Is anyone else here worried about this notion of redistribution of wealth?

[MoonWater]

More on that whole redistributing the wealth thing, those that really think Obama is so special in this really need to read this article:

Barack Obama favors redistributing wealth. So does John McCain. (and a bunch of other people lol)

 

[Icy Melona]

I confess that I haven't read all the posts so this is going by what I have been reading on CNN, Fox, Times online and etc and relates to "redistribution" fears.

I think Americans are pretty lucky when it comes to taxes. And Obama's plan to increase tax by a couple of percent for over $250k income earners is pretty cruisy compared to the 50% tax for Aussies earning over $89K (that's AUD by the way), plus 10% GST (VAT), plus 25% capital gains tax from investments which only applies after retirement but while working gets lumped into your marginal tax rate and that's not including a whole bevy of other taxes like stamp duty, land tax and etc... We have a progressive tax system so we start out with approx 30% from lowest income to 50% to highest income.

On top of that, those that fall on the higher marginal income have to pay medicare levy (additional tax) and take the burden off the lower income earners now with the Rudd government before Rudd everyone paid medicare levy. I guess we can't complain too much since we have one of the better medicare system and we live in a relatively safe, prosperous and healthy environment. If taxes pay for public roads, hospitals, pensioners, education, centrelink (a grey area for me) and etc that people can access then it's fine, we can all live with higher taxes.

What I don't understand is why there are segments of Americans who fear that a couple of percentage increase in taxes for over $250k will turn the country socialist? No offense but that's a laughable assumption. I also wonder if these people really know the difference between liberalism and socialism/communism. Well to those who fear America will become communist due to progressive tax system, look to Australia and Western Europe, are we communists? It must be a cultural difference, though you would think that as western countries we would share the same economic philosophies of Adam Smith to John M Keynes.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/3/2008 8:14:56 PM
Author: Icy Melona
I confess that I haven't read all the posts so this is going by what I have been reading on CNN, Fox, Times online and etc and relates to 'redistribution' fears.

I think Americans are pretty lucky when it comes to taxes. And Obama's plan to increase tax by a couple of percent for over $250k income earners is pretty cruisy compared to the 50% tax for Aussies earning over $89K (that's AUD by the way), plus 10% GST (VAT), plus 25% capital gains tax from investments which only applies after retirement but while working gets lumped into your marginal tax rate and that's not including a whole bevy of other taxes like stamp duty, land tax and etc... We have a progressive tax system so we start out with approx 30% from lowest income to 50% to highest income.

On top of that, those that fall on the higher marginal income have to pay medicare levy (additional tax) and take the burden off the lower income earners now with the Rudd government before Rudd everyone paid medicare levy. I guess we can't complain too much since we have one of the better medicare system and we live in a relatively safe, prosperous and healthy environment. If taxes pay for public roads, hospitals, pensioners, education, centrelink (a grey area for me) and etc that people can access then it's fine, we can all live with higher taxes.

What I don't understand is why there are segments of Americans who fear that a couple of percentage increase in taxes for over $250k will turn the country socialist? No offense but that's a laughable assumption. I also wonder if these people really know the difference between liberalism and socialism/communism. Well to those who fear America will become communist due to progressive tax system, look to Australia and Western Europe, are we communists? It must be a cultural difference, though you would think that as western countries we would share the same economic philosophies of Adam Smith to John M Keynes.

Just a couple corrections Icy Melona - every Australian citizen pays 1.5% of their taxable income towards supporting Medicare, regardless of what they earn.
Up until a couple weeks ago, if you earnt over 50k as an individual or 100K as a family, you paid an extra 1% in the Medicare Levy surcharge, unless you have private heath insurance - then you are exempt, and you just pay the standard 1.5%.
The Rudd Govt. has just increased the Medicare levy threshold to 70K for individulas and 140K for families, effectively reducing the number of people that must pay more tax. If these people have private health, they are of course still exempt.
This policy will also have potential for detriment to the public and private health system, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

Imho, this is a good and fair system - the reasoning behind it is that those that earn more should either have private insurance and use the private system, or pay slightly more if they choose to use the public system only.

I do agree with you on the other point though - these increases in the US are really not a big deal, and those that are freaking out should consider studying some other systems around the world first..


Cliff notes for US readers: Medicare is our public Health system, and Rudd is the leader of the Australian Labour Party, who recently regained office.

 

[Icy Melona]

Date: 11/3/2008 10:56:52 PM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 11/3/2008 8:14:56 PM
Author: Icy Melona
I confess that I haven't read all the posts so this is going by what I have been reading on CNN, Fox, Times online and etc and relates to 'redistribution' fears.

