Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • News
  • Markets Map
  • Sentiments
  • Topics
  • Data
  • Comments
  • Images
  • Blog
  • About

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • Discussions
  • Why Jelly is good for small businesses
  • Abercrombie's decline in sales pummels its stock...
  • Apple Getting Crushed In Most Important Battle
  • AirAsia India launch seen in Q4, may order 50 more jets
  • Google said to face new FTC antitrust probe on display ad...
  • Beijing Plans to Reduce the State’s Role in Economy
  • Danica Patrick From Race to Sponsorships
  • Muni Strategy: Buy High (Quality), Sell Low
  • In Tornado's Wake, Look For Insurance Rate Hikes
  • Insurers limit doctors, hospitals in state-run exchange...

    Taxes Matter

    Sun, 03/06/2011 - 09:30 EDT - Mathew Yglesias
    • Comments
    • uncat

    MPS17 gave an answer to the tax question that I have some sympathy for: “The right question is what policies / programs do you think the state should provide. Then you tax at a level appropriate to cover the costs.”
    If you look at, for example, the evidence of the long-term benefits of lead paint abatement it’s clear that this is just something we should be doing. To say “but we’d have to raise taxes” is genuinely no kind of objection to doing something with massive concrete benefits.
    But I do think that some kind of rough and ready account of sustainable tax burdens is important. “Pay for old people’s health care” is something that was cheap to undertake in 1961. But by 1981 it was more expensive. By 2001 it was even more expensive. Today it’s more expensive still. And it’s something that will keep getting more expensive forever absent some kind of change in our understanding of what a policy of “pay for old people’s health care” means. For example, the National Health Service in the UK does give health care services to elderly people. But the UK doesn’t have a policy commitment reading “pay for old people’s health care.” It has a policy commitment to the NHS, and the NHS is an institution that like the NYPD or the Fairfax County Public Library has a specific budget that it’s supposed to do its best with. The United States, while being unusually stingy in our provision of health care for the non-elderly, has a uniquely open-ended commitment to just pay whatever health care bills arise for senior citizens. And while helping retired people maintain a high standard of living is a perfectly reasonable thing to undertake, it’s not something like lead abatement that “pays off” as an investment in the future. So the cost to the economy of the taxes here is a very real cost.
    I often see people writing around this issue by saying that the real problem with an open-ended commitment to pay for old people’s health care is that health care costs are rising. That’s true, but of course health care costs are rising in the context of an open-ended commitment to have the taxpayers finance anything that qualifies as a health care cost. What else is supposed to happen?


    • Original article
    • Login or register to post comments
     

    Related

    • Ask Not What Your Country Could Do To Reduce Health Care Costs

    • Health Care in Sweden

      Göran Hägglund, Minister for Health and Social Affairs

    • Care homes face prosecution if abuse concerns are not reported

    • Privatizing Medicare Will Threaten Benefits For Today’s Senior Citizens

    • Paul Ryan’s Budget Alternative: Massive Rationing

    • Small Steps and Health Care Costs

    • Are conservatives beginning to admit the need for new taxes?

      Kevin Hassett's review of Bruce Bartlett's new book critiquing the relevance of supply-side economics is an extraordinary document. The review appears in the National Review, and Hassett is a well-known conservative economist. Somewhat predictably, his review starts out straining to attack Bartlett. After quickly recapping Bartlett's journey as a harsh conservative critic of George W. Bush, Hassett puts him swiftly in place.

    • In Defense of the NHS

      Norfolk and Norwich University

    • Health Care and Public Health

      US Air Force personnel jog on Waikiki Beach (USAF photo)

    • The Most Important Part of Health-Care Reform

      Firedog Lake helpfully reminds me to double down on yesterday's post: The public option isn't the most important part of health-care reform. It's not the most important part for covering people, and it's not the most important part for reforming the system. And you know the weirdest part? The public plan isn't even the most important part of the public plan.

    Latest

    New book is a fuddle-duddle-seeking missile aimed at shattering the enduring Trudeau myth
    New book is a fuddle-duddle-seeking missile aimed...
    Fluoride increasingly removed from water supply despite lack of evidence it is harmful
    Fluoride increasingly removed from water supply...

    User login

    • Create new account
    • Request new password
    • Click on the icon to sign in with your social network login or enter your Bullfax.com login

    Our Blog

    • Tata Steel, ECB, China’s car market and European Corporate Tax in Our News for Today 05/24/2013
    • Pandora: the charm might fade away
    • Japanese Market, Indian Rupee, China’s Stocks and Oil Prices in Our Daily Round-Up for 05/23/2013

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 1649.60 -0.06% FTSE: 6654.34 -0.64% Nikk.: 14612.45 0.88% DAX: 8305.32 -0.56% HSI: 22618.67 -0.23% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1694 USD/EUR: 1.2935 JPY/USD: 101.175 Commodities: Gold: 1386.60

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • Discussions