Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495

[OC]

Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”

Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want

    • Dragon
      1•12 days ago

      It depends on the state. Massachusetts actually does have a flat income tax, so maybe it would be easier to do there. But even so, wealthy people might prefer to buy private plans, and see the tax as redundant.

            • Dragon
              1•12 days ago

              I’m conceding that it might not always be the case. I don’t have an answer to your question because I don’t feel like doing the research and math to figure out what the top earners would pay in any given state under universal health insurance. It seems to me obvious that it would represent a large tax increase, and that that increase would disproportionately effect top earners. If you have reason to believe it would universally save people money, I’m all ears for a reason or argument.

                • Dragon
                  0•12 days ago

                  I never said it wouldn’t be cheaper overall, I’m aware that’s true. I’m saying for top earners, it won’t. Insurance costs the same for everyone, taxes don’t. The only way around that entirely is a regressive tax.