Levin’s political analysis is always tough to improve upon.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The U.S. has been infected with Socialism/Jacobinism since the French Revolution. But the modern welfare state traces back to the work of Columbia University professor Henry Rogers Seager and the depression. During the depression FDR appointed a handpicked committee and acted on its recommendations completely changing the relationship of the individual to government.[/quote]
The problem with this history is that it neglects to account for the impact of industrialization on the relationship of the individual to government.
Industrialization - the force against which FDR and gang were acting against and with - was the least “conserving” and therefore the least “conservative” force the United States had ever seen. It was effecting a radical transformation of how American citizens organized their lives and behaved.
Many “conservatives” don’t like how FDR dealt with the problems and growing pains caused by industrialization, and that is fine - but they aren’t really “conservatives” until they acknowledge that the primary driver of change in this country was the impact of industrialization, and that politicians were trying to grapple with its consequences.
Most “conservatives” - and yes, the scare quotes are intentional - are ambivalent to the one of the least conservative forces in American history, and they hold post-Civil War industrialization as some sort of holy “conservative” era…an odd thing, since the entire nature of the Good Life as we had known it - more tighly knit families, a connection to land, power exercised more locally, i.e., things we ostensibly would want to conserve - had been cast aside and the worship (yes, worship) of bustling cities and humming factories was the new “conservative” virtue.
I don’t care if right-wingers want to pick a fight with FDR, even in this day and age - but until they are willing to account for the forces FDR was having to deal with and leaven their blind critcism of FDR, it’s hard to take them all that seriously.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,
Near as I can tell the only right you have lost is the right to not have insurance. You actually still have that right, you will just pay a tax for not having it. Coming from a guy that doesn’t want to let gays get married or adopt and wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, your whine of “They’re taking my rights” sounds particularly slow witted.[/quote]
And your response to the subject at hand is pretty damn off the mark.
Your claim: “Nothing changes you get free insurance.”
My claim: Many taxes will go up, and new ones created, to pay for national health insurance. Because, are you ready B r i a n? When the government gives something to someone it has to take something away from someone else. And you’ve not countered that point to date.
Your response: “You’re against a woman’s right to choose so there…and gay adoption.”
Brilliant!
You cannot address the topic because you have no answer to my points so you use a straw man argument.
Yes…you’re still an idiot.[/quote]
ZEB,
You are indeed a half-wit. I used your own stances on issues as a counterpoint to your argument that “My rights are being taken away.” It’s not a strawman, it is your own ideology. I have addressed the topic, I just added in your own words to help clarify for you how stupid you look/sound/act. But since you are still too slow to follow this I will try again.
Will there be new taxes and fees? Yes, these will be for people that can afford insurance but refuse to buy it, or for single people making $200k and above or couples making $250k and above, there will also be a .9% increase for these same people on certain investment vehicles from 2.9% to 3.8%. These taxes and fees (outside of the indoor tanning taxes) will affect a very small % of Americans. Small businesses with I believe more than 31 employees will be subject to a penalty of $166-250 per month per employee for not offering insurance, or for offering plans that the employees refuse (and instead replace with those from the exchange.) Again this doesn’t affect as many people as you would think.
Will people go to jail? For the estimated 4,000,000 people that will refuse to pay the tax or get insurance (this is what the government expects to happen) there are currently no processes in place to prosecute and imprison them, the more likely event (if you pay your Federal Income taxes and refuse to pay the ACA tax) is either seizing some or all of your tax return, garnishment of wages up to the total of the ACA tax or some combination of the two. You would have to be doing something else in order to go to jail.
Nothing changes you get free insurance. Yeah ZEB, I never said that.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
Beans, I appreciate trying to be respectful. If you have some information you would like to share, please do.
[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Look, your “semantics” comment shows you don’t understand how taxes work, I will try and break it down:
Assumptions: Your tax rate is 20%. You have a 100k AGI.
Option 1: you are single, rent and don’t give crazy amounts to charity. You pay 20k to the IRS.
Option 2: You buy a home, you can now deduct the R/E taxes & mortgage interest (Which total 20k). Your tax bill is now 16k. (100k - 20K x 20%)
You aren’t being punished for not buying the house. You are paying your original bill. The deduction is a reduction of your bill.
Option 3: same facts as #1 under Obamacare and you refuse insurance. You tax bill is now 22k, 2% higher than your tax rate.
That is a penalty, as it was assessed upon your original rate.