I think Americans are pretty lucky when it comes to taxes. And Obama's plan to increase tax by a couple of percent for over $250k income earners is pretty cruisy compared to the 50% tax for Aussies earning over $89K (that's AUD by the way), plus 10% GST (VAT), plus 25% capital gains tax from investments which only applies after retirement but while working gets lumped into your marginal tax rate and that's not including a whole bevy of other taxes like stamp duty, land tax and etc... We have a progressive tax system so we start out with approx 30% from lowest income to 50% to highest income.

On top of that, those that fall on the higher marginal income have to pay medicare levy (additional tax) and take the burden off the lower income earners now with the Rudd government before Rudd everyone paid medicare levy. I guess we can't complain too much since we have one of the better medicare system and we live in a relatively safe, prosperous and healthy environment. If taxes pay for public roads, hospitals, pensioners, education, centrelink (a grey area for me) and etc that people can access then it's fine, we can all live with higher taxes.

What I don't understand is why there are segments of Americans who fear that a couple of percentage increase in taxes for over $250k will turn the country socialist? No offense but that's a laughable assumption. I also wonder if these people really know the difference between liberalism and socialism/communism. Well to those who fear America will become communist due to progressive tax system, look to Australia and Western Europe, are we communists? It must be a cultural difference, though you would think that as western countries we would share the same economic philosophies of Adam Smith to John M Keynes.

Just a couple corrections Icy Melona - every Australian citizen pays 1.5% of their taxable income towards supporting Medicare, regardless of what they earn.
Up until a couple weeks ago, if you earnt over 50k as an individual or 100K as a family, you paid an extra 1% in the Medicare Levy surcharge, unless you have private heath insurance - then you are exempt, and you just pay the standard 1.5%.
The Rudd Govt. has just increased the Medicare levy threshold to 70K for individulas and 140K for families, effectively reducing the number of people that must pay more tax. If these people have private health, they are of course still exempt.
This policy will also have potential for detriment to the public and private health system, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

Imho, this is a good and fair system - the reasoning behind it is that those that earn more should either have private insurance and use the private system, or pay slightly more if they choose to use the public system only.

I do agree with you on the other point though - these increases in the US are really not a big deal, and those that are freaking out should consider studying some other systems around the world first..


Cliff notes for US readers: Medicare is our public Health system, and Rudd is the leader of the Australian Labour Party, who recently regained office.

Hi Arunajane, glad we both agree that we'd rather live with higer taxes than with limited/no social infrastructure and services. I agree that it's fair. On the side of medicare, I am alittle confused. Before I continue, I extend my apologies to US and other posters for digressing!

I think effectively we are thinking the same thing although my articulation wasn't as precise or articulate as yours (note my gibberish highlighted)- I was referring to my own circumstances when I made reference to medicare. I know we all paid medicare levy regardless of income bracket. What I am confused about is that I was advised by my accountant (no less!) that my medicare levy will increase regardless of private health. The difference in our information is that I was under the impression that those on lower income will now be exempt from paying any medicare levy and exemption from increase if one has private health. What you've brought to light I just want to say 'thanks' because I will definitely ring the ATO (that's taxation dept for all non-Aussies) and confirm so I'll have the right information. Don't want to walk around misinformed and passing that onto others!


I also agree with you that we should all observe and study systems other than the one we live in to see what we can learn from those differing to ours.

 

[zhuzhu]

Thank you Aussie PSers, for sharing the knowledge of your taxation system and your opinions on our "election chaos" with us.
It is so important to have a worldly view, in order to form an objective and well-informed conclusion.

 

[Icy Melona]

Date: 10/31/2008 7:30:16 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
We also have numerous other taxes that we pay, federal and state income tax, sales tax, hospitality and lodging tax, tax on alcohol, tax on cigarettes, capital gains tax, property tax, town utility tax, personal property tax (car), gas tax, etc etc etc.

I'd say those add on taxes are pretty consistent world wide. But most of W.Europe, Australia and NZ will be lucky to see even 30% income tax. But we can all dream on....

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/3/2008 11:43:57 PM
Author: Icy Melona


Hi Arunajane, glad we both agree that we'd rather live with higer taxes than with limited/no social infrastructure and services. I agree that it's fair. On the side of medicare, I am alittle confused. Before I continue, I extend my apologies to US and other posters for digressing!

I think effectively we are thinking the same thing although my articulation wasn't as precise or articulate as yours (note my gibberish highlighted)- I was referring to my own circumstances when I made reference to medicare. I know we all paid medicare levy regardless of income bracket. What I am confused about is that I was advised by my accountant (no less!) that my medicare levy will increase regardless of private health. The difference in our information is that I was under the impression that those on lower income will now be exempt from paying any medicare levy and exemption from increase if one has private health. What you've brought to light I just want to say 'thanks' because I will definitely ring the ATO (that's taxation dept for all non-Aussies) and confirm so I'll have the right information. Don't want to walk around misinformed and passing that onto others!


