adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

Analysis: Bidencare or Trumpcare? Health plans will affect the U.S. economy differently – TheChronicleHerald.ca

Published

 on


By Ann Saphir

(Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to expand the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, and then name it after himself.

Republican President Donald Trump wants to end it altogether, and replace it with something that has yet to be defined.

300x250x1

An ongoing debate over which approach is better for the economy is partly about price tags. Bidencare is forecast to increase federal healthcare spending by $2 trillion or more over 10 years. Trump’s approach is to hold federal spending stable or reduce it.

Bidencare supporters emphasize the stimulative effects of government spending, especially in a period of economic distress, and the benefits of insuring more people in the middle of a pandemic. Those who prefer Trump’s approach say it would avoid debt or tax increases they say would drag on future economic growth.

The United States has about 30 million people without health insurance https://tmsnrt.rs/3mzqQxC now, down from about 46.5 million in 2010, when the ACA was passed.

Graphic – Under ACA, a drop in the number of uninsured: https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/ECONOMY-HEALTHCARE/rlgpdxbompo/chart.png

Bidencare would cut that figure by a further 15 million to 20 million, an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates. Trump isn’t expected to try to reduce that.

Healthcare spending is equal to 17% of the U.S. economy, far more than any other industrialized country, so the Trumpcare vs. Bidencare debate is no small economic matter. It’s further complicated by the fact that extra spending doesn’t translate to a healthier populace than other counties.

“Improving healthcare performance is a critical part of strengthening America’s health, economy and fiscal future, and should be top a priority for the next president and Congress,” says Peterson Foundation CEO Michael Peterson.

BIDENCARE FOCUSES ON LOWER-INCOME AMERICANS

Bidencare would cover more Americans by increasing subsidized health insurance purchases through tax credits.

It would also offer a “public option,” allowing anyone who wants it to buy in, even if their job offers private insurance. Lower-income families shut out of ACA’s expanded Medicaid eligibility because of where they live could get it premium-free.

Any boost to health and financial stability is likely to be biggest for millions of low-income households, particularly Latino and Black families who have been particularly hard-hit during the pandemic.

For these groups especially, says the University of Michigan School of Public Health’s Helen Levy, being able to accumulate assets “is really important if you think about supporting economic mobility.”

Minorities get and die from COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, data shows. Some of that is probably because Blacks and Latinos are more likely to work in jobs that put them at higher risk of transmission.

But even without COVID-19, minorities face higher rates of chronic disease and earlier death than whites. They also have lower rates of health insurance despite substantial gains since the advent of the ACA, a study by Kaiser Family Foundation shows.

Biden said he would pay for his plan through higher taxes on the wealthy, and use the clout of expanded public insurance to keep down medical costs.

Increasing the number of insured Americans could have positive economic consequences.

There’s evidence that the uninsured who do get sick get care in expensive settings like the emergency room, says UCLA public health policy professor Gerald Kominski. That takes a toll on their financial health and, when they can’t pay, strains the finances of hospitals that provide their care, with taxpayers footing part of that bill as well.

People in states where uninsured rates fell under Obamacare had fewer past-due debts, were less likely to use payday loans or file for bankruptcy, had better credit and were less likely to be evicted than those in states that did not expand Medicaid eligibility under the ACA.

“The whole reason people should get insurance, from an economist’s perspective, is to protect them against catastrophic losses,” says University of Minnesota professor Sayeh Nikpay.

TRUMPCARE LESS CLEAR, BUT CHEAPER

Trump tried and failed to get Congress to repeal the ACA in his first four-year term, and is likely to continue to it in some form during a second term.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to the law a week after Tuesday’s presidential election. A ruling to dismantle the ACA would put coverage of 21 million Americans in jeopardy, according to the Urban Institute, though most legal scholars don’t expect the court to do so.

If it does, Trump hasn’t specified a plan to replace it. One blueprint may be the Health Care Choices Proposal, put together by conservative health policy experts at the Galen Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

The plan would turn money now used for the ACA over to states to help people buy private health insurance and to provide coverage for low-income households.

An analysis by the right-leaning nonprofit think tank American Action Forum found the proposal would lower premiums by 18% to 24%. The number of uninsured would remain steady.

“The macroeconomic effects would be better than either current law or proposals to devote more public resources to the ACA,” says author Doug Badger. Reducing premiums, he said, would be the “best form of economic stimulus” because it would put money in the pockets of regular Americans.

That analysis is disputed.

Bidencare’s high price tag does worry Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Vice President William Hoagland, a former staffer to Republican lawmakers. But, he said, it’s worth paying for broader health insurance access, which he said would lead to a stronger economy.

“I’m going to come down on the side that a healthy country, and a reduction in chronic conditions, improves productivity, and improving productivity increases economic growth,” he said.

(Reporting by Ann Saphir; Editing by Heather Timmons and Jonathan Oatis)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Opinion: Higher capital gains taxes won't work as claimed, but will harm the economy – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Open this photo in gallery:

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland hold the 2024-25 budget, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on April 16.Patrick Doyle/Reuters

Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss are analysts at the Fraser Institute.

Amid a federal budget riddled with red ink and tax hikes, the Trudeau government has increased capital gains taxes. The move will be disastrous for Canada’s growth prospects and its already-lagging investment climate, and to make matters worse, research suggests it won’t work as planned.

Currently, individuals and businesses who sell a capital asset in Canada incur capital gains taxes at a 50-per-cent inclusion rate, which means that 50 per cent of the gain in the asset’s value is subject to taxation at the individual or business’s marginal tax rate. The Trudeau government is raising this inclusion rate to 66.6 per cent for all businesses, trusts and individuals with capital gains over $250,000.

