[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Another problem with employer based insurance gives your employer a stronger link to an employee than the employee has on his employer[/quote]
I think you’re confused. What I stated above as an example I meant that’s an example of what’s currently wrong with the regulatory/taxing structure. In other words, an example of how there isn’t really a free market in health care but it is instead heavily manipulated by the tax code(among other things).
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Another problem with employer based insurance gives your employer a stronger link to an employee than the employee has on his employer[/quote]
I think you’re confused. What I stated above as an example I meant that’s an example of what’s currently wrong with the regulatory/taxing structure. In other words, an example of how there isn’t really a free market in health care but it is instead heavily manipulated by the tax code(among other things).[/quote]
I agree that we are manipulated by tax code . I personally think it is much more broad than Health Insurance . Any small business can not compete with established BIG BUSINESS .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree that we are manipulated by tax code . I personally think it is much more broad than Health Insurance . Any small business can not compete with established BIG BUSINESS .[/quote]
You said it Pitt! Between the crushing regulation (depending on the business you’re in it can go from bad to worse) and the overbearing tax code we are in for a rough ride in 2013 if Obama is reelected.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. It’s just semantics. [/quote]
No, it isn’t. You aren’t paying attention, but please keep telling me about the IRC, I love it when people try and explain it to me. It isn’t like I don’t deal with it every day.
No, you don’t get it.
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.
You can call it whatever you want, but you are, in fact wrong. So feel free to continue to be incorrect. I’m in no position to stop you.
So the people that can critically think and see the difference between two situations and the differences between what two different words mean are sheeple?
Or are they sheeple because anyone that doesn’t agree with you deserves to be put down? Good forbid your opinion is wrong.
academically, you are absolutely wrong.
I hear people complain about taxes daily, and have as long as I have been old enough to understand.
Where do you live?
[quote]By the way, I worked tirelessly getting a new house for the mid terms and informing people of the BS going on. I Regulary send letters to my congressmen, so I have a leg to stand on. I am not crying over spilled milk after the fact. You and the rest have been fooled if you think it is any different.
[/quote]
Good for you.
edit: now v. not[/quote]
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but your reply and logic is comical. I understand very well the tax code. Let me rephrase that, I don’ t even think ol Timmy boy understands the tax code. I am extremely familiar with folders of reciepts, deductions and with the exception of the last couple years, writing checks to uncle Sam every 3 months. I am paying very close attention, but I’ll make another go at it on the chalkboard for you.
Again, you can apply all the steps and procedures to the idea of deductions, but when you straighten out the corrugations, it is the same.
Alright, so you and I live in the same neighborhood, and we live right next door to each other. We happen to also work together, get paid the same, our wifey’s both have blonde hair (mine is better looking of course), and we even like each other in this scenario. So let’s apply all the same deductions, all the neat math you provided, and the same rate. The only difference is I drink bud, you drink bud light, and since I have the better looking wife, you get to own your home and I rent in this scenario. Because I have chosen not to buy a house and not become a home owner, I pay the penalty of an extra $4,000 dollars every year in taxes. In the end, check writing time comes and because I decided I didn’t want to own a home, my check to uncle Sam is a bigger than yours. Although our rates for our income bracket were the same originally in effect, you know have dropped down to a bracket equivelent to 16%. Following me here? K.
Now, let’s assume all the same comparisons ( ok, you can have the better looking wife in this one). Only I have health insurance and you don’t. I am paying about $165 dollars a month for my health insurance (I know, I don’t smoke and have 10 gym memberships). My tax rate is lower, because I get to deduct the 2% tax, for the first year anyway. However, you are paying a higher tax rate at 22% (for the first year).
Scenario 1: Since I have decided not to purchase a home, I am, when all is said and done, paying a higher tax rate than you are.
Scenario 2: Since you have decided not to purchase health insurance, you are, when all is said and done, paying a higher tax rate than I am.
With all the euphemisms and procedural loopholes holes removed, there exists no difference. So I get it, got it before we started this conversation. I am just looking at the ends and seeing the same result albeit both arrived by different means.
