Michigan Votes Forum

 This is reasonable.

I think this is a good idea, too.  I especially have no quarrel with exempting the proceeds of an account from state income tax.  In fact, I enthusiastically applaud that idea.      

But I am less sure about making annual contributions deductable for income tax purposes.  Part of me says "yes," another part only gives it a lukewarm "maybe."   Neither the plan itself nor the deduction will be of much use or help to people living close to the bone on their wages and other income.  They simply don't have cash to stash in this kind of an account.   

This kind of thing would be better if Michigan had a sensibly graduated income tax.  

 it would be even better if michigan had no income tax at all.

With no income tax, we could depend on charitable contributions to fund our schools, roads, police, fire departments, etc..

 that actually worked for the first hundred years of our country.

private schools.

private roads.

SELF POLICING

volunteer fire departments.

churches providing charity for the poor (notice i DID NOT SAY AND THE UNFORTUNATE).

the first PUBLIC roads were TOLL roads. unless you were a post rider carrying mail.

Great history lesson there. Yea, we should live like we did back in the day. Back when our population was a fraction of what it is today.

Wasn't this discussion supposed to be about this Senate bill?

I think if we had a national, single payer healthcare system, like the rest of the developed world has, there would be no need for people to save for their long term care. They could use their money to send their kids to private schools, pay toll road fees, hire private police and fire protection, and increase their contributions to their church to feed the poor, (not, of course, the UNFORTUNATE).

I would much rather my tax dollars go to healthcare than the Iraq war, where they've been going for the last six years.

That should get the right wingnuts screaming at their computer screens and pounding their keyboards.

jmangan:

Great history lesson there. Yea, we should live like we did back in the day. Back when our population was a fraction of what it is today.

Wasn't this discussion supposed to be about this Senate bill?

I think if we had a national, single payer healthcare system, like the rest of the developed world has, there would be no need for people to save for their long term care. They could use their money to send their kids to private schools, pay toll road fees, hire private police and fire protection, and increase their contributions to their church to feed the poor, (not, of course, the UNFORTUNATE).

I would much rather my tax dollars go to healthcare than the Iraq war, where they've been going for the last six years.

That should get the right wingnuts screaming at their computer screens and pounding their keyboards.

 if we had a national single payer healthcare system like the rest of the 'developed' world has, (i notice you didn't say the 'rest of the FREE world), then we would probably be taxed over 50% of the gross domestic product to pay for it, like the rest of the developed world has.

 by the way, how do you define UNFORTUNATE?

is that somebody who lived his young life being ignored and abused in the public school system?  (bullying is a big concern in public schools)

is that somebody who is so attached to the public teat that they refuse to get off? (some call it welfare entitlement snydrome)

is that somebody who, in spite of twelve years of trying, STILL CAN'T READ, but has a diploma anyway? (now, did social promotion REALLY hurt him that badly?)

is that somebody who is stuck in an inner city PUBLIC hospital, dying of a hangnail because he never went to work, and is relying on the poorly financed largesse of the public dole to provide for all of his healthcare needs.

how many tax raises will it require before the government can afford to even provide even RUDIMENTARY HEALTH CARE FOR EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN? will the citizens be allowed to CHOOSE what medical services they recieve? they can't do that in the commonwealth countries, which explains the REALLY BAD TEETH. cavities are NOT medical emergencies.

you'd better look things up before you emulate them.

By the way?

You sound like a very angry person.

Calm down.

I know it must have been quite a disappointment for your ideology these last few months, but no need to get your blood pressure up. Doctor visits are quite expensive.

We spend more on healthcare in this nation than those other "developed" nations do. Why? Whats the difference in spending it through taxes, or giving it to insurance companies? Insurance companies don't provide healthcare. Doctors, nurses, and hospitals do. Why not cut out the middleman? Medicare, a government entity, is doing a better job of providing healthcare than the private sector. Why not extend medicare to all citizens?

I have not sighted sources for my statements. Seems only fair, since you don't. I have also tried to ask a lot of questions to reinforce my point of view, since you do. Forgive me for sinking to your level.

 i'm not worried about how expensive doctor visits are. YOU want to pay my doctor bills for me.

no, the question is WHY SHOULD WE PROVIDE HEALTHCARE, more specifically UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE ON DEMAND, to every citizen.

no other nation in the world provides that. look it up. SOME nations say that they provide universal healthcare, but they simply provide THE BASIC NECESSARY CARE TO ALL CITIZENS. it's a long way from what you think it is.

we already have a working process that accomplishes exactly the same goal. it's called an emergency room, and the 'gimme' generation abuses that daily.

how about making FACTUAL STATEMENTS to reinforce your point of view. if they are FACTUAL, i'll have to admit that they are TRUE, and perhaps we will not have to argue over SOURCES.

THAT'S how you have a discussion.

i know... it's a new and novel approach for you, but you should try it. it's fun.

crazycajun:

no, the question is WHY SHOULD WE PROVIDE HEALTHCARE, more specifically UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE ON DEMAND, to every citizen.  

Why don't you tell us why we should not, oh Grand Wizard.  

This thread is supposed to be about Michigan Senate Bill 15 of the 2009 session.  The bill provides for extending certain state income tax benefits to individuals who put money into personal "health savings plans."  Presumably this is to encourage personal independence and self-sufficiency.

I see nothing amiss with encouraging those values.  They are wonderful values.

The hitch in this legislation is that if passed it would not benefit all Michiganders.  It would benefit only those Michiganders who have sufficient income to meet their various financial obligations and daily needs for food, shelter and clothing, and even routine medical care, and still have money left over to stash in a personal health savings plan.  For those people the amount they put in the plan each year would be sheltered from Michigan income taxes, and the proceeds of their plan would be shielded altogether from Michigan income taxes.  That is a substantial benefit for them at each end of the transaction.

Now, I have no quarrel with this bill, in and of itself.  I do, however, believe it would be a marginally more equitable proposal if Michigan had a graduated state income tax rather than its regressive flat rate income tax.  

 i too support this bill, what i DO NOT support is the government spending our tax money to cure some 'sponge's' hangnail.

healthcare is far too expensive. i can only afford to provide MYSELF AND MY FAMILY healthcare. i CANNOT afford to provide anyone else healthcare, whether you tax it out of me, or just steal it from me.

neither can the vast majority of americans.

we were CREATED equal, that doesn't mean that we have to STAY equal. perhaps not having healthcare will ENTICE some that will not work to actually go out and get a job.

SaneMichigander:

Now, I have no quarrel with this bill, in and of itself.

I would agree with not taxing the proceeds of this account as reasonable, going along with your views on the flat rate income tax. But I do not see as reasonable giving a tax deduction to those able to afford contributing $5000 a year to a long term healthcare savings account. They probably don't need it, and that doesn't seem fair to the citizens unable to afford doing so. At this time of economic hardship, I also doubt the state can afford it.

 they could if they cut unnecessary spending.