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@lemmy.ml
    1·
    20 hours 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.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      20 hours ago

      The arguments for how it will save people money are readily available, a cursory Google search will show you them. Your claim is the one that is not as easy to verify. You are claiming it will be more expensive even though we literally don’t even know what it would look like here. There are plenty of examples in other countries that are sustainable, why don’t you just take a look at those? Why don’t you look at all ofthe research that has been done on the subject? Lift a fucking finger before you spout your theoretical nonsense

      • Dragon@lemmy.ml
        0·
        20 hours 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.