I use the term sheeple because most people are not paying attention close enough to realize they have wandered off the green pastures and onto a concrete floor with grass clippings, even worse is the fact they don’t care, as long as the “green” stuff keeps coming. That isn’t a put down or an opinion, it is an unfortunate reality.
By the way yes good for me, and for the good of you too.
Now turn your dam music down, I have two deductions trying to get to sleep ; )
[/quote]
I agree with the idea of calling it a deduction. I understand what counting beans is saying, but I don’t see how it is different… Unless I am missing a important element, it all seems like word choice. Like you guys are in agreement but don’t want to admit it 
[/quote]
Lol. That was the point I was trying to get at. This is how government has arrived to the point it has. Changing the name of the department of war to the department of defense. Wars are now overseas strategic contingency operations. Tax increases are merely federal revenue enhancements. I was being rhetorical with the post, and tongue and check with my comical logic assertion at bean counter, I mean botanical legume enumerator specialist. : ) He is obviously a intelligent guy and his nomenclature Is absolutely correct. Taxes have evolved from a way to pay for government expenses, to behavior modifying and citizen control mechanisms. Unfortunately it has been going on for far too long in my opinion.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.[/quote]
So if I don’t give to charity and volunteer then everyone should suffer higher taxes because of it?
You would make me the scapegoat while enslaving your fellow citizens?
edited[/quote]
Lifty,
Not exactly. We already tax for the societal good, we pay for schools, police, fire service, road maintenance, warehousing of criminals, foster care, senior care, home care, day habs for developmentally disabled adults etc. Th list is very long, we might even include the military and their …ahem…protection of our rights as a societal good. I say you are a good example because your statement “Why should I…” is the reason we have to do these things. If we all looked out for each other, if we didn’t prey on the weak, if we willingly risked our safety to secure the safety of others we would live in a utopia where random people would stop fires and patch potholes, but since we don’t we tax. It makes more sense to pay a little more in taxes than to expect “the best” behavior from people 24/7, hopefully we get our money back in services quite often we don’t, but I am still waiting for a better way.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Lol. That was the point I was trying to get at. This is how government has arrived to the point it has. Changing the name of the department of war to the department of defense. Wars are now overseas strategic contingency operations. Tax increases are merely federal revenue enhancements. I was being rhetorical with the post, and tongue and check with my comical logic assertion at bean counter, I mean botanical legume enumerator specialist. : ) He is obviously a intelligent guy and his nomenclature Is absolutely correct. Taxes have evolved from a way to pay for government expenses, to behavior modifying and citizen control mechanisms. Unfortunately it has been going on for far too long in my opinion.[/quote]
Excellent post.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.[/quote]
So if I don’t give to charity and volunteer then everyone should suffer higher taxes because of it?
You would make me the scapegoat while enslaving your fellow citizens?
edited[/quote]
Lifty,
Not exactly. We already tax for the societal good, we pay for schools, police, fire service, road maintenance, warehousing of criminals, foster care, senior care, home care, day habs for developmentally disabled adults etc. Th list is very long, we might even include the military and their …ahem…protection of our rights as a societal good. I say you are a good example because your statement “Why should I…” is the reason we have to do these things.[/quote]
What you fail to mention is that 70% of every tax dollar goes to social programs of some sort. This is certainly out of hand. There are those who are milking the system and what Obama and the other democrats are doing is nothing more than ENABLING them. Do you honestly think our founders would approve of 70% of every dollar going to social programs? This is totally out of hand and getting worse with national health care.
[quote] If we all looked out for each other, if we didn’t prey on the weak, if we willingly risked our safety to secure the safety of others we would live in a utopia where random people would stop fires and patch potholes, but since we don’t we tax. It makes more sense to pay a little more in taxes than to expect “the best” behavior from people 24/7, hopefully we get our money back in services quite often we don’t, but I am still waiting for a better way.
[/quote]
It makes NO SENSE to pay more in taxes when we have so much government waste. And before income taxes we did take care of each other through Churches and other volunteer groups. Now that we pay so much people don’t feel a need to donate out of their pocket. When taxes go up people give less to these types of organizations.
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2012USrn[/quote]
I agree. Health and pensions are probably the two that need to be revisited first. Military and government employee retirement, VA funding, and things of the sort are probably enormous monetary burdens.
