Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I agree it should not be the basis of a permanent funding source. But the CBO estimates that it will generate enough revenue to expand the program for the 5 years proposed in the bill. It is a temporary (and successful, based on the existing program) solution to dealing with a critical heath crisis among the working poor.
Hopefully, by then, we might have meaningful, affordable and comprehensive health care, particularly for the uninsured.
|
The HF charts seem to be very suspect. Chart 3 below appears to be simply based on one linear line (the red), from which the blue is extrapolated simply by percentage. I don't believe the decline is that purely linear, so therefore the only true data points on the graph are the two points of the Current Tax line, and that much is giving the credit that may not be due.
But even if we assume the red line to be accurate, the blue line doesn't really show how the increased tax rate accelerates decline. The red line declines from $6.5 billion to $3.0 billion (decline of 58% with 12 year total receipts of $57 billion) while the blue is from $7.5 billion to $3.5 billion (decline of 53% with 12 year total receipts of $66 billion). This seems in fact to go against their findings that decline is accelerated, in that the blue line declines about the same (the 4% probably is due to my own inaccuracies in reading the graph), if not less than the red line, and in any case total revenue is indeed higher by more than 15% over the 12 year illustrated period.
So while the graph below is supposedly indicating how increasing taxes will actually undermine future tax revenue, it actually demonstrates quite the opposite if you look at it more closely than to simple see three downward lines and assume that the graph title is therefore true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CheapBastid
What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.
This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way.
|
I have to say I agree. Now personally, I'm totally against smoking and stamping it out is a fine and wonderful thing. However, social engineering through taxation is NOT the way to do it. I'm not an 'ends justify the means' sort of guy, and while social engineering can do many good things, even if taxation is the method, I think in the end we end up with this insane taxation scheme that have in which we tax things we don't like at the moment, such as cigarettes, and we give tax breaks to what we want to encourage, such as investors. In the end nearly everyone has tax breaks somewhere and tax hits somewhere, and its whoever has better tax knowledge/attorneys that gets to pay the lowest taxes.
What we need is FAIR and HONEST taxation methods. Then we can have a proper debate over how much we pay and what for.