We just finished sending in our income taxes a couple weeks ago. On an income just shy of $80,000, my husband ended up paying 18% income tax. It would have been around 20% income tax, but we were able to reduce the net income by the amount we contributed to an RRSP (registered retirement savings plan), thus saving some income tax.No one seems willing to say how much more the Swedes or the Canucks or Italians pay, as a percentage, for personal income tax than we.
Exactly, Bob. I think that most American businesses would favor a universal health care system, where the cost was spread equitably across the entire population, rather than having to shoulder the burden because that's how it's always been. That system aint working anymore, not for us, and not for them.As an aside to my friends Paul: We all agree that we need a solution, but it shouldn't be about class envy or class distinction. You cannot truly believe that the rich fat cats and corporations are conspiring to keep affordable healthcare out of reach. Imagine how many billions GM, or Wal-Mar, or Mobil, or AMEX would save if there were a universal system and they no longer were responsible for the millions of employees that they pay that monthly premium
It simply will not be free
Amen to that.Guys-We keep losing sight of what it will cost and who will pay....It simply will not be free
They borrowed it. This is something our children will be paying for long after the rebate check is spentAnd while we're talking about it, where did our government find all the money to give to us taxpayers as rebates? It seems the government can find the money to finance the programs they deem to be important.
I hope you're right, Anne.Jim, there are ways to fix it that don't involve completely socialized medicine and don't result in longer waiting times, etc...
That's what scares the bejesus out of me. When government tells "them" how they have to do business, we might soon have a health care delivery system as bloated, ineffective, and overpriced as most other government-controlled entities....It's going to take vision and nerve to make changes, especially if it means standing up to the insurance industry and telling them they have to change how they do business.
Anne, you bring up good points and I don't want to seem argumentative. I certainly don't have the answers, and I have no idea who does.We already have that thanks to the insurance companies.
Paul N, this really is not about Republicans and Democrats, is it? It may be worthy to note that the problem has gotten worse under the both of the Bush administrations, and both of the Clinton administrations, and every administration of the past several decades.Maybe if the Republicans didn't block a bill that would have allowed the import of drugs from Canada (allegedly to "protect" our health, imagine the irony!), then things would be a bit cheaper.
I really think it's a bit more complex than that. It is a cycle of upward spiraling costs of health care, payment for technology, pharmaceutical companies, a litigious populace and the lawyers they drag into the room, incredible amounts of insurance fraud, state regulations that increase the inefficiency and cost of health care insurance, lack of physical education and health oriented training in the schools. Throw in a ton of human error, a copious amount of greed, and a burgeoning older population just for fun.We already have that thanks to the insurance companies.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was paying about $850 per month, per employee when I left two years ago - I'm sure it's more now. Management paid 10% of the cost, union employees paid 2%. I believe that percentage still stands.Now, as a taxpayer, I think the fees of $9000 on average per employee sounds a tad high.
What portion of that premium is borne by the employee?
In these parts, it is a well established fact that the absolute best benefit packages (retirement/ medical etc) are found in government.