I think someone mentioned a change in the way military retirement works; you start getting the money at 65 versus 45. I actually somewhat agree with this. A 45 year old person with 20 years of experience in a job IS PROBABLY going to continue working after they retire from the military. Paying them 50% of their pay, plus full medical for their families, seems to be a little extreme at middle age. They can get the money starting at 65 when they retire from their regular jobs. The medical coverage could perhaps be effectively immediately upon military retirement … but the pension just seems like too much to me.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
[/quote]
You’re wrong but I bet you’re used to that by now.
[quote]Today, a full 70 percent of the federal governmentâ??s budget goes to pay for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance, with recipients ranging from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries.
As of now, 70 percent of the federal governmentâ??s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.[/quote]
Did you take note of that final sentence?
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2012USrn[/quote]
Acgtually, after all the bureaucrats and administrators get paid less that 12% goes to actually help people.
Charity is far more efficient at helping people “in need” than bureaucrats and politicians.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2012USrn[/quote]
Acgtually, after all the bureaucrats and administrators get paid less that 12% goes to actually help people.
Charity is far more efficient at helping people “in need” than bureaucrats and politicians.[/quote]
Spot on Lifty.
The more we give to government the more bloated it becomes. Anyone who thinks that one dollar paid in for social programs actually gets there is very foolish. Perhaps 20% of that buck gets to where it’s supposed to go.
But big government liberals feel that government can solve everyones problem. And the larger the government the better they feel about themselves.
Three words can sum up their philosophy: Redistribution of wealth
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2012USrn[/quote]
I agree. Health and pensions are probably the two that need to be revisited first. Military and government employee retirement, VA funding, and things of the sort are probably enormous monetary burdens.
I think someone mentioned a change in the way military retirement works; you start getting the money at 65 versus 45. I actually somewhat agree with this. A 45 year old person with 20 years of experience in a job IS PROBABLY going to continue working after they retire from the military. Paying them 50% of their pay, plus full medical for their families, seems to be a little extreme at middle age. They can get the money starting at 65 when they retire from their regular jobs. The medical coverage could perhaps be effectively immediately upon military retirement … but the pension just seems like too much to me.[/quote]
nj,
Seriously? A pension for military retirees after 20 years of active duty seems like too much? Good luck having a functioning military. As it stands only 17% of enlistee’s stay in for 20 years and receive a pension, remove the pension after 20 program and you will lose the talented NCO’s that form the backbone of the modern military. Yes Tri-Care may be a bit excessive, but if you want a quality group of people to make the military their career you need to offer something.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.[/quote]
So if I don’t give to charity and volunteer then everyone should suffer higher taxes because of it?
You would make me the scapegoat while enslaving your fellow citizens?
edited[/quote]
Lifty,
Not exactly. We already tax for the societal good, we pay for schools, police, fire service, road maintenance, warehousing of criminals, foster care, senior care, home care, day habs for developmentally disabled adults etc. Th list is very long, we might even include the military and their …ahem…protection of our rights as a societal good. I say you are a good example because your statement “Why should I…” is the reason we have to do these things.[/quote]
What you fail to mention is that 70% of every tax dollar goes to social programs of some sort. This is certainly out of hand. There are those who are milking the system and what Obama and the other democrats are doing is nothing more than ENABLING them. Do you honestly think our founders would approve of 70% of every dollar going to social programs? This is totally out of hand and getting worse with national health care.
[quote] If we all looked out for each other, if we didn’t prey on the weak, if we willingly risked our safety to secure the safety of others we would live in a utopia where random people would stop fires and patch potholes, but since we don’t we tax. It makes more sense to pay a little more in taxes than to expect “the best” behavior from people 24/7, hopefully we get our money back in services quite often we don’t, but I am still waiting for a better way.
[/quote]
It makes NO SENSE to pay more in taxes when we have so much government waste. And before income taxes we did take care of each other through Churches and other volunteer groups. Now that we pay so much people don’t feel a need to donate out of their pocket. When taxes go up people give less to these types of organizations.
[/quote]
ZEB,
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment and Welfare accounted for $2 trillion dollars, you are right that is a shit ton of money, I would like to see a change in the way it is spent, same as you, but where do you start? Do you cut SS for the elderly or SSD for the disabled?
