Do You Think that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate to help fund health care as a right for all Americans?

Here's an idea I've never seen floated yet: How about a 70 % tax on health insurance company profits? There's billions there to be mined, and it came from working Americans anyway. That millions they waste on lobbying and executive bonuses should rightfully be used to pay for claims they wrongfully denied. Take 70 % of Big Oil's profits too, while we're at it. Since the health insurance companies are the main culprits in why our health care system is a mess, they should rightfully shoulder the burden of paying for a public option. Another good alternative would be to level a $10,000 fine on them anytime they turn someone down for coverage, drop them from coverage they already had, or refused to pay for a procedure. larkinfan2

Do you know that about 400 big corporations have their offices in Tortola! Hence, NO INCOME TAXES! As someone else mentioned, it's the tax cuts that Bush gave his buddies that helped cause this crash - let them give it back - they don't really, really need any more diamonds! Also, as I understand it, EVERY important financial office is lead by an old Goldman Sachs boy! That's every single one! It's bad enough that we have Geitner and Sommers but ALL of them. What do you suppose the statistic possibilities of that are? I read everywhere that another stimulus package is being readied for the big money people (who use it to give themselves bonuses and pay off their own bills at foreign banks). Isn't there something worng with this picture?

Just roll those back into place. That was the plan, but the Rethugs, and their way with words never call it what it is. They screw around with the language, so "ending the tax cuts for the wealthy" becomes "raising taxes," and the ignorant sheeple swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker. It didn't matter how many times Obama said, "This won't impact you if you earn under 250K." They couldn't hear it for the noise coming from FAUX news and Joe the Plumber. YES! Get rid of their tax breaks, and make them pay their fair share!! Gee, if Exxon lost their tax cuts, (and the subsidies we give them for "exploration") maybe they would stop paying billions of dollars to the Global Warming Deniers. (exxonsecrets.org) Maybe that would shut the liars up, let science prevail, help save the planet, AND pay for some serious health care.

Since most of them are responsible for taking our jobs over to China it's the least they can do for destroying our country by putting many of us out of our jobs. They lived the good life for tto many years with loopholes and tax cuts at our expense. Time to pay for the free ride.

The more wealth one has, the more one depends on the govt to maintain it. Not only should they pay more dollars, they should be billed a higher proportion to support the govt.The DOD isn't protecting me. Treasury isn't watching out for my relatively little accounts. Every public works program is to make majority more comfortable slaving for the minority. Virtually every "welfare" type program is to prevent those further up the food chain from being robbed and killed by those who have less. I won't list every single govt activity and how it benefits wealth. The single most important role of a govt, under any and every type of organization, is to maintain order. When order fails, the wealthy, privileged and powerful rely on the govt to protect them. Let them pay for it.

Why do we even have to ask the question? Is the concept of paying more when you make more so foreign and forgotten? Should it be the other way around? The less you make the more you pay? Or the more you make the less you pay? Let's return to the tax rates of the great conservative years of Raygun and Tricky Dick (not Cheney). Regardless of what we need the tax revenues for (we have no shortage of need), the current tax rates and loop holes are scandalous, unless we just go ahead and admit to ourselves and the world, and teach it in our schools, WE ARE A PLUTOCRACY and damn proud of it! And remove all notions of "We the People," democratic republic, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence; and just be honest and make it "We the Rich People..." YES! Raise taxes on the rich, already! What, are you that stupid?

The solution is simple. Right now, everyone earning 106,800.00 and below pay 6.20% FICA in payroll taxes..matched by their employer. Because of a cap at $106,800.00, the individual who earns five million pays only one tenth of one percent FICA on his earnings. In addition, everyone (rich & nonrich) pays 1.45% of their earnings toward medicare (again matched by employer). First, we should make anyone earning over $106,800.00, pay just the same as those earning below that amount. It is time for the rich to pay their fair share. Perhaps the solution might be to reduce the FICA tax on earnings from 6.20% to 5% (making the rich pay 5% also)and increasing the medicare to 3% for all. Several years ago, the Chief Actuary for Soc Sec Admin was asked in a newspaper interview what would happen if the SS cap was lifted and his answer was problem solved regarding funding.