I also agree with you that we should all observe and study systems other than the one we live in to see what we can learn from those differing to ours.

Hey again Icy, I can assure you what I've described above is correct, as I work in this field and hence followed the change of legislation changes with interest..
I fear your accountant has misunderstood the legislation...If you earn over the new increased threshold but hold private Hospital insurance (of course not just ancillary cover), then you will still be exempt from medicare levy surcharge.

I Think if the Govt changed to what your accountant is describing, (which sound like very radical reforms!) that would be Very unfair and people would be chucking up alot more of a stink, lol !
By all means, check with the ATO - I hope this info has helped.

 

[Icy Melona]

Thanks Arunajane! yes, I think he did pass on the wrong information. It shouldn''t surprise me since, lately, I ''ve noticed that he has been spending alot of time pursuing other business interest. Believe me I did rant to my dear "labour" voting hubby about this after Rudd. Poor man, to think it''s all because I didn''t seek confirmation on what I was advised! But blame falls on me!

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/4/2008 1:22:58 AM
Author: Icy Melona
Thanks Arunajane! yes, I think he did pass on the wrong information. It shouldn't surprise me since, lately, I 've noticed that he has been spending alot of time pursuing other business interest. Believe me I did rant to my dear 'labour' voting hubby about this after Rudd. Poor man, to think it's all because I didn't seek confirmation on what I was advised! But blame falls on me!

LOL - maybe labour-voting hubby deserves a small apology, and you deserve a new accountant?

he he
Either way, glad to have been of assistnance hon..

 

[Icy Melona]

Hmmm... we''ll see... poor man had to point out the difference in couple of percent to me was a designer bag or a whole lot healthier neighbours. LOL! I was persuaded to his point after that.

 

[LaraOnline]

TBH I think we really do pay too much tax in Australia.
It makes it harder to keep higher-skilled professional people in the country, and it really does penalise those who choose to stay.
However, I didn''t feel this way at all until we began our own business. I was happy to pay my 30% (being a low income earner) and enjoy the benefits of living in a fairly highly subsidised environment. My biggest issue was my HECS debt.

But now...we work (well, my husband works) literally around the clock, and the tax man is a major, major aspect of our lives.
We were in our mid-30s by the time we could afford our first home (a modest 3x1, btw), because all our business income went on tax, and wages for others.
You have to really have a successful business to survive - not necessarily flourish - in this country. A half-*rsed business just can''t cut it with the costs.
My husband still works around the clock. There is no respite, let alone sick leave or other benefits!

Once you go into business, it is difficult to walk away. It can be a trap. We are going to make it, I''m happy to say, but the workload required is really superhuman. After working as an employee (and a hard-working employee, too) it came as a massive shock to me. Like most Aussies, I guess, I thought employers basically sat back and cashed the cheques! How wrong I was!

Our high taxes not only make our economy''s consumer goods much more expensive to buy, but it is difficult to employ people, and basically just hard to survive in business.
That''s one reason why there''s a concentration of wealth - because only people with money can afford to risk getting into business! It''s a circular thing. Lower taxes would help a LOT!

Of course, I guess it must differ according to which industry you''re working in as well. Ours is a pretty tough industry, so perhaps the environment''s tougher for us.

But from where I sit, the Aussie tax system all adds up to a much less interesting shopping (and working) environment, that''s for sure!

It is interesting to see Americans freaking out about what seems to be fairly low-level government intervention in every day living over there. I''m not sure I would like to have a non-subsidised medical system (although ours is a bureaucratic nightmare), or for housing estate developers to be able to make their own choices regarding whether they want to put aside land for a school in their area or not! That sounds foul!

 

[Icy Melona]

Hi Lara, I understand where you're coming from. My father runs his own business and he's built it up over 2 decades. It probably took him a good 10 years before he saw his first profit. Just a few years ago he, albeit grudgingly, gave himself a pay rise because his accountant advised that auditors will question why the director's income hasn't increased in keeping with CPI over the years and may fine him on that alone. Like you said, I think it's different when you run your own business because not only do you have to depend on yourself to create income but you also have responsibilities to your employees and their salaries have to be paid even if the business slows down. I sympathize the pressures that all small and medium businesses face.

I do see your point about high taxes leading to lack of competitiveness but I guess it also depends on how wisely government spends those tax dollars. Not that we can always trust governments to do that! I did like Howard's initiative for funding small exporting businesses and access to AUSTRADE services for smaller businesses. I think Rudd is keeping that initiative but reducing the total amount of funds available or at least that's what I've read in news.com.au

It's a tough economy we're all facing but I'm glad to hear that your family business is making through, I sincerely hope it prospers and grows over the years. I think you and your hubby are brave in striking out on your own.

