Very much so. It is kind of a catch-22. Every time the city says they need more programs to encourage people to stay, they have to somehow have the revenues, so they raise taxes. And every time they raise taxes, they have an ever-increasing burden, not only on the people, but the businesses that support them. Once the businesses leave, it leaves a vacuum for crime and other problems. It is a catch-22. The Government says they will put more money into it, so they have to raise taxes and generate more revenue. And it compounds the problem, as the Cato Institute said. The Government is a consequence, not just a contributing factor, but a consequence of this problem.
Rod Grams: “Very much so. It is kind of a catch-22. Every time the city says they need more programs to encourage people to stay…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of tax increases on cities and their residents.
Share
More from Rod Grams
That is the deductible. The individual would pay 25 percent of the cost of the prescription, and then if they were at an income level you are talking about, it would be a $150 deductible with no caps or limits for the year; not the $4,000…
I disagree with the Vice President--if I may reclaim my time--and I will tell you why. Because, as you said, when it goes into effect in 2002, it is not fully implemented for 6 to 8 years. You might start off with a low payment, but it…
So you are saying the President's plan, when fully phased in, will be only $25 per month or are you talking about the initial plan with the coverage available with the caps and coverage?
I am not opposed to a surcharge or a prescription charge but a charge that is going to assume a new $600-per-year additional tax or cost on our seniors while providing very little in benefit that would overcome that cost.