ABSOLUTELY! $250K is...ummm.... over $20,000 a month! I make $703/month on SS. That's a good bit more that I live on! No more loopholes for people making over $250K. My daughter and her husband don't make near that much ($250K), both are self-employed, and still cannot afford health insurance, and their health has suffered. Daughter had a UTI a few years ago, and let it go until she was at the brink of renal failure! All because she didn't have the $$ to go to the doctor! They make just enough to disqualify them for 'help', and not enough to pay insurance premiums.

meditator108 Yes.

Heck,yes! These people are parasites--they don't really produce wealth, except to create Ponzi schemes. Tax 'em @1950's rate of 91%.

chanjam Absolutely YES! These folks use the many amenities of the U.S. that MANY of us cannot access because we simply cannot afford it. Healthcare is a RIGHT - not a PRIVILEGE! So, yes, those who can afford to contribute more should be made to do so. I believe the salary limits are fair.

tomccat~~ Unfortunately, this proposal is academic. The rich are paying off the rich Congress to stop any bill that taxes the rich!

Yes, tax the buggers! Any one making above $250,000 should pay extra taxes!

This system of taxing based on a percentage of income seems to work great for other nations of the world. I like it, and I actually like to pay my taxes, it makes me happy to think I am supporting roads, bridges, levees, education and I would be really happy to support health care. Health care for all. It is real in other countries, so why do we let people suffer in fear and lose their homes and be treated as though they should be ashamed if they get sick. It is a form of aprtheid really, anyone of us can and will fall into the "undesireable caste" either through age, illness, or accident. Helping others through this tax will ultimately be helping ourselves. The only other possible alternative is the one that is occuring even now; insurance companies will become more and more exclusive, and increasing numbers of people will be disallowed from helathcare access, until only the very wealthy will be treated.

That's a lot! I would prefer a graduated tax beginning at maybe $25,000 of .5% and graduated in increments of .25% upto manbe a max of 1 1/2 or 2% at the very top earners. That would make everyone pay something, which is fair, but if sineine has an AGI of $6,000 and they have to pay an additional $30 a year, I really don't see a problem with that!

With no deductions that reduce their "tax burden" to zip, and every time they miss a tax payment they pay penalties at the same rate I have to pay for being late on estimateds? Now THAT would be fair, IMO - though apparently not to so-called "Dr. Roberts" who worked hard to get lobbyists to screw the working and lower classes so HE could be an trolling fathead on here...!

You should tax the rich. Make them pay to clean up the mess they made. If a working stiff makes a 20 cent mistake in his checkbook and bounces a check, he will pay a 35 dollar "charge" to the very bank that was part of an industry that received taxpayer bailouts because it was "too big to fail". Yet that same bank froze credit to small businesses resulting in the working stiff being laid of his living wage job.

The tax rate needs to be raised for the rich. Taxes are the dues we pay for a civilized society and the rich are not paying their fair share. In the Eisenhower years they paid over 90% and it made possible programs we needed and still need. I don't understand the constant mantra of lowering taxes and firmly believe this is destructive to a democratic society. I m glad you asked for our opinion.

Doc said:

"My wife and I were born solidly lower middle-class. We achieved the American dream by hard work, saving and investing."

I'm going to make a guess: Doc and his wife entered the workforce in the post-war middle class boom, when labor was at a premium and lots of people were finally experienceing some disposable income. Doc made a good wage, had GREAT benefits, and moved up in whatever organization he worked for. Along come the 80's and the money saved by Doc began to get more valuable, because of Reagan's slashing of dividend taxes, and this trend only increased as ignorant conservatism began laying more and more of the cost of running a society at the feet of its less affluent citizens. Meanwhile, Doc's Bennies and investments held fast, and he began patting himself on the back for a job well done, and sneering at the upcoming generation laboring to meet ends with two-income households and shrinking, ephemeral benefits.

If I've missed the mark and this is NOT Doc's resume....well, it represents a lot of people I've known who argue his precise positions.

The rich should be grateful we allow them to continue living. People with inherited wealth should be taxed at 100%, retroactive. You don't earn it, you don't get it. The rich have been lucky. They've had theirs. Now it's our turn, and if they don't like it, perhaps they like piano wire and lamp-posts. It's time to break the oligarchy.

Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000. Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall. On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20% The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere. Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies. Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone. His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers." Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, "to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000." The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses." The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to "increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families." In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers. The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes. Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut. Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.

