Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Should people that make over $200,000 pay more taxes to fund the healthcare bill?

Your thoughts?

Answer Question

Asked by Tummysmomma at 3:19 AM on Mar. 28, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 3 (14 Credits)
Answers (39)
  • welll.... we make over that. And we usually vote for what we think is in the best interest of the country. I know many of the people who work with hubby and make that and upwards vote for what is in their best interest.

    I have no problem paying more because we have more.... but I get VERY upset with those who do nothing and dont even try who benefit from what EVERYone else pays in.


    Answer by Anonymous at 3:27 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • No. Because if you use that standard, then should anyone with a job in this country be forced to pay a larger percentage of their income - whether they choose to or not - to provide care to those in 3rd world countries? (yes, I know that our govt gives money and care to them... not the point here though...)

    Because, after all, even the poorest Americans have more than those who live in 3rd world countries (even our homeless can go to soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and eat out of dumpsters - NOT that I think that's a good life - where 3rd world people don't have that much.)

    The take from the rich (against their will) and give to the poor is only a good idea when you're the poor. The problem is, there's almost always someone poorer than you, and do you want to set that precedent?

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 3:30 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • hmmmm..must be nice to make that a single, working mom, and all i made last year was just under $9000..THE WHOOOOLE YEAR!!! anyone care to swtich incomes with me??

    Answer by alexis_06 at 3:35 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • Well others can't afford it. The more you make the more you're taxed.

    We've got to pull it from somewhere, and we can't pull from those who have none to give. So it's the reasonable solution.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:40 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • Yes, they are still getting the Bush hugh tax cuts that helped cause this deficit.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:42 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • anon, that's just the point though. What you can afford is relative. In many parts of the world, there are people who say that if you can afford to live in a house that has more than one room, and a floor that's made of anything other than dirt, and if you can afford even one meal a day, then you can afford to help them, too. Should the UN be able to come in and demand that we give more to those, because, after all, we're so much richer than these other places? Of course not. Now, yes, it would be nice if those with more (whether an individual or a country) chooses to give more than their share to help those in need, but it should be a choice.

    Tax should be a flat percentage, no matter how much you make. If you take, say, 10% from someone who makes 200,000, then of course you're going to get more money from them than someone who makes 20, 000. But it should be a set amount - percentage wise - from everyone.


    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 3:50 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • Yes, they are still getting the Bush hugh tax cuts that helped cause this deficit.

    The tax revenue GREW after the tax cuts. Educate yourself please.

    Answer by Carpy at 4:10 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • Yes.

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:25 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • No, it's economically flawed. The more you raise taxes the less money you actually collect in taxes. While it may result in an immediate influx of cash from investments and capital that are locked into long term positions and cannot be moved the second the law takes effect, within a year, tax revenues will be lower than they were at the previous tax rate, and they will continue to drop from there as individuals and corporations make adjustments to spend less on taxes. Individuals will intentionally work less or will divert more investments to pre-tax long term investments. Corporations will reduce salaries below $200,000 and make up the difference in other benefits like company cars, free services and extra vacation time. Within 5 years the tax base will have dropped even more as more long term investments move and small businesses fire employees to reduce profits.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 4:59 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

  • No. We already pay far too much in taxes already. The government should learn to NOT spend beyond its means. Every single pet project that it took to pass the HC will be funded with our tax dollars. So, we're not simply funding health care. We're funding everything.

    If it were JUST true healthcare, I think I would feel differently. It's not. It's people who don't give a care about me playing with my hard-earned money like it was Monopoly money.

    Answer by May-20 at 5:56 AM on Mar. 28, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.