5-4 Insurance Mandate Upheld

[UtahLama]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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.

Would you then have a different opinion about the constitutionality of the ACA?

My issue is with the regulation of when one private citizen is to give their disposable income to another private citizen through taxation.

[/quote]

It seems so simple, but folks just LOVE to tell people that if you work hard you should give your hard earned shit to somebody else…if that is the case, what motivation does anybody have to work hard?

As other folks have said, it’s NOT about the ACA…it’s the precedent that allows the government to tell you how to spend your money…and give it to people who are sitting on their asses.

[countingbeans]

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

It seems so simple, but folks just LOVE to tell people that if you work hard you should give your hard earned shit to somebody else…[/quote]

Yup…

I worked my ass off to come from poor to not-so-poor, and now, in order for me to move even further up the latter, I have to pay for other people I’m not related to.

…if that is the case, what motivation does anybody have to work hard?

Honestly? Del Friscos man, a fucking ribeye from Del Friscos any damn time I want. And the satisfaction that I bought it with money I earned. Tastes batter than free food.

The persepctive to laugh at Occupy…

Oh, and expected to give even more than anyone to everyone else.

[Waylon]

Thanks a lot Bean, I see what you mean and have been confusing a deduction with a credit. I can understand your feelings about the ACA and government. My original post wasn’t about the ACA, only about the courts decision and whether the ACA was really some radical shift from previous policy, or simply a different way of marketing tax code based government influence.

I honestly think the courts got their decision right. I absolutely abhor some of the effects of citizens united, but based on precedent, I think they got that one right too. The court has a long history of decisions stating that money literally talks and that limiting how one spends their money on political causes, limits their free speech. While I absolutely agree with this position one can see the obvious problems in a democracy when one with more money than you has more “speech.” (Sorry, just thought this slightly relevant as what drew me to the post was that I found both the courts decision, and peoples reaction to it, interesting.)

[countingbeans]

[quote]Waylon wrote:
one can see the obvious problems in a democracy when one with more money than you has more “speech.” [/quote]

Absolutely. Pretty sure that is why we have Obama and Mitt care as it is, lol.

I think the major difference is people who lean right think: “Shit, I need to make more fucking money. Look how much greener that grass is. I want that much speech too.”

and People who lean left think: “That isn’t fair. Bullshit. He shouldn’t have more speech than me. Limit his speech and/or give me more. Make it equal.”

Then people spend hours calling each other idiots…

[BrianHanson]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Lifty,

If you have insurance now you are already paying for someone elses bad habits, and someone else is paying for yours. But regardless of that fact, please explain to me how all of the uninsured get classified as “risk takers”?

[BrianHanson]

Beans,

The penalties at least are on your adjusted gross income, so people that just squeak over the 250k limit will usually (hopefully) avoid paying extra.

The 2.9% is as follows;

"There will also be an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on net investment income, increasing the tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, for net investment income in excess of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Net investment income includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties, gain from disposing of property, and income earned from a trade or business as a passive activity. Both self-employed individuals and estates and trusts will be liable for the tax. However, distributions from qualified retirement plans will be exempt from paying the additional tax. "

As far as your concern about the tax fucking, it is very clearly defined that the Income tax and this “tax” will be handled separately, since the determination of this tax can’t be effectively derived until after your federal income tax is determined/accepted. However the way things are spelled out now, and the way things may be handled in the future could be drastically different.

[Waylon]

“Then people spend hours calling each other idiots…”

Absolutely, I always appreciate someone with a diiference of opinion taking the time to have a civil discussion. The reality of the situation is that no matter your opinion, on many issues, half the country disagrees with you. If we can not find a way to respect each others positions and at least attempt to have productive conversations on the issues…

[BrianHanson]

ZEB,

Please don’t ever say “ad hominem” attacks you’re embarrassing yourself, plus you’re a fucking douche. You haven’t proven anything, other that you can type in caps and you have a knack for saying funny things like “strawman” every time you feel like you have been exposed.

Yes there will be a negative impact on some people, and conversely a very positive impact on many more, but since we know that the poor don’t concern you (because as above you are a douche) remember the goal of this plan is to eventually save money for Americans, a decidedly good idea (although it may not work).

The fact that the business employee cap is 50+ employees rather than 30+ means this actually negatively impacts fewer businesses than I thought, yay. I was using the calculation number rather than the starting number:

“Starting in 2014, only large businesses who have employees receiving taxpayer-funded health assistance will pay an assessment to help offset the cost of those subsidies to the American taxpayer. Companies whose employees are receiving taxpayer assistance will have to pay $2,000 per full-time worker. (This is less than half of the annual cost of providing health insurance to a full-time worker today). A business is defined as ?large? if it has more than 50 full-time equivalent workers, not counting seasonal workers. The first 30 workers would be subtracted from the total when calculating the total amount of the assessment. We estimate that fewer than 2 per cent of large businesses will be likely to pay these penalties.”

So 98% of large businesses will unaffected by these penalties, what a fucking nightmare.