Here is my thought, make welfare and SSI a training program, make it time limited and requiring certain milestones be accomplished (degrees, certificates, apprenticeships etc) if people refuse to meet these levels, cut them loose.
Let people on SSD work, people receiving disability checks are discouraged from re-entering the work force because they do not want to lose their benefits. Let them work (and pay taxes) wait to decrease their SSD until they have been working for 24 months, you get tax dollars and you get people off the dole.
Raise SS itself to 72, no early option.
Make people receiving HUD/Section 8/TANF/WIC/Food Stamps work, some of them will work in daycare (so that people have childcare), have the rest work on public improvement projects. they will learn valuable skills and, when faced with the option of working for food, they will more than likely either drop out or look for work. With daycare for low-income families in place, work can be a better option than not working.
The people in these programs would be covered by the healthcare plan for the ACA, you could add a “preventative care” clause that requires them to make and attend two primary care appointments per year to stay eligible for healthcare (preventative care saves money) if they don’t go they’re out of the program.
As a liberal I want to see everyone taken care of, as a taxpayer I want to see people not milking the system. There has to be a way to help taxpayers and tax" burdens" at the same time.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Lifty,
You are a perfect example of why.[/quote]
So if I don’t give to charity and volunteer then everyone should suffer higher taxes because of it?
You would make me the scapegoat while enslaving your fellow citizens?
edited[/quote]
Lifty,
Not exactly. We already tax for the societal good, we pay for schools, police, fire service, road maintenance, warehousing of criminals, foster care, senior care, home care, day habs for developmentally disabled adults etc. Th list is very long, we might even include the military and their …ahem…protection of our rights as a societal good. I say you are a good example because your statement “Why should I…” is the reason we have to do these things.[/quote]
What you fail to mention is that 70% of every tax dollar goes to social programs of some sort. This is certainly out of hand. There are those who are milking the system and what Obama and the other democrats are doing is nothing more than ENABLING them. Do you honestly think our founders would approve of 70% of every dollar going to social programs? This is totally out of hand and getting worse with national health care.
[quote] If we all looked out for each other, if we didn’t prey on the weak, if we willingly risked our safety to secure the safety of others we would live in a utopia where random people would stop fires and patch potholes, but since we don’t we tax. It makes more sense to pay a little more in taxes than to expect “the best” behavior from people 24/7, hopefully we get our money back in services quite often we don’t, but I am still waiting for a better way.
[/quote]
It makes NO SENSE to pay more in taxes when we have so much government waste. And before income taxes we did take care of each other through Churches and other volunteer groups. Now that we pay so much people don’t feel a need to donate out of their pocket. When taxes go up people give less to these types of organizations.
[/quote]
ZEB,
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment and Welfare accounted for $2 trillion dollars, you are right that is a shit ton of money, I would like to see a change in the way it is spent, same as you, but where do you start? Do you cut SS for the elderly or SSD for the disabled? [/quote]
Of course the answer is neither.
Excellent idea as long as there are time limits. I don’t want “lifers” on welfare as you know it helps no one.
I like it, perhaps 18 months would be better though.
Great idea we are living far longer than we used to because of the inferior medical care we have been getting good thing Obama care is around the corner 
When the age of 62 was set we were only living to something like 68.
Excellent idea.
Love it.
Ha ha you admitted it-
I agree and whomever this is I demand that you return BrianHanson’s account back to him immediately! As you are absolutely NO FUN and make way too much sense.
Been too lazy to read past the first two pages, but here’s my take on it:
The left is crying “wolf” on the issue that ObamaCare will make healthcare more accessible. That’s not really the issue at hand. The issue is who is going to pay for it. Of course, the Obama administration has probably fudged the numbers on the amount of uncovered persons. Another thing is that they don’t seem to get is that socialized medicine doesn’t work. Take a look at RomneyCare in Massachusetts. The waiting periods have been as long as 56 days.
“So, CS, what does that mean if the waiting period is 56 days?”
Well, I’m so glad you asked. What this basically means is that the government (not the patient and the doctor, acting and deciding together) can decide when and IF you need to be seen and/or treated.