Let's just begin by sending business a realistic bill for the taxpayer-funded infrastructure on which they depend. Use the USPS, here's a fee, use the airport, here's a fee. Does your activity require protection from our military, here's your fair share of the bill. Drive on the streets, here's your fair share. Advertise on the public airwaves, here's a fee, and on and on. My guess is that VERY shortly they would get the message that reasonable tax rates are more than justifiable - and preferable to being nickled-and-dimed for all the things they take for granted public expense. Then, a financial transaction fee is long overdue. Most governments already impose such a fee. It is small, but adds up to a lot of money, given the volume of transactions which take place. The possibilities are nearly endless. Just make rich people pay for the damage that they do to society in the course of getting rich. Is that unreasonable? I think not, and I believe it would solve most, if not all, of our financial problems. Will they take their business elsewhere? Let them. Will we buy from them? No. The message must be clear: We are no longer an "entitlement society", not for people who choose not to legally contribute, nor for corporations who profiteer from the public till, rename it simple "profit". Make no mistake, the money is out there, the only remedy needed is a fair,equal and just distribution of it. Never assume malice where stupidity would suffice. Hanlon's Razor

NO... not at a higher rate... just TAXED! NO deductions, no loopholes... just pay their fair share like all of us...

"Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society" ~FDR

When taxes were in the 90+ percent bracket almost nobody actually took home that much money. If the company was doing that well (and many were) the extra money would be used to build the business rather than be looted by owners or CEO's. There was a lot of corruption caused as big companies bought corporate Jets, Yachts etc. but there were few and they had to justify them by actually using them to entertain business associates etc.

When the taxes were lowered money ceased to go into company infrastructure and was instead looted by the folk at the top. Profits that had been acceptable in an environment that the money stayed in the company anyway, became not enough to even pay the CEO's salary much less the stockholders, and any enterprise that took too much actual investment in machinery and tooling became undoable, with those that had such investment made much more in liquidation than actually making stuff.

Thus was the American Economy made hollow.

---

As for health care the bill should be put on the businesses that would benefit most with a sliding scale depending on the entire stock value of the enterprise including all subsidiaries etc. the size of the corporations gives them greater power to twist markets, it is time there was a force in the opposite direction to compensate.

---

If the Gang Of Pirates think that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, it is not any part of Bipartisan to accommodate them and roll over and play dead.

While I agree with several of the comments relative to raising taxes in a variety of ways, I suggest that health care be a discrete "pay as you go" account, with financing from three sources. 1} Taxes on life-style related habits that contribute to medical costs, such as sugar, saturated fats, driving (either a gas or milage tax), and a pollution tax on business, roughly equivilent to their contribution to health costs. 2) Means adjusted service fees, with the per cent co-pay and maximum out-of-pocket cost based on income tax brackets. Everyone pays but the rich do pay more. I would have a small co-pay for even those who pay no income tax. 3} An income tax surcharge that could be adjusted every year to reflect the previous years costs. Again, most people pay, but the rich pay much more. Finally, this would all have to be administered by a large board, including all special interests, but the majority tilted away from those interests. Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion.

Rob Joe the Anti Republican Hell yes tax the rich. If you make millions you should pay your share just like the rest of us poor slobs. If you make 10 million you can afford to pay 1 million in taxes. No deductions.

For decades we have been told that tax cuts for the rich were utilitarian -- that ultimately they provided the greatest good for the greatest number as the rich were free to invest and expand the economy for the good of all. The events of the past few months have burned through that dense fog of mendacity so that all may see and understand the dishonesty of this sophistry regardless of how many fog machines the corporate media and the banksters on Wall Street keep running 24/7. Now virtually everyone sees, with the exception of the poor fools listening to right-wing radio and watching Faux News, that the tax cuts for the rich were enacted because they benefited the rich, and only the rich. Because the rich controlled the corporate media and had bought most of the Congress, that was sufficient reason. And with their tax cuts, the rich were free to buy even more of the Congress and consolidate and control even more of the media. But as many here have noted, and as many more have seen throughout history, the accumulation of resources at the top (which has happened so frequently in societies throughout history it might be deemed inevitable) ultimately leads to collapse, as the foundation cannot hold. We all depend on each other to a certain degree and the rich depend on the rest of us to a greater degree than they would like to admit.

And until then, a nod to incrementalism -- steeply progressive taxes on ALL income (for individuals and corporations) including capital gains; steeply progressive inheritance taxes; transaction taxes on all gambling (stocks, bonds, securities, commodities trading, derivatives and other exotic instruments); and on the way to treating usury as the crime it is, tax income from usurious rates and fees at levels that provide a true disincentive. For starters.

