[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[RKMBrown]

Because it's not true. I only suggest capitalism for our free markets. I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets. I do see elective health care as a free market.

" I do see elective health care as a free market."

The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.

It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.

You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter. All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how. We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."

No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor. That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets. Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house. Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share. There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.

 

[PMZ]

Because it's not true. I only suggest capitalism for our free markets. I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets. I do see elective health care as a free market.

" I do see elective health care as a free market."

The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.

It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.

I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.

Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures. However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only. Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements. While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.

Obamacare is not insurance. It doesn't have coverage. It doesn't charge premiums. What are you talking about?

 

[PMZ]

" I do see elective health care as a free market."

The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.

It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.

You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter. All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how. We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."

No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor. That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets. Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house. Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share. There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.

Or, we can problem solve.

 

[Contumacious]

You know why? Because Communism is Capitalism, Jr., just as Capitalism was Feudalism, Jr., which was Slavery, Jr. Heirheads may convince themselves that they are rebelling against their fathers, but that is biologically impossible.

The Stalinists instituted the same Gulag sweatshops that Capitalism started with. We will never get off the Road to Serfdom until we realize that anyone related to the previous regime must not be allowed to participate in a democracy, which can no more tolerate aristocracy than fire can mix with water.

HUH?

WTF?

I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty, and witty and gay,
And I pity
Any girl who isn’t me today.....


That anger management course has come in handy.

.

Anything the ruling class won't allow to be said about itself strikes slave-minds as absurd.

There are NO RULING CLASSES in Capitalist societies.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter. All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how. We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."

No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor. That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets. Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house. Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share. There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.

Or, we can problem solve.

What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution? Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets? Why do you hate children?

 

[PMZ]

HUH?

WTF?

I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty, and witty and gay,
And I pity
Any girl who isn’t me today.....


That anger management course has come in handy.

.

Anything the ruling class won't allow to be said about itself strikes slave-minds as absurd.

There are NO RULING CLASSES in Capitalist societies.

.

How about in China. Heavily capitalistic now but politically run by a single party.

 

[PMZ]

No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor. That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets. Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house. Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share. There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.

Or, we can problem solve.

What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution? Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets? Why do you hate children?

I don't know anyone but, apparently, you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.

 

[RKMBrown]

Or, we can problem solve.

What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution? Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets? Why do you hate children?

I don't know anyone but, apparently, you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.

Why stop at 70% of income? Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all? Why should anyone have investments at all? Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money? If money if evil why do we have it at all? Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.

 

[PMZ]

What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution? Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets? Why do you hate children?

I don't know anyone but, apparently, you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.

Why stop at 70% of income? Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all? Why should anyone have investments at all? Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money? If money if evil why do we have it at all? Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.

Typical conservative black and white extremism.


Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.

Like in most things, the middle of the road works best. How about Pre Bush.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't know anyone but, apparently, you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.

Why stop at 70% of income? Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all? Why should anyone have investments at all? Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money? If money if evil why do we have it at all? Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.

Typical conservative black and white extremism.


Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.

Like in most things, the middle of the road works best. How about Pre Bush.

You are the one defending re-distribution. Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets. I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?

 

[PMZ]

Why stop at 70% of income? Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all? Why should anyone have investments at all? Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money? If money if evil why do we have it at all? Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.

Typical conservative black and white extremism.


Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.

Like in most things, the middle of the road works best. How about Pre Bush.

You are the one defending re-distribution. Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets. I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?

You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to.

Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money. I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory. But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated.

We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets. Why fix something that's not broken.

But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken. It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.

The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.

Let's do what has worked before, again. Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.

 

[Gadawg73]

" I do see elective health care as a free market."

The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.

It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.

I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.

Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures. However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only. Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements. While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.

Obamacare is not insurance. It doesn't have coverage. It doesn't charge premiums. What are you talking about?

It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.

Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?

 

[Gadawg73]

Typical conservative black and white extremism.


Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.

Like in most things, the middle of the road works best. How about Pre Bush.

You are the one defending re-distribution. Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets. I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?

You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to.

Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money. I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory. But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated.

We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets. Why fix something that's not broken.

But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken. It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.

The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.

Let's do what has worked before, again. Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.

Anyone that believes wealth is distributed is dysfunctional.
Wealth is EARNED.

 

[RKMBrown]

Typical conservative black and white extremism.


Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.

Like in most things, the middle of the road works best. How about Pre Bush.

You are the one defending re-distribution. Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets. I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?

You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to.

Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money. I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory. But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated.

We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets. Why fix something that's not broken.

But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken. It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.

The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.

Let's do what has worked before, again. Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.

When did it work before what "effective" tax rate worked? Make up your mind. Or is it that you don't understand the difference between marginal rates and actual effective rates?

Why should the evil rich be able to have no income and just sit on hundreds of billions of assets? Why do you think they will declare any income for themselves when you are just gonna take it? Why do you think executives are so stupid that they can't just pay themselves at some island account where there are no or very little taxes? How many US corporations have to move their headquarters before you wake up? Why have you not looked into the past to find out about the many tax dodges employed by the rich back when taxes were high? What are the historical effective rates? Do you know them or not?

If you have NO CLUE about what you are talking about why bother?

If you want to take peoples assets for real your gonna have to stop pussy footing around. Just say what you really want to do.

Or are you avoiding assets and focusing on income because you have tons of assets and no income?

 

[PMZ]

I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.

Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures. However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only. Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements. While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.

Obamacare is not insurance. It doesn't have coverage. It doesn't charge premiums. What are you talking about?

It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.

Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?

The topic is not what ACA requires. It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.

Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.

He didn't lie. Republicans are.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obamacare is not insurance. It doesn't have coverage. It doesn't charge premiums. What are you talking about?

It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.

Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?

The topic is not what ACA requires. It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.

Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.

He didn't lie. Republicans are.

The law required the companies THROW OUT THE PLANS THAT DID NOT MEET OBAMA'S DEMANDS. Why are you being OBTUSE? Obama lied. I realize calling him out on a lie is silly, since he's never said an honest sentence his entire life.

 

[PMZ]

It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.

Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?

The topic is not what ACA requires. It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.

Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.

He didn't lie. Republicans are.

The law required the companies THROW OUT THE PLANS THAT DID NOT MEET OBAMA'S DEMANDS. Why are you being OBTUSE? Obama lied. I realize calling him out on a lie is silly, since he's never said an honest sentence his entire life.

Read. Learn. Stop being stupid.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/december/17/grandfathered-plans-faq.aspx

 

[PMZ]

From the references above.

Framers of the Affordable Care Act allowed some health plans to be exempt from some of the law’s rules and protections in the interests of a smooth transition and to allow businesses and individuals to keep current policies without having to make substantial changes. More than a third of all Americans who get insurance through their jobs are enrolled in such plans, although that number is expected to decline every year.
Nonetheless, consumers should know the status of their plans since that may determine whether they are eligible for certain protections and benefits created by the health law. For example, an employee at a large company may wonder why his job-based insurance doesn't include the free preventive services he's heard about. Or someone who purchases her own coverage may wonder whether she will be eligible for broader benefits when new insurance marketplaces open next fall. To answer those questions, you must understand the status of your plan and how grandfathering works. Here are the basics:

 

[American4Americ]

Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".

The left disgusts me.

 

[PMZ]

Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".

The left disgusts me.

The right disgusts me. They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.

Bullshit. It was stolen, thank you very much, by the Republicans.

It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.

We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.

I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.