Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Y
First of all, let us keep in mind that the percentage of those who do NOT pay income tax is 47%. So 53% of Americans do pay the tax. Plus, this situation is a TEMPORARY one brought about by the recession and the measures enacted to stimulate economic recovery. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households do not pay federal income tax. And as I and others have already reminded you, income tax is simply one of a number of taxes that people pay. It is disingenuous to state that of all taxes, only the federal income tax matters.

It matters to me because it is the only one currently under attack by Obamy and his Marxist Fucks at the Fed.

86% percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income tax. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to just 1.6 percent for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

What is important is that we all pay the same percent of our income for it to not be a wealth redistribution plan where 53% of the population is invested and 47% are not. I am sure that will change when Obama and his minions give amnesty to 35 million Demoncratic illegal aliens.

Oh, and 20% of all taxes go to the military. So you are transferring a portion of your wealth (if you want to look at it that way, to the men and women who serve our country, giving their lives at the whim of some politician. Supporting our troops seems like the very least we can do, and I am surprised that you make no mention of this when discussing where OUR tax dollars go.

Duh... I am a retired military person....

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...
What is important is that we all pay the same percent of our income for it to not be a wealth redistribution plan where 53% of the population is invested and 47% are not. I am sure that will change when Obama and his minions give amnesty to 35 million Demoncratic illegal aliens.

....

You made it clear that you dont really care if paying the same percentage is good public policy or would most likely have a adverse impact on most families and probably on the economy as well. IMO, that's the problem with putting ideology above all else.

Oh, and 35 million illegal immigrants?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

True, but it is in other places. Not in Stock, bonds, and the other BS you projected. Thanks.

Well, there you have it. FICA is also not collected on unearned income, but the federal income tax is. That's why you are so riled up about income tax. You have become so fixated on this that you are unable to hear anything else about our TOTAL system of taxation, and who really pays and how much they pay.

Oh, PS: the BS I projected was "stocks, bonds, real estate, etc." So it's BS to think you are buying (or have bought) your own home (real estate)? Whatever. And I don't know what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome.

[DanaC]

*chuckles* I just love the notion that any of the people involved in this are 'Marxist'.

[SamIam]

I'm into Trotskyism, myself.

Merc's racial profiling of the Democratic party intrigues me. I wonder if down on the border along with the coyotes, drug smugglers, la migra, and everyone else, there are members of the Democratic party, eager to sign up each wet back as he crosses?

Also, I Googled the amnesty thing, and I have no idea where Merc gets his 35 million figure. Everything I read said 12 million. Obama said, "So what I've proposed... is you say we're going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We're going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line...but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years."

That seems reasonable to me, since the alternative would be to hire more law personnel, go on manhunts for these people, tear them away from their families in many cases, and transport them across the border. What a circus that would be.

[TheMercenary]

CEO pay should be a legitimate target. I wonder why it is often left out of the equation?

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/hosp...as-997155.html

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Merc's racial profiling of the Democratic party intrigues me. I wonder if down on the border along with the coyotes, drug smugglers, la migra, and everyone else, there are members of the Democratic party, eager to sign up each wet back as he crosses?

Quite the contrary, actually. Generally speaking, both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants are Christian, and tend to vote Republican over social issues like abortion and gay marriage. While many obviously disagree with the anti-immigrant rhetoric, they know that it is, in fact, mostly rhetoric, and meanwhile a lot of the legal Mexican immigrants actually resent the illegals even more than the white folks do.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

You made it clear that you dont really care if paying the same percentage is good public policy or would most likely have a adverse impact on most families and probably on the economy as well. IMO, that's the problem with putting ideology above all else.

Hard choices will have to be made to close all the loopholes. "Good public policy" = "Can I get my guy re-elected". It is about raising revenue, not what is going to be the least painful for all involved.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

CEO pay should be a legitimate target. I wonder why it is often left out of the equation?

So, you would rather the government set the monumental precedent of dictating how much an employee can be paid? Rather than just tax that employee at the level deemed appropriate, the way the government has always restrained CEOs' salaries?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Oh, and 35 million illegal immigrants?

I stand corrected, 20million is more correct. As long as you don't include children naturalized from illegal parents.

http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_new...0-million.aspx

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So, you would rather the government set the monumental precedent of dictating how much an employee can be paid?

Absolutely not. I just thought it was interesting that when all these people rail against big Corps and the cost of healthcare you hardly ever hear about the big CEO salaries. That was all. I don't think the government has any business telling companies how to run their operations, but as we move closer to a socialize medicine model this is bound to come up.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...you hardly ever hear about the big CEO salaries.

WHAT???????????????????????

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

WHAT???????????????????????

I specifically about the hospitals, in this broad dicussion I rarely hear it brought up.

[Clodfobble]

In my mind, "CEO salaries" are inherently implied in the discussions about "letting the tax cuts expire."

But if you want to restrict it entirely to healthcare... then yes, the only way for hospital CEO salaries to be kept in check is, in fact, a single-payer system.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I specifically about the hospitals, in this broad dicussion I rarely hear it brought up.

I don't think hospital CEO's actually make that much. There are some that barely make the 250k bracket.