You must expect that people do not have the time or inclination to look shit up. Yes it is companies with 50 employees or more, but it is the first 30 that do not count for assessing the penalty, this program will actually save money for employers that offer health insurance as a way to attract qualified employees, 98% of businesses will not be negatively impacted.

What do you have to say about that ZEB?

[countingbeans]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The 2.9% is as follows;

"There will also be an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on net investment income, increasing the tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, for net investment income in excess of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Net investment income includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties, gain from disposing of property, and income earned from a trade or business as a passive activity. Both self-employed individuals and estates and trusts will be liable for the tax. However, distributions from qualified retirement plans will be exempt from paying the additional tax. "

[/quote]

I know what unearned income is.

I wasn’t aware we pay medicare on that prior to Obamacare… So, my question is, in addition?

AICPA

According to my sources, the whole 3.8 starts in 2013… There is not additional .9, there is an additional 3.8…

[countingbeans]

Protip: I know the mistake you are making. I’m letting you work it our for yourself.

Review & Outlook: The 2013 Tax Cliff

Last bullet point here, from 9 months ago, lays it out for you.

[BrianHanson]

Yeah I probably could have posted that more clearly.

the existing 2.9% is on wages (1.45% for employer and 1.45% for employee) that will be going up .9% for the “high income earners”

The 3.8% medicare tax on investment income is also for investment vehicles and again for the 200k or 250k levels, that is new and separate.

So that is completely on me for typing it badly and then not proofing it after it was questioned. On the plus side I do not do businessy things for a living anymore, so my fuck-ups are contained.

[BrianHanson]

Beans,

I appreciate the catch.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,

If you have insurance now you are already paying for someone elses bad habits, and someone else is paying for yours. But regardless of that fact, please explain to me how all of the uninsured get classified as “risk takers”?
[/quote]

No. I have private insurance and pay a premium based on my risk/credit profile.

A “risk taker” is just a term I use to classify persons that could incur a financial loss due to their own fault.

[ZEB]

[quote]Waylon wrote:
ZEB, according to the Census Bureau fed employees to population ratio is virtually the same as the late 50’s. [/quote]

Post the site that you gleaned this from.

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.

There is nothing contradictory about those statements. FDR began big government and it was held down by Presidents like Ike. FDR planted the seeds of destruction. Are you still confused?

I understand FDR was the father of the major social programs conservatives detest.

He was that.

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.

We succeeded in spite of them not BECAUSE of them. I made that clear by pointing out that each of the liberal administrations (and some republicans as well) passed the buck to the next generation. Everything is wonderful until the bill comes due. We will be facing that in 2013. The proverbial shit will hit the fan. And quite honestly I will not be disastisfied when Obama (if reelected) is holding the bag. I can’t think of a better guy to point the finger at. This incarnate of FDR will go down in history as the single worst President that the US has ever had!

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.

Who is it that spends the money? Reagan submitted a balanced budget to a DEMOCRATIC Congress and they chose to reject it!

Survey’s are great, I am referring to the radical shift to the right of our elected officials.

You first said that the country was swinging left - At least that’s the way I interpreted it.

Anyway…

Well let’s take a look at this radical shift to the right of each President since 1980.

Reagan-The most conservative President elected in modern times

(You’re doing well so far one for one)

Bush 41- Centrist who actually raised taxes at the urging of the democrats which made him a one term President.

(Not conservative you’re 1-1)

Clinton- Left Center

(Not conservative your 1-2)

Bush 43- An argument could be made that he was center right with some things but not with other things. Fiscally certainly not conservative!

(He’s a centrist you’re now 1-3)

Obama- The single most liberal President to ever hold the office.

(Not even close to being conservative you end only 1-4 and you had such a good start too.)

Yeah, that’s quite a conservative shift right there (eye roll) I continue to believe that you are merely misguided. You want things to be a certain way and so you project that they are, or were with the above example. But as you can see it just didn’t happen the way you said it did.

Zeb, you are correct. I am not entirely pleased with your responses.

Oh no! What will do?

I have no problem with you having a contrary opinion

Wow, thanks that’s actually rare as most liberals want to prevent the rest of us from holding our own opinion’s. Liberals don’t especially like free speech or even free thought. If you don’t think so become a Professor and try to walk say something that is contradictory in University system. You’ll be looking for a new job in weeks.

Or if you’re an actor come out with a public statement that is conservative and see how many jobs you get in Hollywood.

If you’re a teacher buck the powerful liberal teachers union and see where it gets you.

but you seem to take everything I say out of context

Show me where I took something that you said out of context. Be specific please.

[quote]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]

Please post the points that you feel that I have not responded to.

[ZEB]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

Please don’t ever say “ad hominem” attacks you’re embarrassing yourself, plus you’re a fucking douche. You haven’t proven anything, other that you can type in caps and you have a knack for saying funny things like “strawman” every time you feel like you have been exposed.[/quote]

The difference between you and I (among the many) is that I have proven my point to you over and over and over again. Therefore when I call you an idiot at the end of each post as I really like to do, it actually has meaning! Whereas you post straw men and ad hominem attacks as the basics of your posts. In other words you have nothing else.

