Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 08:22pm PT
|
Lolli,
I am now on COBRA for husband and wife and will be doing so until near the end of Oct. I pay over $1100 per month and there is a $1000 deductible before it kicks in after which they cover 80% It sucks.
Lolli, LEB gave you a little Republican speak, so let me clarify in english.
LEB is taking advantage of a Democratic plan passed in 1986 that allows people to keep their insurance when they leave their jobs, called COBRA. It is another example of the US Gov't interfering with people's lives, as Donald will tell you. Prior to that, if you left your job because you were fired or were ill, you lost your insurance immediately. Here is a fuller explanation:
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/FindingandPayingforTreatment/ManagingInsuranceIssues/what-is-cobra
Now you can continue to keep your insurance and pay the premium for up to 18 months, due to those communist democrats, like Obama. I would imagine that strong GOP supporters like LEB, Donald, Fattrad, Bluering, John, would eliminate it ASAP, simply on the principle of getting rid of gov't interference with free enterprise, so it will probably be gone as soon as the socialist Obama is defeated.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 08:34pm PT
|
Ken, also from the commie Obama..."As far as the Stimulus package, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also know as the federal stimulus package) provides for premium reductions and additional election opportunities for health benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, commonly called COBRA. Eligible individuals pay only 35 percent of their COBRA premiums and the remaining 65 percent is reimbursed to the coverage provider through a tax credit. The premium reduction applies to periods of health coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009 and lasts for up to nine months."
Lois is some what clueless when it comes to what Obama has and hasn't done.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 08:51pm PT
|
Those who lose jobs with pre-existing conditions should be allowed to pick up private coverage, but at a higher premium.
Wow.. how kind of you.
Hold job for 20 years. Pay into an insurance system for 20 years. Get cancer, lose your job because you can't work. Lose your insurance, but its cool, you can now pay a higher rate to someone else. How exactly is that insurance?
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 08:56pm PT
|
You're not following
Who pays a higher percentage of their income, not who pays more total
You do understand that right?
Let's see:
This is for income tax:
And this is the TOTAL tax burden, all taxes combined:
Note that the last few columns are not to scale on the x axis, making it appear less progressive than it really is.
You did ask, right?
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:03pm PT
|
What BS. Microsoft and many fortune 500 companies often pay NO INCOME TAX. Theoretically it's 35% but NONE of them actually pay that much if they have a decent accounting/Tax professionals
News flash: many Fortune 500 companies make nothing or actually lose money, so this should not be surprising. If you had no income this year, you probably wouldn't like it if people derided you for paying no taxes. Naturally, we have a loophole ridden tax code, and there are plenty of exceptions to this - the tax code needs to be simplified, period. Get rid of all the exemptions and tax everyone a fair, lower rate.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:08pm PT
|
Corporate PROFITS Soar:
One of the dominating justifications that the right uses for its economic policies is that lowering taxes and regulations on society’s wealthiest members and big businesses will cause an explosion of wealth that will eventually “trickle down” to the vast majority of Americans. Yet while a record number of Americans are receiving some form of government assistance as unemployment remains high and the economy is in shambles, one group is doing very well: corporate America. The 2011 Fortune 500 list was unveiled today, surveying the growth and profits of the nation’s largest 500 corporations. It found that the profits of these companies “soared 81″ percent over the past year, causing the editors of Fortune to say that “we’ve rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans”:
All told, the Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%. But guess who didn’t benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck mired in a stagnant job market. [...] Nevertheless, we’ve rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans.
At the same time, corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than it has been in years, meaning that not only is the wealth not trickling down, but that these big http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/05/163747/fortune-500-corporations-81/ are also becoming less and less likely to pay their fair share.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:09pm PT
|
So what point are those charts making relative to your argument about Buffett's secretary?
