Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495

[OC]

Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”

Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want

      • Dragon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        It depends on the state. Massachusetts actually does have a flat income tax, so maybe it would be easier to do there. But even so, wealthy people might prefer to buy private plans, and see the tax as redundant.

            • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              You literally said - a complete blanket statement - that it would result in “higher income“ people paying more than they save. I said I don’t know how you could know that when the system doesn’t exist yet. Now you are completely shifting gears and not even addressing what you said initially, as well as narrowing the scope to MA for your (unsure why…?) example even though they have a very unique case.

              • Dragon@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                20 hours ago

                I’m conceding that it might not always be the case. I don’t have an answer to your question because I don’t feel like doing the research and math to figure out what the top earners would pay in any given state under universal health insurance. It seems to me obvious that it would represent a large tax increase, and that that increase would disproportionately effect top earners. If you have reason to believe it would universally save people money, I’m all ears for a reason or argument.

                • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  The arguments for how it will save people money are readily available, a cursory Google search will show you them. Your claim is the one that is not as easy to verify. You are claiming it will be more expensive even though we literally don’t even know what it would look like here. There are plenty of examples in other countries that are sustainable, why don’t you just take a look at those? Why don’t you look at all ofthe research that has been done on the subject? Lift a fucking finger before you spout your theoretical nonsense

                  • Dragon@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    I never said it wouldn’t be cheaper overall, I’m aware that’s true. I’m saying for top earners, it won’t. Insurance costs the same for everyone, taxes don’t. The only way around that entirely is a regressive tax.