Second Presidential Debate

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AGDee

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...lthcareFAQ.pdf

That has the answers to the questions you're posing. It does say that both SCHIP and Medicaid would be extended to cover more families and working people.

I read that already, and no it doesn't answer the question. It says that all children must be covered, but it doesn't speak of taxing those who might not be able to afford Obama's new healthcare plan.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

If your uncle works full time for Denny's, can't they be covered on your uncle's plan which wouldn't be tied to family income?

My uncle doesn't have health care. I'm not exactly sure why, but i'm assuming it is because my uncle is an hourly employee and according to Denny's website "salaried" employees are eligible for health care.

ETA: now that I look more on the Denny's website, i'm sure that's the reason because he doesn't get any of those benefits.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by epchick

I read that already, and no it doesn't answer the question. It says that all children must be covered, but it doesn't speak of taxing those who might not be able to afford Obama's new healthcare plan.

When I read that Medicaid and SCHIP will be extended to cover more families, I interpret it as "Those who cannot afford to pay for other insurance will be eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP"

ETA: Regarding income. According to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States (yeah, I know, it's Wikipedia, but it's source is 2005 Census data) the number of households in the USA that make $250,000 or more is 1.5% 15% make more than $100K a year. It's pretty hard to argue that if you're in the top 1.5% of earners, you're not considered wealthy. I realize there are the Bill Gates' of the world who are unbelievably filthy stinking rich, but that's a major outlier when figuring out these statistics.

ETA Again: Just saw that clip that preciousjeni linked to above on CNN and yes, I am very glad that McCain told the truth there. He definitely did the right thing there.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

When I read that Medicaid and SCHIP will be extended to cover more families, I interpret it as "Those who cannot afford to pay for other insurance will be eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP"

ETA: Regarding income. According to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States (yeah, I know, it's Wikipedia, but it's source is 2005 Census data) the number of households in the USA that make $250,000 or more is 1.5% 15% make more than $100K a year. It's pretty hard to argue that if you're in the top 1.5% of earners, you're not considered wealthy. I realize there are the Bill Gates' of the world who are unbelievably filthy stinking rich, but that's a major outlier when figuring out these statistics.

ETA Again: Just saw that clip that preciousjeni linked to above on CNN and yes, I am very glad that McCain told the truth there. He definitely did the right thing there.

Well, except that wealth may be different than having a high earned income for a short number of years.

I like to think that if we earned 250,000 or more, my husband and I would accumulate real wealth, but I think it would take a while. (First get out of debt. . .)

I think the issue is that, especially in household with two earners, if you are in the first generation of people to earn at that level in your family, you just have high income compared with other earners.

Compare your idea of two professionals earning 125,000+ who didn't inherit any wealth or assets with a person who owns a million dollar home with no mortgage who lives on a retirement income of 100,000 dollars a year.

Who is richer? (For that matter, who is richer: John McCain married to Cindy or the Obama's pre-book deal? Looking at income only tells one story.)

Any tax based on income ignores this difference in accumulated wealth.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, except that wealth may be different than having a high earned income for a short number of years.

I like to think that if we earned 250,000 or more, my husband and I would accumulate real wealth, but I think it would take a while. (First get out of debt. . .)

Who is richer? (For that matter, who is richer: John McCain married to Cindy or the Obama's pre-book deal? Looking at income only tells one story.)

Any tax based on income ignores this difference in accumulated wealth.

That's very true. I'm ALL FOR taxing us on our net worth since I still owe more on my house than all of my assets put together My net worth is negative.

I guess we also have to consider that there are people who have essentially no income but lots of assets.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

That's very true. I'm ALL FOR taxing us on our net worth since I still owe more on my house than all of my assets put together My net worth is negative.

I guess we also have to consider that there are people who have essentially no income but lots of assets.

I have complicated feelings about if and how we ought to tax actual wealth, but focusing on income isn't really the whole picture.