“But corporate greed is driving insurance costs through the roof! It’s just a bunch of insurance fatcats trying to get rich!”
Also not true. You see, in 2003, 62% of privately funded hospitals were not for profit (I missed a hyphen in there, sue me!). On top of that number, 20% of the hospitals in the U.S. were run by the government, which, let remind you, are not for profit (hyphen anyone?). So, in total, 82% of all the hospitals in the U.S. were not for profit. Included this number is the Catholic and other religious-sponsored hospitals that are completely separate from the government ones.
Lastly, do you really want the government making the decision of where and how you can spend your money? I know I wouldn’t.
Anyways, that’s just my two cents.
CS
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Also not true. You see, in 2003, 62% of privately funded hospitals were not for profit (I missed a hyphen in there, sue me!). On top of that number, 20% of the hospitals in the U.S. were run by the government, which, let remind you, are not for profit (hyphen anyone?). So, in total, 82% of all the hospitals in the U.S. were not for profit. Included this number is the Catholic and other religious-sponsored hospitals that are completely separate from the government ones.
[/quote]
I’m not sure if your numbers are true, but the conclusion you draw is false. If 62% of privately funded hospitals are nonprofit, and they comprise 80% of hospitals (since the other 20% is government run), then the total nonprofit percentage would = (.62)*80+20, which is 69.6%.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I agree with the idea of calling it a deduction. [/quote]
Great, you are incorrect as well.
A lot of people, mainly those that pay me, and pay my firm’s fees do see how it is different.
Murder v manslaughter.
Only difference is word choice, and a couple years in prison.
[quote] Like you guys are in agreement but don’t want to admit it
[/quote]
I am sure we argee on a lot. And yes, the government has been trying to influence bahavior through taxation for a long time.
But, and this is probably why I am good at my job, I am an anal motherfucker. The two things are different in substance and form. I cannot not explain that fact.
I get where you guys are coming from, and big picture, sure. But when it comes down to it, my clients care about the difference when I explain their returns to them. So I have to care.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record 12% of federal spending is directed to welfare. 20% to other.
70% is directed towards defense, health, and pensions. Coincidently these are the three things we NEED to reprioritize/reform if we want to cut the deficit.
[/quote]
You’re wrong but I bet you’re used to that by now.
[quote]Today, a full 70 percent of the federal government�¢??s budget goes to pay for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance, with recipients ranging from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries.
As of now, 70 percent of the federal government�¢??s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.[/quote]
Did you take note of that final sentence?
[/quote]
Ok ZEB, I need your help. If a full “70 percent of the federal governmentÃ?¢??s budget goes to pay for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance”, how is it that 70% also goes to defense, pensions, and health? Do you really expect me to believe that everything else the government pays for fits into such a tiny window?
Did you take note of anything I say or post? No. Do you also claim I don’t support my arguments? Yes. Are you strange and kind of a creeper? Yes.
Nice to see you found an article from a pro-libertarian website that doesn’t provide references though. Guess that means I’m the idiot, huh?
Edit: After thought let me rephrase. In reality all spending is social spending; federal spending funds programs that help people, but not necessarily everyone. My question to you is, what the heck are you adding up to create a 70% figure? You frame your point as if to say 70% of spending is welfare spending. Are you including medicaid/medicare, pensions, student loans, etc.?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I agree with the idea of calling it a deduction. [/quote]
Great, you are incorrect as well.
A lot of people, mainly those that pay me, and pay my firm’s fees do see how it is different.
Murder v manslaughter.
Only difference is word choice, and a couple years in prison.
[quote] Like you guys are in agreement but don’t want to admit it
[/quote]
I am sure we argee on a lot. And yes, the government has been trying to influence bahavior through taxation for a long time.
But, and this is probably why I am good at my job, I am an anal motherfucker. The two things are different in substance and form. I cannot not explain that fact.
I get where you guys are coming from, and big picture, sure. But when it comes down to it, my clients care about the difference when I explain their returns to them. So I have to care.[/quote]
I still dont think that this is a terribly sophisticated distinction and that anyone who does not get it is an ignorant bastard.
And, willfully so.