BTW, to US PS'ers, apologies for hijacking the thread into Aussie tax post!

 

[saltymuffin]

I am both fascinated and boggled by this thread! I will preface this by saying I am Canadian and don't really understand the US taxation system, so bear with my questions.

There seem to be some real distinctions made about taxation paid to the federal gov't and the state. Why is this? NewEnglandLady suggested income tax paid to the fed. gov't is unconstitutional. Would income tax to the state not be unconstitutional, or are all income taxes arguably unconstitutional? Why would paying state taxes be ok, but paying federal taxes should be limited?

Personal property taxes were mentioned with regards to cars. What is this? Here property owners pay tax to the municipality on real estate, but there are no ongoing taxes on your other belongings.

I agree with NEL about freedom being in conflict with socialism. Socialism values EQUALITY over individual FREEDOMS. Higher taxes for the richer (which limits individual freedom) are justified by providing equal levels of service for all. There is nothing right or wrong about valuing one more than the other, everyone's value systems are different.

I don't understand how Obama's proposal to raise taxes for those with an income over 250k is anything more than a tweak to the current system. You have progressive taxes already -correct? You don't have a flat tax now right? Isn't he just proposing adjusting the tax brackets?

I personally am pretty socialist from an american view point. I think the two most important services my gov't provides are healthcare and education. I believe every child should have equal access to both of those things regardless of the social status of their parents, and that it is society's responsibility to pay for those things. I am, however, interested in alternative taxation options. I am interested in both flat taxes and alternatives to sales taxes, such as larger property and sales taxes. I do not believe in complex taxation systems that cost a fortune to manage - that $ is better spent elsewhere.

I don't quite understand the notion of slightly higher taxes stifling individual desires to succeed, and I don't understand the importance of encouraging that drive for more. I think that is an American cultural thing. I personally choose to work less and earn less. I don't think that makes me lazy or a poor citizen, I just value time with my family and the ability to follow my other interests over a bigger pay cheque.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 11/5/2008 5:22:42 PM
Author: saltymuffin
I am both fascinated and boggled by this thread! I will preface this by saying I am Canadian and don''t really understand the US taxation system, so bear with my questions.


There seem to be some real distinctions made about taxation paid to the federal gov''t and the state. Why is this? NewEnglandLady suggested income tax paid to the fed. gov''t is unconstitutional. Would income tax to the state not be unconstitutional, or are all income taxes arguably unconstitutional? Why would paying state taxes be ok, but paying federal taxes should be limited?


Personal property taxes were mentioned with regards to cars. What is this? Here property owners pay tax to the municipality on real estate, but there are no ongoing taxes on your other belongings.


I agree with NEL about freedom being in conflict with socialism. Socialism values EQUALITY over individual FREEDOMS. Higher taxes for the richer (which limits individual freedom) are justified by providing equal levels of service for all. There is nothing right or wrong about valuing one more than the other, everyone''s value systems are different.


I don''t understand how Obama''s proposal to raise taxes for those with an income over 250k is anything more than a tweak to the current system. You have progressive taxes already -correct? You don''t have a flat tax now right? Isn''t he just proposing adjusting the tax brackets?


I personally am pretty socialist from an american view point. I think the two most important services my gov''t provides are healthcare and education. I believe every child should have equal access to both of those things regardless of the social status of their parents, and that it is society''s responsibility to pay for those things. I am, however, interested in alternative taxation options. I am interested in both flat taxes and alternatives to sales taxes, such as larger property and sales taxes. I do not believe in complex taxation systems that cost a fortune to manage - that $ is better spent elsewhere.


I don''t quite understand the notion of slightly higher taxes stifling individual desires to succeed, and I don''t understand the importance of encouraging that drive for more. I think that is an American cultural thing. I personally choose to work less and earn less. I don''t think that makes me lazy or a poor citizen, I just value time with my family and the ability to follow my other interests over a bigger pay cheque.

Great questions saltymuffin!

Yes, there is a distinction made between state and federal taxes. The U.S. Constitution outlines the "Powers of Congress" in Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...Then it goes on to say all the powers of Congress. Included in those powers are "raising and supporting armies" and "establishing post offices and post roads." (Is that why some here feel that federal taxes should be used only to fund military and roads?) Later (1913), in Amendment 16, the income tax thing is clarified: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. So Federal Income Tax is NOT unconstitutional; the argument is about what taxes paid to the feds should be used for.

Presumably, local jurisdictions (states, counties, towns) collect taxes to fund those things which citizens of that jurisdiction collectively deem necessary. In theory, for example, a state may legislate that all children must attend school from ages 6 to 16. Local taxes would then be collected to fulfill that mandate and the federal government would have nothing to do with it. In practice, that''s not what happens. In this example, the federal government not only collects money from states and reapportions it, but but also mandates education laws -- many of which go unfunded.

