SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?
- Provide free and high quality education
- Raise the minimum wage
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Fight corruption
- Provide more social protection for the poor
- Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
- Provide jobs for the unemployed
Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:40PM (6 children)
The one low-cost thing that the USA could do, that would improve things greatly, would be to de-couple health insurance from employment. Make it illegal for an employer to have anything to do with your health care.
Everybody who wants health insurance would have to buy their own. It would move things much closer to a true free market. Insurance companies would have to actually compete for customers instead of having cosy deals with employers and hospitals.
(If you look up the history, employer health care was a way to get around government imposed wage rise limits in the second world war. Surely a true libertarian/republican/free marketeer would not be in favour of something that is a result of government regulation.)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:16PM (5 children)
It's already done. Health insurance doesn't need to be decoupled, it merely needs to be treated as a taxable benefit. Obamacare snuck that in via its excise tax on "Cadillac plans" which kick in 2020 and aren't adjusted for inflation.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @07:19PM (4 children)
The tax issue is moot here, the issues is that employers negotiate big-block insurance deals at rates that individuals simply cannot. Individually sourced insurance is not only more expensive to start, but also subject to discriminatory rate hikes based on profiling.
By combining everybody in one insurance pool, we rise and sink together at an equal rate. By only having large pools associated with large employers, those people benefit from the large group effect, while individually insured are discriminated against, higher rates with or without "pre-existing conditions," more drastic hikes in response to claims, etc.
If you want to let the weak get culled from the herd, then, sure, keep the system we've got - it's great at singling out people with problems and kicking them while they are down.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @08:18PM (3 children)
No, it's not. The tax issue allows such companies to buy about 50% more insurance for the same amount of money.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @08:34PM (2 children)
I think you lost this particular game of three card monty... Individuals have methods to deduct the cost of healthcare insurance pre-tax. The tax issue is not the reason for the high rate disparity, the lack of negotiation power is the much larger component.
One single example from 2001 - my wife's privately sourced health insurance rates tripled after our first baby delivery cost the insurance company $20K - effectively, her rate jumped up $10K per year with our existing provider, and others wouldn't even insure her due to "pre-existing condition." That's got nothing to do with taxes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @08:41PM (1 child)
Ahem. [zanebenefits.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @09:31PM
Sorry, I'm a little out of touch since I work for a big company now - is this referring to Obamacare?
Can't argue with the wider variety thing, any employer sponsored "choices" I have ever had in healthcare insurance have been limited to two, maybe three selections - the cheap plan, and the pay us up front in increased premiums for benefits you may or may not claim plans - which never, ever work out to the ultimate financial benefit of the insured - maybe break-even, on a high claims year.
🌻🌻 [google.com]