[/quote]
We have a blended rate here, so I use 20% to make everything a bit more simple to explain. Now, this means your tax rate will change with the more deductions you have, but the principle is the same. This is probably why you are confused. But the rate doesn’t go up because you don’t do something, the rate stays at the highest possible because you don’t do something.
Now, when you don’t get insurance, your rate goes up, no ifs-ands-or-buts about it.
The government gives you deductions for mortgage interest and taxes paid (state, local, R/E, etc), contibutions to a charity, etc, for a few reasons. One is because they want to promote that behavior, because it benefits society as a whole. (I should point out it was W, as far as I understand, that largly elimiated the marriage penalty.) The second is because your disposable income goes down with these expenditures, therefore your tax should be lower.
Under Obamacare/Romneycare, they don’t give a fuck what you do if you refuse insurance, you are going to pay an extra %.
So, look at it like this:
Your net earnings dictate your tax bill, in the most simple of terms. Changes in earnings will change your tax bill. You have to DO something to pay a tax.
Under bullshitcare, it doesn’t matter what your earnings are. If you don’t pay for insurance, your tax bill goes up. You are being taxed on inaction.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
Zeb, apparently I am unable to say anything clearly as seems every post is misunderstood.[/quote]
Either that or I understand your posts correctly and you simply don’t appreciate the reply.
Then I guess I did understand your point and was correct in my response.
But there is no need for 3 million civilian federal employees! How many were there during the Eisenhower administration? 20% of that or so?
Then let me explain. FDR began the social welfare mentality which only grew under such Presidents as LBJ and your hero Obama. FDR’s “New Deal” was rife with federal give-away programs. Some of them went away but most hung around and changed names. The democratic party became the majority party under FDR as he was the first “Sugar Daddy” to the masses.
I did not misunderstand the question and my answer is spot on.
D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D?
I just did it.
Because someone launches a series of give-away programs does not mean that they bore long-term success. It means that the people ate it up and gave the bill to the next generation which in turn handed the bill to the following generation. You call that success? Yeah…I guess that is the way a liberal would define success, passing the buck and handing people free things along the way. But in reality FDR and the people who perpetuated this mess are resounding failures! Furthermore, such thinking has given us Barack Obama the most liberal President to ever hold the office of President of the United States. And he has given us national health care the biggest disaster to be perpetrated on the American people and a take over of 1/6th of the economy by the US government!
Maybe you better look at survey’s taken prior to 1981 they indicate that the country has always been center right. The media is left, the Universities are left, Hollywood is left and Obama is certainly left. But, the country, since they’ve been taking surveys, has always shown to be center right. Granted they voted for the most modern day conservative President in 1980 but they were center right long before that. Don’t confuse the man (Ronald Reagan) with the majority of people who were more than ready for such a leader and had been for quite a while.
You don’t like my responses and this is your way of telling me. I’ve read your posts and find them wanting in fact. You’ve written what you want to be true but you have no data to back it up.
But I will give you credit for being brighter than Brian Hanson but that doesn’t take much. You certainly are not a dumb guy just misguided.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
or for single people making $200k and above or couples making $250k and above, [/quote]
Ahhh, the marraige penalty.
Back in full effect.
Not sure I follow. Where is this 2.9% currently?
How many people live in Manhattan?
Do you know how not-even-remotely-close-to-making-a-lot-of-money 200k a year is to someone who lives in NYC?
This whole “over 200k is rich” bullshit is just that. I live in a high cost of living area. 200k is not even close to rich, and no I don’t deserve more taxation because I worked my ass off to make that 200k.
[quote] the more likely event (if you pay your Federal Income taxes and refuse to pay the ACA tax) is either seizing some or all of your tax return, garnishment of wages up to the total of the ACA tax or some combination of the two. You would have to be doing something else in order to go to jail.
[/quote]
I imagine they will just apply your payment to ObamaTax first, and fuck you in the ass for not paying your “normal” taxes.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,
You are indeed a half-wit. I used your own stances on issues as a counterpoint to your argument that “My rights are being taken away.” It’s not a strawman, it is your own ideology. I have addressed the topic, I just added in your own words to help clarify for you how stupid you look/sound/act. But since you are still too slow to follow this I will try again.[/quote]
Ad hominem attacks will not get you out of this one. You said that the health care bill will have no negative impact on people. I proved you wrong. You then moved to the nonsensical straw man attack which has NOTHING to do with the health care bill and.
Now your claim is that "all you lose is the right not to have insurance.’
Wrong again!
