ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[tzor]

You already have progressive taxation.

We are working on that ... do you know how hard it is to repeal things around here?

[jbrettlip]

You already have progressive taxation.

We are working on that ... do you know how hard it is to repeal things around here?

that will NEVER be repealed. It may be replaced with a sales tax (consumption tax) but millionaires will always have higher tax brackets as long as there is an IRS.

[stahrgazer]

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

I don't know where you dumb-arses come up with this shit. "statism", from dictionary.com? Unabridged, make it up as you go along dictionary? f*ck off.

What you're talking about is "Central Planning," you know, when the government exercises control over economic planning and policy (HINT: the opposite of free market---THANK YOU HEARTS OF IRON)--of course, the degree of a government's central planning varies. Please know you're language before engaging in further discussion. (HEY HEY, did someone catch that "your/you're" business? I hope so.)

Yes, I caught the "you are" business. I've bolded the part you missed, where this particular definition came from Random House, a respectable dictionary. I suppose I could look for a Webster's or other dictionary, if you need to see it from a variety. As you said, Balin: KNOW YOUR LANGUAGE

[stahrgazer]

For Balin:

Main Entry: stat·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

(It's been a real word in the English language since 1919)

[tzor]

You already have progressive taxation.

We are working on that ... do you know how hard it is to repeal things around here?

that will NEVER be repealed. It may be replaced with a sales tax (consumption tax) but millionaires will always have higher tax brackets as long as there is an IRS.

Some people are trying:

Here is an article from the Washington Post
The article mentions this from Daniel Mitchell

Families get one postcard, on which they write their labor income from their W-2 form. Then they subtract some amount of allowance based on family size. The remaining amount is taxable income. In Mitchell's system, they pay tax at a 17 percent rate.

Businesses get an equally simple postcard. They start with their total revenue, then subtract wage costs, input costs and investment costs. The IRS gets 17 percent of the remaining amount. Probably the most consistent, highest-profile advocate of a flat tax is former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

[stahrgazer]

The IRS gets 17 percent of the remaining amount. Probably the most consistent, highest-profile advocate of a flat tax is former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

True, but he stopped making as much noise about a flat tax after the 90% Reagan rates were reduced for the highest brackets. Funny, tho, how so much more noise is made today, when the rate is less but the deductions are more (big oil corporations can currently send their money offshores and pay ZERO despite making billions)

[bradleybadly]

Clearly, the term "statist" means something very different to you than it does to me. A statist is BY DEFINITION someone who wants things to remain as they are. It's a term derived from the word "static", meaning "showing little or no change".

I was reading what he said as state-ist; as in nationalist.

Ah. I hadn't considered that as a word, to be honest. I've not heard the term used in that manner. It definitely makes more sense in re-reading what he was saying, so I'll back off on that point. Thanks.

I was wondering why there was confusion on that. Every once in awhile someone on this website will put out a link for a political compass test, and depending on how you answer the questions, you can range anywhere from statist to anarchist.

[stahrgazer]

I was wondering why there was confusion on that. Every once in awhile someone on this website will put out a link for a political compass test, and depending on how you answer the questions, you can range anywhere from statist to anarchist.

*nods*
Then there are those continue to argue that a word that's been in the dictionary for nearly 100 years isn't a word

[jbrettlip]

The IRS gets 17 percent of the remaining amount. Probably the most consistent, highest-profile advocate of a flat tax is former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

True, but he stopped making as much noise about a flat tax after the 90% Reagan rates were reduced for the highest brackets. Funny, tho, how so much more noise is made today, when the rate is less but the deductions are more (big oil corporations can currently send their money offshores and pay ZERO despite making billions)

Big oil GENERATES that money overseas. Because that is where the oil is. Open up offshore drilling and ALaska, and watch the tax revenues roll in. Plus Exxon pays huge lease fees, etc to the US government,. It isn't like they are getting a free ride and demanding services.

I like the idea of a flat tax, but NOT adjusted for family size. Just like welfare shouldn't go up because you had a kid.

Although I would still have a top rate for personal income over a million$. Corporate taxes should be lowered drastically, to give people more jobs, lower prices etc. Then get your tax revenues from the people. 20% flat would be fine till some of the debt was paid down. 35% of the govt income goes to interest on the debt.....that is wasteful.

[stahrgazer]

No. corporate taxes WERE reduced in the past 2 decades, but instead of generating U.S. jobs, the top ppl kept the money, sent jobs overseas along with the money.

