[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by CHATSDALE

it was in a debate, the average income tax rate at this time is 17% of income, some less some more
but he is estimating that to provide monies for universal health coverage the rate would have to rise to 40%

Without the source it is almost impossible to evaluate this statement. If I had to guess and it is only a guess it was probably a reference to 40% of income taxes would go to health care this is considerably different from a 40% income tax rate on individuals.

I think that society is owed a dividend from the upper 1%:

She's troubled by the fact that the productivity of American business has been increasing steadily, but little of that new wealth and income reaches the poor – or even the middle class. The richest 0.01 percent has grabbed most of the gains, enjoying a 250 percent increase in income between 1973 and 2005. The entire economy grew by 160 percent during that period.
...
A Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, released a paper July 6 about the unequal distribution of income in Euroland, Japan, and the US. Rising inequality, the paper notes, "can affect the long-term growth prospects of an economy, as well as the way an economy behaves throughout the [business] cycle." It sees a risk that more inequality could lead to protectionism, which would hurt global trade, and thus do "more damage than good." The best medium-to-long-term answer to rising inequality is better education, the firm suggests, something that can't be engineered overnight.
Bernstein hopes that Mr. Bush will not veto legislation moving through Congress that would expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover more low-income children and more adults. Healthcare costs are often a major burden for poor families. He also hopes that the president will allow a tax boost for super-rich hedge-fund managers, providing an extra $4 billion to $6 billion in revenue that could be used, for example, to raise the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps the working poor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0730/p...gn.html?page=2

[Roy Fokker]

.....but, back in 2006; I said:

Originally Posted by Roy Fokker

The "economic expansion" was a bubble (one which did burst. Much like the current property expansion which is going to burst soon). The reason it's not a "true" expansion was because nothing really was created - It was fueled by fiat money. Just because Nixon refused to honour the standard doesn't mean the problem went away.

(emphasis mine)

But hey... what the hell do I know....

- Roy.

[sanctuary]

This subject is so frustrating!! Somehow, people believe that the Bushites mean them when they say that taxes are going down. No nurse I know is in the top 1%. Or even the top 10%!

[Roy Fokker]

If you scoured the hundreds of pages of the Housing bill signed today by Pres. Bush, you’d find that buried deep in its bowels – in the hope few would notice – is this:

SEC. 3083. INCREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $10,615,000,000,000.

It’s a provision that allows the U.S. Government to keep on spending money it doesn’t have and has to borrow.

It raises the legal ceiling on the national debt to more than $10.6 trillion. And it’s the sixth time the debt limit has had to be raised on President Bush’s watch.

On the day President Bush took office, the National Debt stood at $5.7 trillion. That's with a "T."

Seven and a half years later, it has soared to over $9.5 trillion, a 66 percent increase of more than $3.8 trillion. And it could not have risen so high so quickly unless Congress had approved increases in the debt limit along the way – which it did and which President Bush always signed into law – quietly - without fanfare or ceremony.

Full story

Debt now over 9.5 trillions.

- Roy

[Roy Fokker]

I.O.U.S.A. - One Nation. Under Stress. In Debt.

Coming to a theater near you...

cheers,