Oh, there will be a negative impact on some people then just as I said. But these people don’t count because they make more money than the average American, so the government has a right to take said funds and give this money to other people who have not earned it.
Is that your new argument?
You funny little man.
First of all you are wrong on the number of employees (how shocking you’re wrong AGAIN). If a business has more than 50 employees they are subject to the health care law, not 31. Secondly, you’re wrong about the fines as well. If a business refuses to buy health care for their employees they will be subject to a fine of $2,000 per employee. Thirdly, about 66% of all new jobs come from the small business sector. Even you can figure out that this will have a negative effect on hiring. Add this to Obama’s promise to allow the Bush tax cuts for all Americans to elapse and you have a recipe for a deep recession. I wonder will you be posting by March/April of next year? If so I will be rubbing your liberal face in the mess that your hero has created.
Here you go I’ll do the work for you.
[quote]Penalties For Failure To Insure
For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The individual mandate requires everyone to purchase health insurance. [/quote]
http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-man
What happens when you don’t pay your taxes? You are fined. What happens when you ignore the fine?
Do you understand that Justice (turn coat) Roberts termed it a tax? AND that the IRS is now in charge of collection. And do you not understand the collection steps that the IRS takes? The final stop if you do not pay up is J A I L. Yes, they want the money first but if you are a small business (won’t garnish your own wages), or unemployed you will be taken to JAIL
I wonder who the first American will be to be hauled off to jail for not having health insurance? Better yet I wonder if the main stream liberal media will even report it?
This is what you said above:
Once again I’ve proven you WRONG!
You lose the right to spend your money the way you want and not have to pay a tax!
You lose the right not be fined!
You lose the most important right of all if you don’t play the health insurance game by the governments rules. You lose your FREEDOM!
If all it were is the right not to have insurance that would still be an insult to freedom. But as usual the government backs up their laws with fines and penalties. This time they are levied by the IRS not known to be a loving and caring institution.
Do you even know what you write from post to post? Pffft…
Yes, you’re still an idiot B r i a n!
Can we all just agree that this is not “insurance”? This is a ponzi scheme.
Insurance is supposed to mitigate risk by using price disincentives to make risky behavior more costly.
This is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from non risk takers to risk takers - like all social programs are.
Beans, bear with me, as Zeb has so kindly pointed out I am pretty slow. In example #3 we are using a 2% penalty, correct? As I am still not really sure what you are getting at, could you explain what would happen in this example if the rate were changed to 22% with a 2% deduction? (As I have, apparently poorly, argued that this effectively is the same thing.)
[quote]Waylon wrote:
…as Zeb has so kindly pointed out I am pretty slow.[/quote]
Who isn’t reading carefully?
[quote]Waylon wrote:
In example #3 we are using a 2% penalty, correct?[/quote]
Yes.
Without any change in your income, deductions, credits, what have you, you are paying an extra 2% (random figure I have no idea what the actual penatly is) because you didn’t buy insurance.
The extra “tax” is being added to your bill, without reguard to anything other than you not buying insurance.
No, I can’t explain it as you put it, because the deduction doesn’t have a % linked to it directly.
Let me try this way: The tax formula goes like this (simplified):
-
Income less “above the line” deductions equals AGI.
-
From your AGI you deduct either your itemized deductions (below the line) or the standard deduction to arive at your taxable income.
-
Based on your taxable income you are assesed a tax at a particular rate. (The first 20k @ 10%, the next 30k @ 20%, the remainder @ 30%, for example.)
-
From the tax you are allowed credits depending on your situation, which reduce your tax dollar for dollar.
-
After credits you arrive at your tax due.
Now the amount of income you have, less any deductions, will determine your rate in #3 above. So if you have 100k of income and no deductions your rate is going to be say 20% (I know the rate is different than the one above but I’m trying to make this as simple as possible). But if you have 20K of deductions, your rate is still 20% because the deductions don’t drop you into a lower bracket, you are paying 20% on less income.
The deduction doesn’t carry a % with it. The deduction lowers your AGI and therefore your taxable income. A deduction can bring you into a lower bracket, but it is still your income, money you earned, an act you took, that determines your tax bill.
Now compare this to Obamatax:
- I didn’t buy health insurance, so I am assessed an extra 2% on my taxable income.
It is similar to taking money out of your 401(k). You pay a 10% penalty (additional tax) for early withdrawl outside of special situations. Except the major difference is you took action and paid the 10%.
Dude I have kids with Master’s degrees from top line schools that don’t understand this shit, lol, don’t beat yourself up.