[Woodruff]

For Balin:

Main Entry: stat·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

(It's been a real word in the English language since 1919)

Interesting, given that my Merriam-Webster dictionary dated 1999 doesn't have the word in it. That's what...80 years missed as a real word?

[thegreekdog]

No. corporate taxes WERE reduced in the past 2 decades, but instead of generating U.S. jobs, the top ppl kept the money, sent jobs overseas along with the money.

Oh, exciting (sorry, I see "tax" and get excited).

Do you know what the corporate tax rate was in 1990 and what is the corporate tax rate in 2010?

[stahrgazer]

No. corporate taxes WERE reduced in the past 2 decades, but instead of generating U.S. jobs, the top ppl kept the money, sent jobs overseas along with the money.

Oh, exciting (sorry, I see "tax" and get excited).

Do you know what the corporate tax rate was in 1990 and what is the corporate tax rate in 2010?

Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%

Maximum Section 179 Expense Deduction

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $125,000 $108,000 $105,000


Phaseout--$800,000 for 2010; $800,000 for 2009; $800,000 for 2008; $500,000 for 2007; $430,000 for 2006; $420,000 for 2005.

http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#ci

I'll have to look further to find further back, but notice... for Bush's latter term of office, Expense deductions increased
(which effectively reduces the tax)

also notice, the highest tax bracket for corporations isn't the highest earners/the largest corporations. No! The highest tax bracket is the highest earners in the "small business" arena.

Seriously, look! A business that makes 100,000 pays the same % as someone who makes up to ten times that amount, while businesses that make $335k have to pay 39%

75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%

Add the "expense deduction" credit, and the highest earners end up paying LESS taxes than lower earners.

According to this website, a business that made $100k in 1986 would have payed 40% in taxes; a business that made 1.405 million would have payed 46%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/2140.html

and without the extra deductions given later

My point? We've declined, not prospered, since corporate tax rates got reduced.

[bedub1]

I haven't been in here in a while, but my roommate and I realized something.

In the Auto Insurance industry, there is a line item in my insurance premiums for "Uninsured motorist protection". This is to cover the cost of people that don't buy auto insurance. The industry line itemizes this cost.
In the Heath Insurance industry, there is no line item. The costs are built into the cost of the insurance.

If it wasn't for people who don't buy insurance, my premiums would be lower.

[stahrgazer]

I haven't been in here in a while, but my roommate and I realized something.

In the Auto Insurance industry, there is a line item in my insurance premiums for "Uninsured motorist protection". This is to cover the cost of people that don't buy auto insurance. The industry line itemizes this cost.
In the Heath Insurance industry, there is no line item. The costs are built into the cost of the insurance.

If it wasn't for people who don't buy insurance, my premiums would be lower.

True... but, since you have insurance, don't you think it's a bit of a ripoff that you're having to pay more for someone who doesn't? i mean, isn't the point of you buying insurance, so that your insurance pays when you get in an accident?

Another interesting thing (since you brought up auto insurance)... a decade back, I was rear-ended. At the time, I had both auto insurance and a good healthcare insurance through work. Well, the auto insurance pays first. When that ran out, my health insurance began paying.

I had a fairly long-term concussion (that was not immediately diagnosed) and whiplash from the accident, and was running up lots of bills over a 2-year period. When I finally got my settlement from the accident, the doctors did NOT get paid first. No. Instead, the auto insurance settlement was used to pay off fees that my healthcare plan had expended on some of the earlier bills, using up my entire settlement.

I was left with tens of thousands of doctor and hospital bills. If I had fallen, my healhcare would have paid it, but because it was caused by someone rear-ending me, they abdicated all responsibility for those bills, claiming the auto insurance should have paid them. Didn't matter to them that my auto insurance had paid some, and didn't matter to them that my health care bills were more than either auto insurance policy allowed. They also stalled my long-term disability claim, repeatedly not sending the forms I was requesting them to send, until the time to claim had run out then they could claim I had never filed.

Could I have sued? Yeah, I guess. if I had the money to take on a giant health insurance conglomerate, which I didn't.

So, I had to go bankrupt. The unfortunate doctors never did get paid, despite I had had both auto insurance (including that uninsured motorists' coverage you mention) and healthcare insurance, and disability insurance.

At least if healthcare were truly "socialized" (not the forced-insurance buy the Reps insisted on) the docs and I would all have known in advance which treatments would and would not be covered.

