Tweet
Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to be moving away from taxing so-called "Cadillac" health care benefits as a means to pay for health reform, a tax that would eventually hit 40% of health care plans in the country. This is good news. As I’ve argued before:
Why tax the very people health care reform is supposed to help to pay for it?
The middle class doesn’t need another tax hike. Health reform should indeed be paid for, but it should be paid for by those in society who can most afford it.
And Reid may be thinking about doing just that, financing reform the way the House did, with a surtax on the richest members in society.
The case for the surtax is clear: It will help millions, and it would only affect the very richest among us. The bill passed by the House would tax only individuals earning more than half a million dollars per year, 0.3% of the taxpaying population, or 422,510 households in America. In return, by 2013, 29,210,600 more uninsured people would gain coverage, rising to 36 million by 2019.
Here’s the breakout, state-by-state, of households who would be affected by the surtax vs. the number of uninsured who would gain coverage under the House plan (click for full report [pdf]):
Those four hundred thousand households making more than a half-million per year can afford the modest tax increase. After all, they had their taxes drastically lowered by President Bush. We’re only asking them to pay their fair share again.
Thankfully, the American people get this. The Associated Press found 57% favor this method of paying for reform.
Health reform can and will do a lot of wonderful things for a lot of people in this country. It will cover vast numbers of the uninsured. It will end medical bankruptcies and help everyone afford the care they need. It will give us a choice of a public health insurance option. But it should not at the same time tax the people it is trying to help.
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now
9 Comments
the wrong way to pay for healthcare reform: mandate the purchase of insurance. especially given the fact that in much of the country, health insurance is a defective product.
Absolutely!
Couple questions:
“The surcharge will raise $460.5 billion over 10 years” or over $100,000/year from each of 422,510 households on average. $108,000/year is a “modest” increase?
“they had their taxes drastically lowered by President Bush. We’re only asking them to pay their fair share again.”
You can only use this argument if you support making the Bush cuts permanent. Do you?
Yes, modest. It’s a 2.5% increase I believe.
Hello, Jason,
Where did you get that 2.5% figure? I thought it odd that the Committe report (here) didn’t say.
It does say, “The average annual income of these wealthy business owners paying the surcharge is nearly $3 million” which would be a 3.3% increase, but it’s not clear if that’s the whole group or a subset.
jason, this is the wrong way to frame the position and it will fail
the way to frame the position is to say we are going to tax the wealthy, it is to go straight for the “rescind the tax deductions that contributed to this economic collapse”
I know you point it out in that paragraph but “taxing the wealthy” is their method of framing this position, it should not be ours
I like it!
“rescind the tax deductions that contributed to this economic collapse”
Isn’t that already scheduled?
I can’t vouch for this because I don’t remember where I saw it, but someone was reporting 5.4%