ZEB, according to the Census Bureau fed employees to population ratio is virtually the same as the late 50’s. You seem to have stated, twice now, that “big government” started with FDR and yet also stated we were successful by many standards for decades after because we didn’t have big government yet.
I understand FDR was the father of the major social programs conservatives detest. My measure of success was not the political popularity of social programs, but rather the longest, largest economic expansion in history and the creation of modern middle class. I am hardly so naive as to attribute all this to liberal policies, but denying that this was a successful time in America does your arguments no justice. If these programs, and not the recent handling of them, were so economic and freedom crushing as your posts seem to suggest, then it is highly doubtful we would have had such an outcome. As far as passing the buck, look at the history of the deficit, the modern practice of peacetime deficit spending during economic growth did not start till the rightward sift of power in the '80’s.
Survey’s are great, I am referring to the radical shift to the right of our elected officials.
Zeb, you are correct. I am not entirely pleased with your responses. I have no problem with you having a contrary opinion, but you seem to take everything I say out of context, even going so far in your last post as to cut me off half sentence. (Feel free to repost the part where I say you are right and then point to your victory) If you understand the points I am trying to make, which I am sure you do, please respond to those points, rather than playing the game of see how to best cut and past.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can we all just agree that this is not “insurance”? This is a ponzi scheme.
Insurance is supposed to mitigate risk by using price disincentives to make risky behavior more costly.
This is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from non risk takers to risk takers - like all social programs are.[/quote]
Lifty,
Nope, this is insurance, I won’t be leaving my existing plan for it but it certainly is insurance.
Explain to me how you came up with the idea that the poor, the underemployed and those entrepreneurs that lack the capital to fund an insurance plan are “engaging in risky behavior” (other than the obvious that starting a business has risk)?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can we all just agree that this is not “insurance”? This is a ponzi scheme.
Insurance is supposed to mitigate risk by using price disincentives to make risky behavior more costly.
This is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from non risk takers to risk takers - like all social programs are.[/quote]
Lifty,
Nope, this is insurance, I won’t be leaving my existing plan for it but it certainly is insurance.
Explain to me how you came up with the idea that the poor, the underemployed and those entrepreneurs that lack the capital to fund an insurance plan are “engaging in risky behavior” (other than the obvious that starting a business has risk)?[/quote]
Why should someone else have to pay for your bad health habits?
Beans, thanks for the reply. Please have a little more patience. It wouldn’t be feasible to have a straight 2% increase in the nominal tax rate and a 2% of AGI deduction for purchasing health care? I realize the actual tax bill could be a little different from the way the penalty is calculated now, but would this then make it a lower bill for action vs inaction? Would you then have a different opinion about the constitutionality of the ACA?
If my attempt at making a reasonable equivalent tax bill makes no sense, please tell me so.
ZEB, how many federal employees were there in 1950 and 1960? This should be an easy question as decade marks are easy numbers to look up.
Interesting suf, according to the absolute numbers there were virtually the same number of fed employees in '05 as '60, a different story than the chart I looked at earlier. I may have misread the chart description, as this would indication a pretty massive drop in fed employees to population ratio.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
It wouldn’t be feasible to have a straight 2% increase in the nominal tax rate and a 2% of AGI deduction for purchasing health care? [/quote]
Sure they could do that, but what you are saying above isn’t a dollar-for-dollar trade. You would still end up paying more.
The deduction, is a reduction of your taxable income. You pay a % of your taxable income in tax.
This is why charitable contributions are a horrible wealth management tool. Give because you want to give, not because you get a tax break. Because:
If I make 100k and pay at 20%, I owe the goverment 20k. So my cash out the door is 20k.
Lets say I don’t like that, so I give 10k to charity, fuck the IRS. Well, that 10k saves me 2k in tax. Sweet right? No. Now my cash out the door is 28k. 18k in tax and 10k to the charity. (Ignoring the feel good nature of giving and helping a good cause.)
Same as above, charging an extra tax, and giving them a deduction of that tax isn’t a dollar for dollar trade off.
A 2% reduction of AGI results in a .4% reduction of tax (20% x 2%)
I believe what you are looking for is a credit. If they gave you a credit for amounts paid, then yes it would be a dollar for dollar trade. Credits reduce your tax owed.
My issue is with the regulation of when one private citizen is to give their disposable income to another private citizen through taxation.
I actually am pro-tax complication. The more complicated these assholes make it, the better my fees are. But I’m not pro-government dictating where I spend my dollars.