Talk-Polywell.org

Most people, both liberal and conservative, will react violently to the following - at least at first. However, I will plunge forward and give everyone The Answer anyway.

A) Eliminate the Federal Income Tax
The Federal Government may no longer impose a personal income tax for the purpose of raising general revenue.

B) Implement the Foundation Tax.
Implement a new income tax, the Foundation Tax, collected as a flat percentage of income and paid equally to every citizen age eighteen or older.
1) Tax is a flat tax on every dollar of income in the amount of 28%.
2) Proceeds are paid directly to every American eighteen years or older in equal amounts - the Foundation Payment.
3) 33% of the Foundation Payment in (2) may only be used to pay for medical related issues - either for buying insurance or for direct payments with residual carried over each year.

C) Reform the Medical Insurance Industry.
New rules.
1) Cannot deny coverage.
2) May not charge differently based on age or pre-existing conditions.
3) No state to state restrictions.
4) Mandates on business to supply coverage are eliminated. Buy your own insurance.

D) Re-affirm the Enumerated Powers
Make clear through ammendment to the constitution that the Federal Government is limited by the enumerated powers and those powers granted via ammendment, and that the Federal Government does not have the ability to do anything it wants in the name of the general welfare. Make clear that the Federal Government is not allowed to impose rules on States by collecting and then denying payment of revenue. Eliminate all laws that are not constitutional by this re-affirmation.

E) Cut the Federal Government drastically.
Eliminate medicare and medicaid (now covered by the foundation payment).
Eliminate Social Security by (a) Immediate reduction in outgoing payments in proportion to the Foundation Payment (b) gradual reduction in payments above that, (c) elimination of personal SS taxes and (d) gradual reduction of business SS tax payments in proportion to (b).
Eliminate Welfare.
Eliminate Food Stamps.
Eliminate any Federal involvement in Public Housing etc.
Drastically reduce Federal Spending in all areas.
Federal Government is now funded by Corporate taxes and tariffs and is restricted in actions to only those supported by the enumerated powers or those given by ammendment to the constitution.
General welfare is now taken care of via Foundation Payment.

F) Implement Federal Dept Tax
Implement a new income tax with the sole purpose of paying off the federal dept. Collected as a flat tax in an amount designed to pay off the federal dept in a time frame of no less than 30 years. Currently, this tax will be about 6% to 7% of income.




Basically, I am suggesting a return to our founding principles of limited government by restoring the enumerated powers and re-restricting the Federal Government.

Then, I am instituting a direct redistribution of wealth from the people to the people with government nothing more than a conduit. Government is no longer picking winners and losers. Money is collected equally from everyone based on income and distributed to everyone in equal amounts. The percentage is capped and cannot be increased except via ammendment.

Sure, the Foundation Tax is socialism. But, I believe the method of implementation eliminates social engineering and big government. I am recognizing that it is impossible to get rid of the socialism we already have and am trying to replace it with something that is manageable and equitable by the purest of measures - a pure form of socialism. Further, the amount of this redistribution is now a fixed percentage of our overall incomes. It is tied to our general prosperity and is sustainable.

Finally, I am acknowledging our terrible dept and setting up a plan to pay it off. Any Federal Government additions to the dept will be reflected in the percentage of this payment. Dept has to mean something to the people.

Generally I like the idea.
A few questions:
Is it going to be enough money? You are talking about the Foundation Tax to pay for healthcare. Will it be enough to pay for military, police, fire fighters, courts, etc?
These are things I would really like to stay in government hands and not be done by some corporation with its own interests, you know...
I could even see schools to be run completely privately, but there have to be sufficient places and ways for the poor to afford a good education also.

Skipjack wrote:Generally I like the idea.
A few questions:
Is it going to be enough money? You are talking about the Foundation Tax to pay for healthcare. Will it be enough to pay for military, police, fire fighters, courts, etc?
These are things I would really like to stay in government hands and not be done by some corporation with its own interests, you know...

Military is a federal responsibility and will be paid for from the general fund which can be fully funded by current levels of corporate taxes/tarrifs etc. without the need for personal income tax. EDIT - making this clearer, after you end medicare,medicaid,and social security, and take care of the dept payments in other ways, then you can fund all other federal government functions without personal income. I am suggesting taking personal income and separating it from the general fund basically.

Police, fire, courts etc are paid for by state and local taxes, which will not change except that they will likely go down because states won't pay for welfare and other federal mandates anymore.

If no one can be denied coverage how do you cap expenses?

When are you allowed to say, "I'm sorry but there is nothing more we can do."

Insurance is about managing risk. What is your plan for managing certainty?

Milton Friedman once estimated that if government eliminated all social programs that the economy would grow at a 10% rate vs our current anemic 3%.

Let us look at what that means.

At 3% the size of the economy in 10 years would be 1.344X In 50 years 4.384X.

At 10% the size of the economy in 10 years would be 2.594X In 50 years 117.391X.

Obviously we would be much better off with lower taxes than with a guaranteed income.

MSimon wrote:If no one can be denied coverage how do you cap expenses?.