Obama''s proposal is a tweak of an existing system. Under Reagan, the bottom tax rate was increased while the top was lowered (See Tax Reform Act of 1986). *That* tweak was to give tax relief to high income earners and supposedly simplify the tax code (not sure if it did).

Higher taxes in the US do not stifle the individual desire to succeed. They''re simply not *that* high. Ambitious people who like money will still be driven to work hard to make a lot of money. The problem is that people naturally want to *keep* more of their money. Some of those people who have health insurance and can afford security feel that those who don''t/can''t aren''t working hard enough. Why should they have to support these slackers?

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/30/2008 7:49:30 PM
Author: Allisonfaye

I really doubt anyone is paying 35% of their income in taxes, especially given the marginal tax rate system and most people have interest to deduct from a mortgage. Someone correct me if I am wrong here.

You''re wrong here.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 11/5/2008 9:09:12 AM
Author: Icy Melona

I do see your point about high taxes leading to lack of competitiveness but I guess it also depends on how wisely government spends those tax dollars. Not that we can always trust governments to do that! I did like Howard''s initiative for funding small exporting businesses and access to AUSTRADE services for smaller businesses. I think Rudd is keeping that initiative but reducing the total amount of funds available or at least that''s what I''ve read in news.com.au


It''s a tough economy we''re all facing but I''m glad to hear that your family business is making through, I sincerely hope it prospers and grows over the years. I think you and your hubby are brave in striking out on your own.

BTW, to US PS''ers, apologies for hijacking the thread into Aussie tax post!

Hi Icy!

Yes, I''m sorry to hijack as well. In fact I wrote a fantastic answer (if I do say so) and then deleted it... but now I''m back, because I wanted to briefly respond. Firstly, small business owners are expected by this (Australian) government to work 80-plus hours a week, basically to survive. The government bureaucracies must know this, if they do any research or modelling at all.

Of course, the protections provided to other workers such as sick leave, a per-hour minimum rate, maternity leave benefits, holidays and other benefits probably would be impossible for us to have, as we need to work above all else, to keep our business going! But it would be nice if the government recognised the lifestyle sacrifices we have made to collect their taxes so diligently, week in week out...

We are expected to raise, collect and account for thousands of dollars in tax each month, without any breaks or considerations. The accounting itself takes many hours each month. If we are late with a payment, we may get a stiff fine, and interest payments on top.
I don''t think that the load-carrying done by small business is recognised or even respected by government, or the broader community. The government seems to think of us as their agents!

Whenever the state and federal governments make another vote-winning law change in regard to labour laws or add-on costs, it costs us more, and directly impinges upon our survival. The broader community seems somewhat suspicious of small business!

I don''t think that ANY government spending can make us competitive in a way that lower taxes can! Although of course good education, good hospitals and good communications systems are important for a smooth business environment. I would like to see the governments improve in these areas! And I think they ALREADY get enough money to do that!

I also don''t think a few grants, given to a few lucky exporter winners, make up for the hours of free work we are expected to do for the government. We don''t export, we serve the local community. The only benefit we have from government is a state-run centre which provides lower-cost business information seminars from time to time.

The ''Christmas present'' approach to the financial crisis, of spending the surplus in increased welfare payments, is great for pensioners, but something of a slap in the face to those of us who have sacrificed so much to contribute those tax dollars. I would like to see hard work, and initiative, rewarded for a change, rather than just straight welfarism! Lower taxes would help everyone!
China''s response to the crisis was to lower business and housing taxes... we keep taxes high, but give cash presents to favoured welfare groups!

Anyway, I think if I need to carry on any further, I (we?) should start our own thread!
Sorry, everyone, carry on!

 

[partgypsy]

Laraonline I agree, a tax system should be fair, and not unduly burden small businesses because that is often the engine of growth and entrepenuership in a country.
My father is a small business owner, and I know what some of his concerns is. The main one, is hoping that the government does their job, regarding small deficit, sound economy so that the working and middle class prosper because those are his clientele. If the economy is doing well (and I''m not talking about a credit card game of debt passed around, real wealth) then there is more money to go around for everyone. Another one of his concerns is health insurance. The lack of affordable health insurance is a disincentive for people to both be self-employed, and also to keep good people who wouldn''t mind working for a small business, but leave because they want a job with benefits (i.e. health insurance).
So in addition to fairer tax laws, I would add a sound economy and affordable health insurance for all citizens as also helping small businesses/self employed.

 

[LaraOnline]

Haha gypsy, you are one step ahead of me. Of course, I have observed your election from a complete distance, and have not been as closely following as I would a local election.