If I have to spell it out to you, even if Buffet's secretary is in the richest 40%, she is paying taxes at a lower rate than someone in Buffet's class (richest 1%). Of course, she is probably in a lower income bracket (unless she is doing more than his bookkeeping!) so chances are she is paying much less.
BTW Joe, I hear you have a good full time job now. Are you paying less in taxes than you were working at the Ahwahnee? If you say yes I may have to see some tax returns...
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:12pm PT
|
Corporate PROFITS Soar:
This is not surprising. Middle class jobs have been outsourced to India and China because of regulatory burdens, unions, etc. in the West. So far the highest management jobs have not, but even these will go eventually with an administration this hostile to business.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:16pm PT
|
Record corporate profits.
Fastest and largest percentage increase in the stock market, up 70% since Obama took office.
"Hostile" to business?
Hardly.
The facts speak otherwise, but facts are irrelevant when blinded by ideology and talking points.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:21pm PT
|
And do you have any attributable sources other than a chart, the stats of which it's based on you don't even cite?
Yes, and it from a Liberal Thinktank...
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf
"Everybody pays taxes"
An adult version of "Everybody Poops"
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:22pm PT
|
"Hostile" to business?
Hardly.
The facts speak otherwise, but facts are irrelevant when blinded by ideology and talking points.
Tell that to Boeing...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64199.html
I could give plenty more "talking points", each one representing thousands of real jobs.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:23pm PT
|
That's it! I'm done with f*#king establishment Neocons like Hannity and Karl Rove.
Just watched them discuss zRepub candidaes, and as usual, it's the f*#king Perry/Romney show with them dismissing Cain.
And they wonder why Repubs are fleeing from establishment candidates?
They can't see why Cain has recent surges? So disengenuous. F*#k Hannity, and Rove can take his advice and shove it up his uptight ass!!!!
I'm tired of the Repub establishment. And so are many others...
Cain IS Able.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:27pm PT
|
Cain IS Able.
I would vote for him on his 9/9/9 plan alone
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:32pm PT
|
OK OK, let's make Buffet pay more taxes! But on one condition:
Since he pays so little right now, let's have the lowest 50% of earners pay
this minute, miniscule rate. Since it is such a low rate, it shouldn't be much of a burden, right?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:34pm PT
|
Holy shit!!!! Me and Dr.F agree on a candidate???
Maybe it's because you think it'll doom him to lose, but people like his message, and his background.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:37pm PT
|
How does that support your argument that Buffett pays more?
99.9% of the taxes he pays are in Corporate and Capital gains taxes, I am not sure why you would look at income taxes alone, but here you go:
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:44pm PT
|
Again, Paul, YOUR OWN CHART shows the 50 to 75% range, in which the secretary presumably resides, paying 44% of their income in taxes, and Buffett 19%
Joe, I think you need to look at this chart again.
The numbers you are looking at are share of total income.
I would think the secretary is in the bottom 50% of earners, paying 3% of the total Federal tax burden.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:46pm PT
|
What a load of crap
They pay more because they make more
Thanks for that revalation Dr. F! So if everyone paid a flat tax with no exemptions, the rich would still pay more because they made more. You would be OK with that?
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:51pm PT
|
Fastest and largest percentage increase in the stock market, up 70% since Obama took office.
Fantastic! And under Bush, Real Estate prices were up over 200% at one point!! Both Obama and Bush can thank Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan for lowering interest rates to near zero to force investors to seek higher yielding (i.e. riskier) assets, and then printing Trillions of dollars to slush around in the system.
Producing sector inflation is not the same as producing prosperity. That is the one thing any dumbass should have learned in the last 10 years.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 09:54pm PT
|
Every time America was successful and prosperous was when taxes were high
Really, what is the correlation coefficient here? Do you have a graph? Are you correlating with overall tax receipts or just the highest marginal rate? Even if there is a correlation, how do you know we don't just have a tendency to tax more when we are more prosperous?
Because, if I had to guess, I would say you are just spouting twaddle...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!