Some of my commenters attempt to make the illogical argument that because the top marginal income tax rate was almost forty percent during the Clinton era that there is no harm in raising it back to that now. Jim Manzi dissects this foolishness. I doubt if they’ll understand it, though.
[Update a few minutes later]
Victor Davis Hanson — Oh What Debts We Will See:
Athens in the fourth century B.C. chose to mint “redheads”, silver coins with bronze cores that were quickly exposed once the patina around the coins’ imprinted busts wore off. Rome did the same thing, and by the fourth century AD simply flooded its provinces with money of little real value. Germany paid off its war debts to France in the 1920s, with deliberately inflated German marks. I lived in Greece during the oil-embargo hyperinflation of 1973, and remember buying individual eggs with three or four inked-in price figures crossed out, as the store-keeper kept upping the price each day. (And I remember farming in the early 1980s when full-strength Roundup herbicide seemed to go from $60 to $70 to $100 a gallon in a single year).
I don’t think any one knows what is quite going on. I recently gave a lecture, and a Wall Street grandee afterwards approached the dais, asking me for advice (me, who could not even turn a profit growing raisins, and was a lousy peddler of family fruit for years at Farmers’ Markets), saying in effect something like the following: “Mr. Hanson—Consider: Real estate bad—not going to put money there when I’m not sure where the bottom is. Stocks worse—had I got out at New Year’s, I’d have thousands more than I do now. Cash pathetic—the interest doesn’t even cover what’s lost to inflation. So what’s left—the dole?”
I had no advice, of course, other than some vague warning that we are in a war against capital, sort of similar to what Sallust and Cicero claim that Catiline and his band of dissolute and broke aristocrats were planning, with his calls for cancellation of debts and redistribution of property.
It seems less than vague to me.
[Evening update]
How to wage a war on business. Any resemblance to current administration policies are purely coincidental, of course.
Carl: I’ve had to deal with the IRS, and with Anthem BC/BS. I’d rather deal with the IRS. Your claims about American health care are wishful thinking. There isn’t some big conspiracy to prove that the French (and Danes, and Swiss, and Germans, etc.) are healthier; they actually are. For just one example, see the study at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/1/58, which concludes that we lead the industrialized world in medically preventable deaths, costing us 100,000 lives a year. Not only that, but the other countries are improving faster than we are. And they’re spending much, much less.
Alan: The GOP said that Clinton’s tax plan was a disaster and assisted suicide; I’d say that’s the same as “ruin.”
Karl: Lengthy bills can be summarized, and the summaries are more informative than the literal text. Which is why this focus on reading the literal text is misplaced. My point about Wikipedia isn’t that Wikipedia is unbiased, but that by summarizing the bill it provides the reader a better understanding than the bill’s literal text, even discounting for bias. As for healthcare bureaucracy, public systems like Medicare and the VA spend much less on bureaucratic overhead than private insurers (about 2% of expenses, vs. over 20%).
Rand – forming groups to get health care can be a pain in the ass. Now, the German model is that various trade unions and other associations (several hundred) each offer a group policy, and individuals are required to have health insurance. So, the typical German finds a group that makes sense, joins it, and goes in that group’s plan.
> There isn’t some big conspiracy to prove that the French (and Danes, and Swiss, and Germans, etc.) are healthier; they actually are.
Since the US health system won’t be covering Europeans and a nationalized system won’t be run by them, that doesn’t seem all that relevant.
We don’t have to guess what US govt healthcare would do – we can look at what it actually does.
US govts current provide healthcare to about half of the “covered” population. It spends the same amount of money to do so as the private sector does to cover the other half of the covered population and doesn’t provide better outcomes.
If you’re going to argue that US govt health care will be better than private healthcare, you get to explain why it isn’t.
When US govt healtcare actually is better and cheaper, folks will want in. At that point, we can open it up at cost and folks will abandon the private system.
However, as long as US govt healtcare actually isn’t better….
I think there is also the market’s reactionary effect to changes in a tax rate either up or down. Movement in the rate will not doubt cause a ripple effect in a response to the movement. Things will no doubt stabilize as other factors are adjusted and businesses cope with the changes.
Of course the over riding concern for the tax rate hike is the timing of all this. When the finance markets are in distress that, to me, is not the best time to be raising taxes. Why the taxes are being raised is an important question as well. In this case, the taxes are being used to pay for all these other pet projects that have nothing to do with the finance market turmoil. Again, these are all endeavors that Obama wants to take on, precisely at the time when it is financially inappropriate to do so.
forming groups to get health care can be a pain in the ass.
Seriously? I find forming groups rather easy. Perhaps you should try being more social. If this is your argument, it says far more about you as a person and very little regarding the problems of healthcare costs. Just after you make the comment, you show how easy it is to join a group. There is nothing unique to Germany or the US in forming unions and co-ops in order to negotiate better terms.
Why does a person need to be a member of a group to get health insurance coverage? There was a comparison earlier to auto insurance and life insurance, which are both instances in which individuals can get insurance coverage. Both auto and life insurance carry very large risks, yet that risk is spread across a very large number of individuals who buy policies.
I don’t see why the same couldn’t be the case for health insurance, especially if Inter-state health insurance was available the way life and auto policies are.
When I was benefiting from extremely low personal coverage rates at my last place of employment, that company turned down a number of acquisition opportunities because the groups they would have acquired had astronomical health care coverage costs (single parent households and smokers, mostly). Rates for the entire company would have skyrocketed. Remove the employer from health-care coverage and you would have businesses that would be much more efficient to run, and individuals wouldn’t have to worry about all of the B.S. that goes along with health care coverage and job loss.
You could also get rid of a LOT of the specious and near-illegal “lifestyle rules” that a number of employers institute outside of the work place to help keep their group coverage rates low.
Leland – I think the critical parts of the German system you are missing is that 1) the associations charge dues, which means that they can pay for administrators and 2) health insurance is required for everybody.
US govts current provide healthcare to about half of the “covered” population. It spends the same amount of money to do so as the private sector does to cover the other half of the covered population and doesn’t provide better outcomes.
You have a source for this? Because I’ve seen data that says Medicare has a much lower administrative cost, good results (relative to the age of the population) and that the VA also does a good job.
Chris,
I’m busting your chops a little bit, but I still don’t see why charging dues is a critical point. Groups often charge dues, I’ve been a Treasurer before, so nothing amazing there. I’ll give you the second might be critical, because it requires action to be taken.
My kids participated in a softball team that negotiated healthcare plans for all the kids. We live in Texas. People could opt out if they had their own insurance, but we encouraged participation to enhanced our ability to bargain.
Leland – many things could be done. I was speaking of what is done, at least typically.
Leland – many things could be done. I was speaking of what is done, at least typically.
Then you were wasting keystrokes, and our time, since the topic under discussion was what could be done.
You know…”change”?
I have read and re-read the comments here and Rand was absolutely right. Someone breakout the clue bat and hit K Parker first then the rest of you, Chris, bob and Jim.
> 2) health insurance is required for everybody.
What happens if I refuse to buy?
Be sure to address two cases – I have no income and I have “not much” income.