What I meant was that an insurance company can't refuse to sell you a policy, not that they can't be selective about what they cover. I did not phrase that well, obviously.

MSimon wrote: Obviously we would be much better off with lower taxes than with a guaranteed income.

All well and good, but you ignore where we are. Your argument can be taken to say, eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, and all other social programs today and we will be a lot better off. We have to be a little more practical than that don't you think?

All well and good, but you ignore where we are. Your argument can be taken to say, eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, and all other social programs today and we will be a lot better off. We have to be a little more practical than that don't you think?

What is practical about eating your seed corn?

seedload wrote: A) Eliminate the Federal Income Tax
The Federal Government may no longer impose a personal income tax for the purpose of raising general revenue.

B) Implement the Foundation Tax.
Implement a new income tax, the Foundation Tax, collected as a flat percentage of income and paid equally to every citizen age eighteen or older.
1) Tax is a flat tax on every dollar of income in the amount of 28%.
2) Proceeds are paid directly to every American eighteen years or older in equal amounts - the Foundation Payment.
3) 33% of the Foundation Payment in (2) may only be used to pay for medical related issues - either for buying insurance or for direct payments with residual carried over each year.

Why do people continue to want to punish those who produce? The income tax is a penalty on success. Namely, the more productive you are, the more you achieve, the more you produce, the more you have to pay in taxes. Let's turn it around.

Instead of an income tax, let's make it a consumption tax. We tax those who consume by making it a national sales tax. We exempt foodstuffs (unprepared food, i.e. grocery store stuff, the same way as most states who collect a sales tax already do) and medicines/medical equipment. In other words, food and medicine are exempt from taxes. We codify these as the only possible exemptions to the sales tax in the amendment that repeals the 16th amendment (The one that allows the income tax.) All other taxes are repealed.

Now, no individual ever needs to file a tax form again, and only customer facing businesses (retailers) need to send taxes to the state. Each state sends a check monthly to the federal government. I've just eliminated the IRS, and the $100B a year expenditure that goes with collecting taxes. I've removed capital gains, causing massive incentive to invest and grow the economy. Individuals and companies no longer have to spend the estimated $200B a year in tax compliance, and that money goes back into the economy. Without the hidden income tax built into the price of goods, the cost of goods drops 20-30%, making up for the needed 23-28% national sales tax it will take to replace the current funding levels.

Additionally, all those incomes that used to happen under the table, and were never taxed (the black market economy estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars a year) suddenly becomes taxable. After all, don't drug dealers buy flashy cars and houses and clothes? All of which are now taxable?

Isn't it morally better to tax the guy who buys 10 cars with his inheritance, and who currently pays NO taxes, more than the guy who builds 10 cars with his sweat and blood?

Secondly, why do you want to put the government anywhere near your health care? The moment you open that door, they have the right to say to you, "Hey, you can't eat that hamburger. It's bad for you. You have to eat wheat germ and bran flakes." Because, when the government has to pay for your health care, then they can limit your freedoms to lower the cost of health care.

If you really, really must have a government system, then make the following changes through federal regulations:

1) All insurance companies must accept a single, standard claim form. This step alone is predicted to cut health costs by 20%.
2) All insurance providers must use a simple, two number identification code, one that identifies the company, and one that identifies the subscriber. Again, this simple step saves a huge amount. Electronic verification would also become easy.
3) All providers must accept pre-existing conditions up to a maximum of 10% of all policy holders. This ensures that no single insurer gets stuck with every person with a pre-existing condition.
4) Medical Savings Accounts will be allowed up to any amount. Carrying a medical savings account will reduce the cost of any insurance policy carried based on the balance. In other words, if you save $500 in an MSA, then your insurance premium should drop by some percentage. The higher the balance, the bigger the percentage discount on your premium. All insurance premiums and MSA savings should be tax-free if you don't eliminate the income tax. All medical purchases should be tax-free if you switch to a national sales tax.
5) You can set an automatic payment per-paycheck to your MSA and insurance premium. When your MSA reaches a balance you choose, you can keep any difference in your payment.
6) Doctors will post all prices for standard procedures in their office entrance.
7) Insurance companies will not be restricted to single states and may operate nation-wide.
8 ) Medical Malpractice will be limited on punitive damages. Estimates say that this step alone would reduce medical prices up to 50%.
9) If a malpractice case is determined as "frivolous" then the lawyer responsible for bringing the case to court should be charged all of the defendant's costs.
10) Eventually a "loser pays" system would be instituted to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Or the jury could decide if the lawsuit was frivolous to begin with and award compensatory damages to the defendant if they felt the case was frivolous.

All my steps will reduce health care costs, and reduce legal overload as well. And they don't allow the government to say one word about my health care or lifestyle. (Funny how the democrats tell me that various life choices are "lifestyle issues" and thus cannot be discriminated against, but with government health care, having that second Big Mac is grounds for intervention by the Sec. of Health and Human Services.)