Yes there will be a negative impact on some people,

This statement alone took four posts for you to make. You started out claiming that everything was going to be perfect for all involved. Can you imagine that the government cannot give someone something without taking it from someone else. It’s called redistribution of wealth something that you liberals really really like.

Glad I slapped you in to reality. Don’t thank me…

and conversely a very positive impact on many more, but since we know that the poor don’t concern you (because as above you are a douche) remember the goal of this plan is to eventually save money for Americans, a decidedly good idea (although it may not work).

This is the typical liberal cry “republicans don’t care about the poor boo hoo whaaa sniff sniff…” You think you are actually saying something original? Your comrades built a freaking party with this as their primary language. Obama got elected and may very well get reelected promising to give people free stuff. WOW what leadership! What a statesman! I think he deserves another noble peace prize. Now what did he do to earn that first one? Oh yeah…NOTHING!

I will tell you again B r i a n because you are a very slow learner.

When you take something from someone who earned it and give it to someone who did not earn it you neither help the person you gave it to or the person you took it from.

So…who are you helping? No one. Who are you hurting? Everyone.

Your hero Obama has found a way to control 1/6th of the economy and get idiots like you to nod their heads and say “Duh huh that’s going to help a lot of people duh sure is yeppers…it’s a gonna help em all…>DUHHHHHH.”

Free health care…wait not quite free. People who work hard now have to give money to the government UNDER THE THREAT OF FINES AND JAIL to pay for it.

The fact that the business employee cap is 50+ employees rather than 30+ means this actually negatively impacts fewer businesses than I thought, yay. I was using the calculation number rather than the starting number

Yes, I know you were wrong with your original numbers I posted a link correcting you.

Every business that employs more than 50 people will be effected by this. And when there is a lack of hiring in 2013 and or lay offs, look to the poster of Obama on your bedroom wall for the reason.

You must expect that people do not have the time or inclination to look shit up.

You didn’t you were wrong on the amount of the fine.

You were wrong on the size of the businesses that are effected

You were wrong on the ultimate penalty.

So…while most will look things up (as I do) we on this board know for sure that you B R I A N DO NOT!

Yes it is companies with 50 employees or more, but it is the first 30 that do not count for assessing the penalty,

I pointed this out to you doofus when I posted the link (eye roll) I wonder how you function in your real life without a keeper. Your wife must have a strong personality and she tells you what to do from moment to moment.

this program will actually save money for employers that offer health insurance as a way to attract qualified employees, 98% of businesses will not be negatively impacted.

I already pointed out the many new taxes (26 I believe) which go along with this “miracle” health care plan. And if you don’t play the game you pay fines and interest on those fines and ultimately J A I L. How is that an improvement in the lives people?

[quote]What do you have to say about that ZEB?
[/quote]

(Thanks for the set up line)

I say you’re still an idiot B r i a n!

[ZEB]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Lifty,

If you have insurance now you are already paying for someone elses bad habits, and someone else is paying for yours. But regardless of that fact, please explain to me how all of the uninsured get classified as “risk takers”?
[/quote]

Yeah Lifty and when you don’t pay for their bad habits the IRS will fine you and throw you in jail if you don’t pay the fine. Oh wait…no they don’t. That starts when Obamacare kicks in!

[Schlenkatank]

Id like to say something to anyone talking to ZEB on this issue (waylon, etc.): you’re fighting a 10 headed beast of the internet, he has more time on his hands and more willingness to disregard what you say than almost anyone I’ve ever seen; it is a tragic quality, not a remarkable one. Be warned, you have nothing to gain; every head you cut off will grow back twofold. Your time spent on logic and reason would be better spent on witty insults he won’t understand, because in the end the only thing he really wants to do is call you a subhuman piece of excrement. And then a bigot. Do you understand?

[anon71262119]

My dad is a moderate democrat who currently serves as a county commissioner. As part of his job, he’s involved in the budget process and finances of running a county hospital, including costs of indigent care and so forth. He’s a great guy and I have a lot of respect for his opinions.

He’s strongly AGAINST this new healthcare plan.

[Waylon]

Shlenk, yes I get it, just trying hard to give some one the benefit of the doubt. Every post, responding to Zeb, since the first has simply been trying to clarify the first post. I will take your implied suggestion, and not feed the “issue.”

[SexMachine]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I agree. But the industrial revolution and the related political upheavals of the last 250 years were beyond the scope of my post.

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 agree again. De Tocqueville was travelling/writing of America in the 1830’s when society was already changing rapidly. I am familiar with it more in the context of England and the reaction against the enclosing of the commons and the industrial revolution etc.

[quote]
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]

Very few people are able to lay out the full context. My question was specifically why the welfare state wasn’t controlled/rolled back after the depression/war.