[PLAYER57832]

For Balin:

Main Entry: stat·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

(It's been a real word in the English language since 1919)

Interesting, given that my Merriam-Webster dictionary dated 1999 doesn't have the word in it. That's what...80 years missed as a real word?

Unless you are looking at the unabridged version, a lot of words are missing. (not commenting on the validity of the word in question, just dictionaries)

[thegreekdog]

Stahr, I have no idea how you've come up with your conclusions. No idea at all.

First of all, the tax rate one is taxed, while related to what one pays in tax, is not an indicator of how much one pays in tax.

So, for example, 39% of $335,000 is $130,650, while 34% of $10,000,000 is $3,400,000. So, the person paying the lower tax rate pays more tax. Granted, he made more income; and I do have a beef with that. However, don't get it twisted. Instead, think about whether that was the tax rate structure under President Clinton; since you apparently think this unfairness occurred under President Bush.

Second of all, do you know what a Section 179 deduction is and why it was included in tax reform?

There is this deduction for depreciation (which is related to the depreciable value of property - so a truck that is 10 years old is worth less than a truck that is 2 years old), which was in place prior to Bush's term in office. After 9/11, Congress wanted businesses to purchase more shit, so they allowed for an increased deduction for depreciation in the first year that the property was placed in service.

So, yeah, the companies that buy more shit got a higher bonus depreciation deduction than the companies that bought less shit. But that's the point. The government wanted companies to buy more shit.

[PLAYER57832]

Stahr, I have no idea how you've come up with your conclusions. No idea at all.

First of all, the tax rate one is taxed, while related to what one pays in tax, is not an indicator of how much one pays in tax.

So, for example, 39% of $335,000 is $130,650, while 34% of $10,000,000 is $3,400,000. So, the person paying the lower tax rate pays more tax. Granted, he made more income; and I do have a beef with that. However, don't get it twisted. Instead, think about whether that was the tax rate structure under President Clinton; since you apparently think this unfairness occurred under President Bush.

Second of all, do you know what a Section 179 deduction is and why it was included in tax reform?

There is this deduction for depreciation (which is related to the depreciable value of property - so a truck that is 10 years old is worth less than a truck that is 2 years old), which was in place prior to Bush's term in office. After 9/11, Congress wanted businesses to purchase more shit, so they allowed for an increased deduction for depreciation in the first year that the property was placed in service.

So, yeah, the companies that buy more shit got a higher bonus depreciation deduction than the companies that bought less shit. But that's the point. The government wanted companies to buy more shit.

I take issue with ALL depreciation deductions, as with many other deductable expenses. (entertainment, food and lodging, etc.).

Even a flat tax for businesses would have to take some things into account. I mean, just because 2 stores each bring in 500,000 doesn't mean they each make the same profit. Same with factories, etc.

However, the real reason we have a lot of these deductions is that they benefit other businesses. The entertainment and food deductions benefit restaurants, etc. You already mentioned depreciation. This is the kind of false manipulation of the market that really distorts prices of things and taxes in our country.

To contrast, employee health care is a direct need of employees. It is part of what employees need to have to live, unless they are to be dependent upon the rest of us when they get sick or injured. While I do not believe it should necessarily be the employers responsibility to buy health insurance, it is their responsibility to provide employees who work fulltime enough to buy healthcare along with other necessary expenses (and yes, a bit left over. the days when someone should be expected to work all day and just go home to sleep are past).

YET, while many conservatives are happy to blast legitimate, direct employee expenses like health care, they refuse to even touch the "sacred cows" of entertainment expenses and all the thousands of other tax anomalies. (some make sense, but a lot definitely do not)

[PLAYER57832]

I haven't been in here in a while, but my roommate and I realized something.

In the Auto Insurance industry, there is a line item in my insurance premiums for "Uninsured motorist protection". This is to cover the cost of people that don't buy auto insurance. The industry line itemizes this cost.
In the Heath Insurance industry, there is no line item. The costs are built into the cost of the insurance.

If it wasn't for people who don't buy insurance, my premiums would be lower.

True... but, since you have insurance, don't you think it's a bit of a ripoff that you're having to pay more for someone who doesn't? i mean, isn't the point of you buying insurance, so that your insurance pays when you get in an accident?

Another interesting thing (since you brought up auto insurance)... a decade back, I was rear-ended. At the time, I had both auto insurance and a good healthcare insurance through work. Well, the auto insurance pays first. When that ran out, my health insurance began paying.