So it was with interest that I read that Obama was interested in universal health cover...

I have to say, that this is an aspect of US life that does seem scary from our side of the world... we hear the horror stories of old folks dying in the car park outside the hospital, because they cannot get the care they need?!! Hmm, who knows the truth from here.

In relation to small business, I can see why the need for health cover would be a disincentive for employees. Cannot they undertake their own cover? Is it wildly expensive for the employer to take out cover for employees?

In Australia we don't have to worry about health cover as believe it or not, the public system can in many circumstances (not dental or hip replacements!) be as good or even better than the private system .... but our basic wages are so high (including superannuation) that it can be really difficult to pay yourself after paying all staffing costs!
On a per-hour basis, my professional husband is paid much less than his support staff, many of whom did not finish high school. But as I mentioned earlier, perhaps we have a particularly difficult industry.

TBO, although we have had a universal system, that we like to congratulate ourselves on constantly, BTW, the Medicare system is really falling apart at the seams. The increasing age demographic is adding to our health care costs exponentially.

I wouldn't mind betting that Obama finds that a mix of public and private care might be the way he has to go. To take pressure of the public system, we now pay an extra tax if we fail to take out private insurance, once our wage gets to a certain level.

However, unless you have a specific health issue that is slow to get service in the public system (like dentals or a hip replacement) it is very hard to convince yourself that you are getting better value for money through the private system. Ironically, it winds up feeling like yet another tax!

 

[partgypsy]

I think that Americans should be able to have affordable health insurance. People who have full-time jobs with health insurance are able to have it (or married to someone with full time job with that insurance), as well as young healthy individuals who are not in risky jobs. But everyone else, it is a problem. I''m not sure what the solution is, but do know that things that other countries do to keep down costs (such as single payer so less paperwork, or the government bargaining for bulk buys on medicine to keep down costs, etc) we are not doing. My father could have paid for health insurance, but as none of his employees had health insurance through him (a restaurant) he waited till he had medicare to get insurance.
Personally myself I would love to be in a more creative type job. It''s not the drop in pay, but the fear of not having insurance for myself and my family means I would never do that, go out on a limb to hopefully develop a creative product of my own.

 

[trillionaire]

Dunno if this has been posted...

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/8/2008 9:45:24 PM
Author: part gypsy
I think that Americans should be able to have affordable health insurance. People who have full-time jobs with health insurance are able to have it (or married to someone with full time job with that insurance), as well as young healthy individuals who are not in risky jobs. But everyone else, it is a problem. I'm not sure what the solution is, but do know that things that other countries do to keep down costs (such as single payer so less paperwork, or the government bargaining for bulk buys on medicine to keep down costs, etc) we are not doing. My father could have paid for health insurance, but as none of his employees had health insurance through him (a restaurant) he waited till he had medicare to get insurance.
Personally myself I would love to be in a more creative type job. It's not the drop in pay, but the fear of not having insurance for myself and my family means I would never do that, go out on a limb to hopefully develop a creative product of my own.

part gypsy, I swear my mind starts to boggle whenever I hear someone discuss the US health system.!

It just seems so ....unnecessarily complex, KWIM?
So were you saying that your Govt does not help to pay for any medications at all?
I don't want to go too far, as I know this can be a touchy subject, but as I work in the health industry this topic always intrigues me.
It just seems incredible that in "The Greatest Nation In the World", so many people must go without basic healthcare or insurance for so many reasons...

As Lara has mentioned, we are lucky to have a (relatively) well developed and supported public system here. You could, and many do, go through their whole lives without ever needing or wanting insurance, my parents are a case in point.
I can say from experience that most Australian's take private health insurance usually for a tax break (discussed above with Icy and myself) and / or for dental cover, as this is not usually a publicly funded service.

As far as taking out Private Insurance goes, companies do not ask, nor need nor want to know about anything to do with your health or health history. I find it amazing that someone with existing health complications will be refused insurance in the US - thats why you need it!
Its pretty much if you want it and are willing to pay for it here, its yours. Plus, the Govt. pays a rebate of between 30-40% of the cost of insurance for all residents.. Not sure if that is something offered in the US, or could be a helpful policy?

All of that said, I certainly don't think our system is perfect, and also think Australia has alot to learn - particularly from the UK, who imho have the best health system figured out.

Anyway, I am always keen to discuss these issues if you wish. I genuinely hope Obama will attempt to tackle some of your health issues..but it does seem like a big job, lol !

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/8/2008 8:25:13 PM
Author: LaraOnline

In relation to small business, I can see why the need for health cover would be a disincentive for employees. Cannot they undertake their own cover? Is it wildly expensive for the employer to take out cover for employees?

