Rath said:
Those entitlement programs are the welfare programs that help the poor the most. They do cost the middle class and the rich money, there is no denying that. You can't help the poor without somebody losing out somewhere along the line. Let me ask you, for a person on an extremely low income - would the amount they pay in taxes cover their medical bills? I'm fairly certain the answer is no. They get a net benefit from these social security systems, far more than the amount that they pay in taxes. If you want to cut the payroll taxes and replace them with taxes on higher incomes or luxury goods so welfare can still help the poor, then I would agree with you. |
Would the amount of money in payroll taxes cover someone's medical insurance if they had no or reduced payroll taxes?
The answer is that it depends on what 'very low income' means. Are you talking about someone that earns minimum wage? If so, the answer is yes. You see, even if you make minimum wage, you will pay out about 20-25% of your paycheck in taxes - 11.5% in Social Security and Medicare, about 3-4% in state taxes (varies by state) and the rest being federal taxes, which you will get back at the end of the year.
For someone on minimum wage, that means that about $3,000 is taken out.
In my scenario, instead of paying out 20-25% in taxes, they would pay out about 6% between state (which still gives you general welfare, ect) and pension (much less needing invested for the same earnings due to higher compound interest rates). The savings would be around $2,000/yr for a minimum wage earner.
The average individual plan in the US costs $2,000 un-subsidized. So there is that person's private health care plan.
Primarily, my issue with payroll taxes is that they are very inefficient. You don't need to replace payroll taxes with luxury/income taxes on richer people. You simply can offer a more efficient system which requires far less money to operate.
Lets take Social Security vs. a private plan. Lets use the comparison of 7% APR in the private plan (which is low, but we'll use it) vs. 2.32% which is considered a medium rate of return for someone on social security.
Under Social Security, a person working for 30 years at $33,000 will retire with $35,237 in pension (at 8.5% of his check going into SS). Comparatively, to earn the same pension via a private plan at 7%, only 3.5% of that person's check would need to be removed for the same return! That correlates to a 5% reduction in taxes without any sort of change in benefits (assuming the current system worked, which it doesn't). Wouldn't that 5% be more helpful in a poor person's hands than in the government?
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.







