Comments on: 9 reasons Pelosi’s healthcare surtax is disastrous

By: jt

jt — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:23:56 +0000

One difference between publicly and privately run enterprises is that public ones are publicly accountable. They not only have to account for costs, but also account for the way they’re serving their function in the community. It’s not always as simple as calculating shareholder equity. That’s what is at the heart of the injustices in the current insurance system. It’s also the reason people support fire departments as a public enterprise. Even the volunteer ones are supported by the community, in order that they be accountable to the people they serve. It would seem the enterprises protecting the health of people might benefit from the same oversight we give enterprises that protect the buildings they live in.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:27:37 +0000

The only thing that no one has mentioned here is how much more optimism there is now than when the Republicans ran things. I’m not saying that we’re being steered in the right direction by the Dems but now everyone seems to have hope while before we had none. I’m willing to wait and see. It’s better than the daily gloom that existed before.

By: Wow

Wow — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:33:20 +0000

What a bunch of angry, victimized, cynical comments. You people generally don’t look on the bright side of life, do you?

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:49:52 +0000

There are so many things wrong with this article, that I don’t know where to begin. Each part sounds plausible by itself, but the quotes and citations fail to account for the larger economic context, which makes some (not all) of the evidence appear to support the author’s larger points when the larger context invalidates it.

I’m sure the author was mainly focused on completing his article before deadline, as that’s his job and there’s no shame in that. But before anyone accepts his conclusions as valid, they should read more about the larger situation including historical context– and really read about it too, rather than picking up a few shallow talking points as too many right- AND left-wingers on both sides of the argument tend to do.

By: econobiker

econobiker — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:20:36 +0000

How about rolling healthcare companies back to non-profit status? Reading David Cay Johnston pretty much tells you how much money is suctioned from the many and given to the ownership/execs of these now for-profit companies…

By: Don

Don — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:13:45 +0000

HonestCitizen (misnomer obviousl)

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/cbo- grossly-underestimates-costs-of-cap-and- trade/

Trillions. The Brits are already paying around $1200 per household per year and it’s not fully implement. This is a realworld example. Do you believe that or our government (the same one that promised the stimulus bill would keep unemployment to 8%)? Get you head out of your behind.

By: HonestCitizen

HonestCitizen — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:09:47 +0000

“Less than three weeks after passing a costly cap-and-trade carbon emission plan…”

Can you define what you mean by costly. All the reports I have seen say the cap-and-trade plan is not very costly and is even a benefit for some and long term is better than the alternative of doing nothing. If you have other data please share.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:06:39 +0000

I guess my question to liberals is this: How much is enough? How much of my money, earned through productive enterprise, is enough of a payment to the unproductive elements who “need” it? How much can you tax us, before it no longer pays to be productive? How will the American dependent class survive without producers? How will government survive if they destroy the producers of wealth? Do you want 60%, 70%? Why not tax at 100% and let the government decide who gets paid what? Be honest. You would not be in favor of these things if others were not paying for it, or if you were not benefiting from it yourself.

By: xgnu

xgnu — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:01:36 +0000

Why do you neo-cons hate america? Don’t you know that if you don’t support our plans you are a terrorist? Either with us or against us.

/sucks coming from the other side, huh?

By: Jeff Cornwall

Jeff Cornwall — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:35:22 +0000

There is one more reason — it will reduce the rate of new start-up ventures, which will slow job creation for years to come.

Let’s start with who creates jobs in our economy. For the past twenty years it has been overwhelmingly entrepreneurs — over 75% of all new jobs came from small businesses during this time period.

One of the incentives to take the risk to create a new business is to build wealth. Most entrepreneurs take a significant hit on their short-term income potential, but are willing to do this with the hope that at the back end their will come a big payday as a reward for their hard work and personal risk-taking.

When an entrepreneur sells his business, we must remember that much if not all of the proceeds from the sale are treated like ordinary income, which like all profits from the business pass directly to the owner.

With all of the “soak the rich” plans in place to pay for our new found fascination with socialism in the US, I would not be shocked to see marginal rates soon top 50% or more. Maybe not immediately, but as the true costs of all of these new programs become real the answer to soaring deficits will undoubtedly be to tax the wealthy even more.

Remember, capturing the wealth out of a private business is usually a one time event at the time of the sale of the business. These are almost always asset purchases that result in a huge one-time bump in income.

With higher marginal rates, we will see fewer entrepreneurs willing to take the risks and put in the effort to launch new ventures. In fact one study I have used often in class suggests that for every one percent increase in marginal tax rates we see a 1.4% decrease in start-up activity in the economy.

So in the frenzy to pass program after program that will be paid with higher taxes on “the rich”, you can bet that we will see fewer entrepreneurs starting businesses that would create the jobs we need to revitalize the economy. On top of that, there will be fewer of these one-time “rich” people who get a one year bump in income when selling a business. This will create tax short-falls that will only further escalate the deficit.