In my area if you have 5 employees for some plans 10 for others you can get good 80/20 insurance for around $500 single, no maternity $1000 a month for couples.
If you have less than 5 employees then you have to buy individual plans which I have been quoted at $2500 a month because I have asthma and have have had blood clots.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 11/9/2008 10:47:24 AM
Author: strmrdr

In my area if you have 5 employees for some plans 10 for others you can get good 80/20 insurance for around $500 single, no maternity $1000 a month for couples.

If you have less than 5 employees then you have to buy individual plans which I have been quoted at $2500 a month because I have asthma and have have had blood clots.

That is interesting. The ''less than five'' option is obviously unacceptable price wise, but the other is worth considering... although I know nothing about your other on-costs in relation to employment. Do you pay add-ons like workers insurance (for injury on the job) and superannuation (future pension), in addition to tax from gross wage on their behalf?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/9/2008 6:22:44 PM
Author: LaraOnline

Date: 11/9/2008 10:47:24 AM

Author: strmrdr


In my area if you have 5 employees for some plans 10 for others you can get good 80/20 insurance for around $500 single, no maternity $1000 a month for couples.


If you have less than 5 employees then you have to buy individual plans which I have been quoted at $2500 a month because I have asthma and have have had blood clots.

That is interesting. The 'less than five' option is obviously unacceptable price wise, but the other is worth considering... although I know nothing about your other on-costs in relation to employment. Do you pay add-ons like workers insurance (for injury on the job) and superannuation (future pension), in addition to tax from gross wage on their behalf?

Yes an employer has to pay for workers comp insurance, and pays an unemployment tax.
As well as a part of medicare and medicaid taxes.
Many employers add matching funds to 401k for retirement.
Very few companies do traditional pensions anymore.

 

[LaraOnline]

Let''s not talk about small business costs anymore, I feel depressed.
Just want to keep on shutting my eyes and living from month to month, as usual.

 

[Icy Melona]

Date: 11/8/2008 8:25:13 PM
Author: LaraOnline
Haha gypsy, you are one step ahead of me. Of course, I have observed your election from a complete distance, and have not been as closely following as I would a local election.

So it was with interest that I read that Obama was interested in universal health cover...

I have to say, that this is an aspect of US life that does seem scary from our side of the world... we hear the horror stories of old folks dying in the car park outside the hospital, because they cannot get the care they need?!! Hmm, who knows the truth from here.

In relation to small business, I can see why the need for health cover would be a disincentive for employees. Cannot they undertake their own cover? Is it wildly expensive for the employer to take out cover for employees?

In Australia we don't have to worry about health cover as believe it or not, the public system can in many circumstances (not dental or hip replacements!) be as good or even better than the private system .... but our basic wages are so high (including superannuation) that it can be really difficult to pay yourself after paying all staffing costs!
On a per-hour basis, my professional husband is paid much less than his support staff, many of whom did not finish high school. But as I mentioned earlier, perhaps we have a particularly difficult industry.

TBO, although we have had a universal system, that we like to congratulate ourselves on constantly, BTW, the Medicare system is really falling apart at the seams. The increasing age demographic is adding to our health care costs exponentially.

I wouldn't mind betting that Obama finds that a mix of public and private care might be the way he has to go. To take pressure of the public system, we now pay an extra tax if we fail to take out private insurance, once our wage gets to a certain level.

However, unless you have a specific health issue that is slow to get service in the public system (like dentals or a hip replacement) it is very hard to convince yourself that you are getting better value for money through the private system. Ironically, it winds up feeling like yet another tax!

I think part of the problem in Australia is that we just don't have enough doctors and we have the AMA (Australian Medical Association) to thank for this. I have found that in Korea, you can see a specialist on the day, there's no waiting period and consultation fees are cheap. How many of us in Australia have experienced the 3 month long waiting period to see a specialist? And then pay $150 for a 10 minute consultation?

My brother is a doctor and maybe he's being a cynic but he says the primary function and goal of AMA is to limit the number of doctors in Australia so they can keep up a nice cartel. I've seen a number of GPs who were specialists in their home countries but had to seat through examinations which entailed another 5 years of re-study and examination even Aussie medical graduates couldn't even pass.

We need more doctors...

 

[LaraOnline]

Just heard on the news just now that the AMA is calling for billions of dollars to be injected into the public health system, and the hospital overcrowding has led to thousands of unnecessary deaths annually.
I guess there are ALWAYS 'unecessary' deaths in pretty much any hospital system, but it still is unsettling. Looks like we are moving more and more towards a privatised system every day.

An interesting- and very much undiscussed - aspect of the feminisation of the professions is the increasing reluctance of doctors to do full hours. Currently, industry estimates are that female professionals (doctors, veterinarians) do 40% of a male peer's hours within a career lifetime. I am not judging this; I am basically a stay-at-home mum myself, and would fight tooth and nail rather than work full time.