300x250x1

The problems with hiking capital gains taxes are numerous.

First, capital gains are taxed on a “realization” basis, which means the investor does not incur capital gains taxes until the asset is sold. According to empirical evidence, this creates a “lock-in” effect where investors have an incentive to keep their capital invested in a particular asset when they might otherwise sell.

For example, investors may delay selling capital assets because they anticipate a change in government and a reversal back to the previous inclusion rate. This means the Trudeau government is likely overestimating the potential revenue gains from its capital gains tax hike, given that individual investors will adjust the timing of their asset sales in response to the tax hike.

Second, the lock-in effect creates a drag on economic growth as it incentivizes investors to hold off selling their assets when they otherwise might, preventing capital from being deployed to its most productive use and therefore reducing growth.

Budget’s capital gains tax changes divide the small business community

And Canada’s growth prospects and investment climate have both been in decline. Canada currently faces the lowest growth prospects among all OECD countries in terms of GDP per person. Further, between 2014 and 2021, business investment (adjusted for inflation) in Canada declined by $43.7-billion. Hiking taxes on capital will make both pressing issues worse.

Contrary to the government’s framing – that this move only affects the wealthy – lagging business investment and slow growth affect all Canadians through lower incomes and living standards. Capital taxes are among the most economically damaging forms of taxation precisely because they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest. And while taxes on capital gains do raise revenue, the economic costs exceed the amount of tax collected.

Previous governments in Canada understood these facts. In the 2000 federal budget, then-finance minister Paul Martin said a “key factor contributing to the difficulty of raising capital by new startups is the fact that individuals who sell existing investments and reinvest in others must pay tax on any realized capital gains,” an explicit acknowledgment of the lock-in effect and costs of capital gains taxes. Further, that Liberal government reduced the capital gains inclusion rate, acknowledging the importance of a strong investment climate.

At a time when Canada badly needs to improve the incentives to invest, the Trudeau government’s 2024 budget has introduced a damaging tax hike. In delivering the budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said “Canada, a growing country, needs to make investments in our country and in Canadians right now.” Individuals and businesses across the country likely agree on the importance of investment. Hiking capital gains taxes will achieve the exact opposite effect.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Nigeria's Economy, Once Africa's Biggest, Slips to Fourth Place – Bloomberg

Published

 on


Nigeria’s economy, which ranked as Africa’s largest in 2022, is set to slip to fourth place this year and Egypt, which held the top position in 2023, is projected to fall to second behind South Africa after a series of currency devaluations, International Monetary Fund forecasts show.

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook estimates Nigeria’s gross domestic product at $253 billion based on current prices this year, lagging energy-rich Algeria at $267 billion, Egypt at $348 billion and South Africa at $373 billion.

Adblock test (Why?)

300x250x1

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

IMF Sees OPEC+ Oil Output Lift From July in Saudi Economic Boost – BNN Bloomberg

Published

 on


(Bloomberg) — The International Monetary Fund expects OPEC and its partners to start increasing oil output gradually from July, a transition that’s set to catapult Saudi Arabia back into the ranks of the world’s fastest-growing economies next year. 

“We are assuming the full reversal of cuts is happening at the beginning of 2025,” Amine Mati, the lender’s mission chief to the kingdom, said in an interview in Washington, where the IMF and the World Bank are holding their spring meetings.

The view explains why the IMF is turning more upbeat on Saudi Arabia, whose economy contracted last year as it led the OPEC+ alliance alongside Russia in production cuts that squeezed supplies and pushed up crude prices. In 2022, record crude output propelled Saudi Arabia to the fastest expansion in the Group of 20.

300x250x1

Under the latest outlook unveiled this week, the IMF improved next year’s growth estimate for the world’s biggest crude exporter from 5.5% to 6% — second only to India among major economies in an upswing that would be among the kingdom’s fastest spurts over the past decade. 

The fund projects Saudi oil output will reach 10 million barrels per day in early 2025, from what’s now a near three-year low of 9 million barrels. Saudi Arabia says its production capacity is around 12 million barrels a day and it’s rarely pumped as low as today’s levels in the past decade.

Mati said the IMF slightly lowered its forecast for Saudi economic growth this year to 2.6% from 2.7% based on actual figures for 2023 and the extension of production curbs to June. Bloomberg Economics predicts an expansion of 1.1% in 2024 and assumes the output cuts will stay until the end of this year.

Worsening hostilities in the Middle East provide the backdrop to a possible policy shift after oil prices topped $90 a barrel for the first time in months. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies will gather on June 1 and some analysts expect the group may start to unwind the curbs.

After sacrificing sales volumes to support the oil market, Saudi Arabia may instead opt to pump more as it faces years of fiscal deficits and with crude prices still below what it needs to balance the budget.

Saudi Arabia is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to diversify an economy that still relies on oil and its close derivatives — petrochemicals and plastics — for more than 90% of its exports.

Restrictive US monetary policy won’t necessarily be a drag on Saudi Arabia, which usually moves in lockstep with the Federal Reserve to protect its currency peg to the dollar. 

Mati sees a “negligible” impact from potentially slower interest-rate cuts by the Fed, given the structure of the Saudi banks’ balance sheets and the plentiful liquidity in the kingdom thanks to elevated oil prices.

The IMF also expects the “non-oil sector growth momentum to remain strong” for at least the next couple of years, Mati said, driven by the kingdom’s plans to develop industries from manufacturing to logistics.

The kingdom “has undertaken many transformative reforms and is doing a lot of the right actions in terms of the regulatory environment,” Mati said. “But I think it takes time for some of those reforms to materialize.”

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending