and paid 38% of all federal income taxes but held 40% of the total wealth in the US. Either those people are the dumbest investors in the world having 40% of the wealth and only producing 23% of the income or have large loopholes and/or are illegally evading reporting income.

The top 400 earners in the US paid an average of 16.6% in federal income tax on their reported income last year which is the lowest since the great depression.

The very rich live in places like Palm Beach, Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, or Hillsborough and may live in a home that cost $20 million. It only costs so much to run schools and provide city services so even though they may pay $50,000 per year for property taxes, that is only about 0.25% of the value of their property and may be an insignificant part of their income. The average American will typically pay between 1%-4% of the value of their property in property taxes and that would likely be a significant portion of their income.

The same is true for FICA, sales taxes, gas taxes, and import duty. Each of those have a significant impact on the average families income but may not have a significant impact on the rich

As far as corporate income taxes, conservatives like to claim that US corporations are taxed at the second highest rate in the developed world (35%). However, US corporations have the largest tax loopholes in the world allowing US corporations to pay the 3rd lowest in taxes as a percentage of gdp.

I'm agree that taxes should be raised but the republicans have made raising taxes a dirty word and any president that dares to raise taxes will likely be voted out. The problem occurs when the republicans always cut taxes creating large deficits and then the democrats have to come in and raise taxes and take the flack from voters. Clinton had to raise taxes because of Reagan and Bush I and narrowly escaped getting kicked out and I suspect that Obama will also have to raise income taxes because of tax cuts by Bush II. However, I suspect that raising income taxes will not fly and a national sales tax will be implemented to try to get less flack. However, that will shift the Bush tax cuts from the richer to the poorer.

The following chart indicates that it is always republican presidents that raise the national debt as a percentage of gdp and it is the democrats that reduce the debt as a percentage of gdp. I suspect that Obama will be the first democrat to have increased the national debt as a percentage of gdp since WWII.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Democrats are tax and spend but republicans are tax cut and spend.

dakota44

The Republican Party has been the party of the rich, and yet they draw support from those whom they provide nothing for. That always amazes me. Their tax cuts always benefit the wealthy or higher income people and, as you said, increase the deficit. The G.W. Bush tax cuts are a primary reason for the massive financial problems facing the government now. Trickle down economics has always been a bullshit theory. Honest, if we give multi- millionaires trillions in tax cuts, some of it will trickle down to you. We promise. Right. Take those tax cuts for the wealthy back and the cost of health care would not be so daunting. I prefer spending money to provide services, and in the case of the all too often ignored infrastructure, jobs. Better to have a deficit that produces something. It beats giving the wealthy more play money to buy a new luxury car or expand the pool area. Or hire another illegal alien to clean their house. You are spot on about Corporate taxes, especially since so many of them avoid taxes altogether by setting up offshore headquarters while they also farm out jobs to the rest of the world and end up with tax breaks for that too.