When you consider that our graduates are increasingly female, in both medicine and veterinary medicine, that's a lot less doctor for the same amount of government (and personal) investment in training!

My husband says that international trends in veterinary are projecting 90% female graduates!
And yet, for reasons of the delicacy of the subject matter, gender-based aspects of productivity is an area of public service planning that is really not publicly discussed.

Perhaps there should be gender quotas in medicine?
In addition to other training measures of course(such as increased availability of training hospital places, etc)

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/11/2008 10:50:58 PM
Author: LaraOnline
Just heard on the news just now that the AMA is calling for billions of dollars to be injected into the public health system, and the hospital overcrowding has led to thousands of unnecessary deaths annually.
I guess there are ALWAYS ''unecessary'' deaths in pretty much any hospital system, but it still is unsettling. Looks like we are moving more and more towards a privatised system every day.

An interesting- and very much undiscussed - aspect of the feminisation of the professions is the increasing reluctance of doctors to do full hours. Currently, industry estimates are that female professionals (doctors, veterinarians) do 40% of a male peer''s hours within a career lifetime. I am not judging this; I am basically a stay-at-home mum myself, and would fight tooth and nail rather than work full time.

When you consider that our graduates are increasingly female, in both medicine and veterinary medicine, that''s a lot less doctor for the same amount of government (and personal) investment in training!

My husband says that international trends in veterinary are projecting 90% female graduates!
And yet, for reasons of the delicacy of the subject matter, gender-based aspects of productivity is an area of public service planning that is really not publicly discussed.

Perhaps there should be gender quotas in medicine?
In addition to other training measures of course(such as increased availability of training hospital places, etc)

Veerrryyy interesting points Lara..

And Icy, I see what you are saying, but I know I would want a Dr from a developing country to have Australia-quality training and testing before operating on me or a loved one, KWIM?

 

[Icy Melona]

Lara, that's a very good point. But putting gender aside, part time roster may not necessarily be an option across all medical specialities. I noticed GPs may be contracted for 4 days but end up being rostered 6-7 days because there is not enough locums to fill the hours. Specialists with private practises may have more flexibility, I guess.

AJ, I'm not sure about the study of medicine being all that different in developed and less developed countries. Maybe some have access to better technology and some countries have more private and public funding for research but I've seen some good medical service being provided in Thailand for example. A large number of Arabs apparently go to Bangkok for affordable surgeries and quality care. Not referring to back door alley or cowboy doctors but national university hospitals. I suspect that medical specialties probably vary from country to country, for instance, my brother once worked with a S.African doctor who back in his home country worked in the emergency room in Johannesburg hospital. His specialty was heart drain, he would see on average 9 gun shot chest wounds in a day and he could cut and drain a heart under 4 minutes. Apparently, the best surgeon in Sydney can perform that in half an hour on a good day. Interestingly, there are quite a number of specialists in Australia who travel overseas for training. I know a facial reconstructive surgeon who will be training in Seoul and Tokyo so he can learn how to cut the jaw bone with precision. I was surprised to find that there's alot of knowledge exchange in this industry.

I'm not saying that foreign doctors shouldn't be tested to meet Australian standards but I'd like to see AMA set fairer standardised exams. It's kinda saying something when Australian medical graduates can't even pass those exams. Also I'd like to see greater placements for registrarship. I can't understand why hospital consultants will only take up 5 or 6 registrars a year for each specialty and the more lucrative the specialty (like dermatology) it's even fewer? Even the skilled migration laws favour nurses over doctors. You get extra points if you're a nurse but if you're a doctor you don't get any points.

OK, I'm gonna stop ranting now or I'll never be able to sleep!

 

[LaraOnline]

Melona, your story regarding the ''speciality'' of the Johannesburg doctor is fascinating. Of course, there must be a huge range of experiences - to some extent cultural experiences - that medical doctors could draw upon, that the Australian medical community could benefit from.
In relation to gender, I don''t doubt for a minute that ''part-timing it'' is not really an option for many within the profession, no matter how often we read the ''flexibility'' story on the human resources pages of the newspapers.
Strangely, the working issues thrown up by flexible working hours, or reduced working hours, don''t seem to be really addressed at all by the newspaper journalists who write the stories on ''flexibility within the workplace''.
Availability to clients, maintaining a level of technical proficiency, accountability to others within a workplace, off the top of my head these are some of the issues that I have with high numbers of part-timers ... in any work place, really.

Perhaps I''m sceptical, because the first time I heard of the concept of working from home, was when a girlfriend talked her boss into it, after she had a baby. She said it was great, she could spend her whole day shopping for tiles for her new house!!