How about ending the illegal wars that the last administration chose to start, shutting off the spigot of money to war profiteers, and using those TAX dollars to fund health care, solidify social security, and fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Too many people have already died so George W. Bush could have a legacy. There are more important things to do here than continue arguing over nonsense.

Stop the killing.

How about taxing dividends at the same rate as regular income? And if your bonus for the year is more than your salary, or more than you pay some of your employees, then it should be taxed at a much higher rate.

especially since the conservatives and super rich keep saying that we can't afford to saddle our children and grandchildren with this debt. Fine don't saddle them with the debt, pay for it now.

If they stopped stealing our tax dollars, (so far over ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS under Obama DINO Blue Dog Fascist) I mean our children's tax dollars, I mean our grand children's tax dollars on credit, that would be almost as good as raising their taxes, which they don't pay anyway.

well thats a no brainer...YES!!!

Sandcynch: Yes, for God's sake! They've gotten where they are starting with Reagan's penchant for making sure the rich get richer with all of their tax advantages and loopholes; and as for the rest of the people, well they can stay put! "Let them eat cake!" We have lost our way morally if we can collectively let people die for lack of health care while others are cruising around in their tax-exempt Hummers!

postina Tax the rich more,absolutely! I think the tax cuts should be rolled back to the pre-Reagan disaster. Also, anyone that is caught hiding their money and/or profits offshore should have that money taxed at three times the going rate and they should be prohibited from ever owning a business in the U.S. again. Just for fun, if they are caught employing other than workers from this country, they should be forced to triple the wage per hour--oh, and pay for their health care, too--of every last one of their employees and they will not be permitted to lay anyone off...EVER!

For all the blessings of being rich, many ensconced by family circumstances, many ensconced by "ripping off" the poor, DAMN Right they should be taxed...

David Cay Johnston wrote about our two-tier tax system in his books Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. The top tier is less than 1% of the population but what they get away with is obscene. They are the ones with incomes of 7 figures and above and include corporations. It is this sector who should be taxed, but isn't--Congress has been bought and sold. At $250,000 per year you are solidly middle class, especially if you are a two income family living in the Northeast or California. I am in favor of removing the Bush tax breaks for this upper crust and leaning on the IRS to use its resources to enforce existing laws. Then, if it is still necessary to raise more money, this is the sector to go after.

As the good book says, "To whom much is given, much is expected." Since 1980 there has been a massive shift of wealth in this country from the working class to the rich. Enough. Let us return to "pre-Reagan" days. Put the top tax rate back at 50 or 60%. Let them suffer, as we have suffered--if suffering they can call it. Let's all remember too, that nothing gets built, accomplished without working men and women. Labor takes precedence over capital--always. That' not me. I believe Lincoln said something like that; Pope John Paul II said the very same thing. In the middle ages, philosophers used to debate about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Today we ask: "How many hundreds of millions does one man need to be truly happy?" It's time for our Roosevelt moment. It's time to move against the Economic Royalists of this generation.

Everyone knows that the answer to this question is a resounding emphatic yes !!! As one poster already stated giving mega tax breaks to the wealthy is the thing that has brought on the economical disaster that we now face. It has also buried the middle class wage earner under a burden of unfair tax that most cannot pay as the tax not paid by the wealthy is of course paid by the lower income wage earners. For too long now the wealthy have freeloaded and skated by with no tax. It's time for the wealthy to pony up and play catchup and start paying tax. In addition only the wealthy can really afford to pay the amount of tax necessary to properly fund a good health care system.

The neo-populists that read and contribute their "pearls of wisdom" on this site are quick to favor the Government confiscating more hard earned income in the form of taxation from individuals with higher net-worths than their own. The Bush tax cuts were targeted at the super wealthy, not couples earning 250 to 500 thousand dollars per year. Keep in mind that the AMT already punishes married couples in those brackets. When you add in FICA and State Income taxes, many of these couples are effectively taxed at 50% of ordinary income already. The wage earners being referred to here are not the "River Boat Gamblers" this site incessantly condemns, but ordinary Americans whose hard work and wise decisions allow them to lead a lifestyle a bit more financially secure than most. Isn't that what we all aspire to become when we are young? And now, the "youth" of today wants to punish success. So very, very easy to be in favor of higher taxes on other people.