I had a fairly long-term concussion (that was not immediately diagnosed) and whiplash from the accident, and was running up lots of bills over a 2-year period. When I finally got my settlement from the accident, the doctors did NOT get paid first. No. Instead, the auto insurance settlement was used to pay off fees that my healthcare plan had expended on some of the earlier bills, using up my entire settlement.

I was left with tens of thousands of doctor and hospital bills. If I had fallen, my healhcare would have paid it, but because it was caused by someone rear-ending me, they abdicated all responsibility for those bills, claiming the auto insurance should have paid them. Didn't matter to them that my auto insurance had paid some, and didn't matter to them that my health care bills were more than either auto insurance policy allowed. They also stalled my long-term disability claim, repeatedly not sending the forms I was requesting them to send, until the time to claim had run out then they could claim I had never filed.

Could I have sued? Yeah, I guess. if I had the money to take on a giant health insurance conglomerate, which I didn't.

So, I had to go bankrupt. The unfortunate doctors never did get paid, despite I had had both auto insurance (including that uninsured motorists' coverage you mention) and healthcare insurance, and disability insurance.

At least if healthcare were truly "socialized" (not the forced-insurance buy the Reps insisted on) the docs and I would all have known in advance which treatments would and would not be covered.

This is a perfect example of why everyone should be required to buy health insurance.

It is also a perfect example of the loopholes ALL insurance companies use to get out of paying bills.. and why WE wind up with higher bills to pay for so many other people, even those who DO "follow the rules", buy insurance and work, like yourself.

[thegreekdog]

Player, I don't disagree with most of what you've said. I think depreciation deductions, entertainment deductions, and the like, are valid expense deductions (but maybe I'm biased being in the tax world myself). However, I do agree that employees, generally, are very much underpaid while executives and directors are vastly overpaid; I do not think this has to do with whether or not an employer can or cannot deduct an expense. I think this has to do with a bunch of factors which we've discussed ad naseum before, and which include taxes, executive pay, unions, and other stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I don't disagree with most of what you've said. I think depreciation deductions, entertainment deductions, and the like, are valid expense deductions (but maybe I'm biased being in the tax world myself). However, I do agree that employees, generally, are very much underpaid while executives and directors are vastly overpaid; I do not think this has to do with whether or not an employer can or cannot deduct an expense. I think this has to do with a bunch of factors which we've discussed ad naseum before, and which include taxes, executive pay, unions, and other stuff.

I, too, basically agree. Maybe we need a new thread that gets specifically into taxes. However, I have a feeling few people here understand them well enough to discuss it intelligently. I only barely understand some of it. (and I know a LOT more than is "average")

[jbrettlip]

that is because the tax laws are so complicated. So much exec pay is paid in stock, that it also skews compensation. I have worked for a company 10 years, and never been awarded a share of stock. Yet my firm routinely gives stock to the top execs, who then vote special dividends. ($1.75 a share last year, $!.25 this year.) Doesn't sound like much till you look at our CEO holding 450000 shares. So there is a 600000 bonus, right there.

[PLAYER57832]

that is because the tax laws are so complicated. So much exec pay is paid in stock, that it also skews compensation. I have worked for a company 10 years, and never been awarded a share of stock. Yet my firm routinely gives stock to the top execs, who then vote special dividends. ($1.75 a share last year, $!.25 this year.) Doesn't sound like much till you look at our CEO holding 450000 shares. So there is a 600000 bonus, right there.

One of the many reasons our economy is failing. Compensation is rarely tied to production or output (except that they define "output" as anything, regardless of whether it builds company output or not). Products (including service products) are almost just a secondary afterthought.

This, in turn is a big part of why luck is so much a part of who has money and who doesn't. And no, I don't buy this bit about "running a company"/"trading stocks", etc are their own skills. They are, but the compensation recieved for these jobs is not really based on any benefit from those occupations, it is tied to being able to manipulate the system in various ways(gross oversimplification, yes). Yes, that ability to manipulate things is a skill, but it is not tied to a benefit for our economy or anyone really other than the individual. In fact, it is a system that very often rewards negative activity, such as creating a new "product" called securitized loans that are really just bundled bad mortgages somehow made "clean" by being bundled. (which, as we all know now, was a big part of the last market collapse).

[thegreekdog]

Our economy isn't failing. Jeez.

[PLAYER57832]

Our economy isn't failing. Jeez.

For most of the country, it is a long way from recovering.