Then, to cover the uninsured, each insurance company will be required to cover uninsured cases at a rate of 1% of their enrollments. So, a company that insures 1000 people, will have to pay the medical costs of 10 people per year who are uninsured, but only after the first $5,000 of costs.

Finally, the remaining up to $5,000 costs per patient will be fully deductible from income taxes (if not removed) for the hospital/doctor/whatever, the same as any other theft/loss is currently. If the income tax is removed, then they can apply to the state for reimbursement of the full costs, and the state should take from the national sales tax enough to reimburse the provider.

Since fraud would be an extreme temptation, anyone defrauding that system, or charging more than the posted rates for reimbursed services, will be immediately forced to return all fraudulent funds with interest, and disallowed from claiming any further funds for 5 years.

And, as is currently, no hospital can refuse emergency treatment, for any patient, for any reason.

not that they can't be selective about what they cover

Interesting that I have not heard Msimon shout "the death panels!". I guess such death panels are OK if a private company does them (personally I think they are never OK and in Austria we dont have them).

MSimon wrote:

All well and good, but you ignore where we are. Your argument can be taken to say, eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, and all other social programs today and we will be a lot better off. We have to be a little more practical than that don't you think?

What is practical about eating your seed corn?

Again, you ignore that we are already eating our seed corn. Not only that, but we are throwing a lot of it on the ground and stomping on it. We are already paying a lot of people not to work, but we are also paying a lot of people to pay people not to work. I am eliminating the latter.

You might be missing my premiss a bit. We are already a socialist country. We are already re-distributing wealth. Most people don't want what is done undone. Your battle is unwinable. Mine is to at the very least, do what we are doing a hell of a lot smarter.

And I am freeing up business a bit that you probably don't recognize. No more having to pay for medical. Eventual elimination of SS and medicare medicaid payments to workers. Incomes will go up a little bit as business savings are spent on people. Small business is the most benefitted because the overhead of managment of these kinds of things hurts small business the most.

As for numbers, the 28% is already what the wealthy pay, so their costs don't change. Families under 120K make about the same. Singles get hurt which actually creates incentive for forming families.

The working poor are benefitted the most. A family income can go from 20K to something like 35K.

Those that are at welfare levels are brought to the edge of poverty but are no longer de-insentivised to work because every dollar they earn above the foundation is a benefit to them. They don't lose benefits by getting part time work etc.

The age of 18 is significant because it is the college age and this plan subsidizes college without needing to do anything special to subsidize college.

Small business is the most benefitted because the overhead of managment of these kinds of things hurts small business the most.

As an owner of a small business, I find this assumption quite logical.

Interesting that I have not heard Msimon shout "the death panels!". I guess such death panels are OK if a private company does them (personally I think they are never OK and in Austria we dont have them).

Then who says: "There is nothing more we can do."

Who says, "Your coverage limits have been exceeded."

Some one has to.

Seedload, I cant do the math, I would have to look it up and check all the expenses versus the predicted income, etc.
If you did the math (thorowly) and it does work out the way you say, then this is a solution that I find very agreeable.
The problem with Msimon and co is that you are a moderate person whereas they are extremists. Extremists will never be able to compromise like you are. They have an all or nothing, black or white thinking. To them there are only two people, communists and libertarians. If you are not a libertarian, you are a communist in their eyes. They dont understand that there are inbetweens that can make much more sense than an extreme either way.

jnaujok wrote:Secondly, why do you want to put the government anywhere near your health care? The moment you open that door, they have the right to say to you, "Hey, you can't eat that hamburger. It's bad for you. You have to eat wheat germ and bran flakes." Because, when the government has to pay for your health care, then they can limit your freedoms to lower the cost of health care.

I don't think you read my post right. I also suggested government regulations to support pre-existing conditions and portability and to lower costs through private competition. I just suggested some money be earmarked for you to use for paying for it. You personally. Your buy your own insurance. Employer mandated insurance goes away. The government is not running it.

Regarding the rest of your post, I need to raise a lot more money for my plan than you do for yours so I think a sales tax is impractical for it.

regards

MSimon wrote:

Interesting that I have not heard Msimon shout "the death panels!". I guess such death panels are OK if a private company does them (personally I think they are never OK and in Austria we dont have them).

Then who says: "There is nothing more we can do."

Who says, "Your coverage limits have been exceeded."

Some one has to.

Politicians, ultimately.

Then who says: "There is nothing more we can do."

Interestingly enough, in Austria, the "There is nothing more we can do." is said by the medical doctor in charge. If he finds that there is no treatment that will bring any further improvement of the situation, he will suggest (!) that you face the inevitable and refer to pain management and other ways to make the rest of your time as anjoyable as possible.
However, it is your choice to accept that. There are patients here that have been kept alive only by machines for decades...

Who says, "Your coverage limits have been exceeded."
Some one has to.

Here in Austria you wont hear that.
There are some treatments that are not covered by the health insurance. However there are usually reasons for that. Either they are still experimental and have not been ratified yet. Or they are not directly life saving. E.g. they will usually (but they have done that in the past) not pay for a sex change and will rather prescribe antidepressants, or something like that. Personally I do find that rather OK though.