So it's a tax.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

However, I was hoping for some input related to the original question, which I asked seriously and without agenda. Are the exemptions to the "tax" (Don't you start!) constitutionaly acceptable. They "feel" unfair to me.

Of course they are...this nation is full of tax exemptions. From corn growers to ag exemptions to Capital gains.

[Ducbutter]

Of course, you're correct there WTF. Not sure why those didn't jump out at me. Coulda been the hour or the scotch. Or both.
For the record I'm opposed to the farm and ag exemptions, as a rule.
Capital gains aren't exactly exempt though, they're just taxed at a different rate than other income. Justifiable and fair imho, as it's money already taxed as profit and encourages investors to put their capital at risk to create economic growth.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Of course, you're correct there WTF. Not sure why those didn't jump out at me. Coulda been the hour or the scotch. Or both.
For the record I'm opposed to the farm and ag exemptions, as a rule.
Capital gains aren't exactly exempt though, they're just taxed at a different rate than other income. Justifiable and fair imho, as it's money already taxed as profit and encourages investors to put their capital at risk to create economic growth.

Obama is on record saying that he doesn't care if increasing the capital gains tax increases revenue to the government. He says he wants to increase the capital gains tax "in the interest of fairness". What he's saying is that making rich people less rich is a good thing in and of itself, even if no one else benefits. It's pure class warfare. It's like stealing from the rich and then destoying what you stole.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Doove, I appreciate you candor. Yeah, I did make some good points, huh?

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem i had with your point (and still do, frankly) is that "biggest tax grab and control over the individual" is not exactly spelled out as to what it means.

The graph has it's definition, and you have yours. Your attempts at using the example of 1 million people being taxed a dollar or 100,000 people all being taxed $1000 notwithstanding, i don't see where the graph attempted to fool anyone.

The difference between 160 million people paying the payroll tax and 21 million paying the ACA "tax" is a pretty stark difference. It's not as if they attempted to insert some ultimately minor tax such as the gasoline tax into the graph and use that.

Nevertheless, rather than point out how it is the biggest tax grab according to another definition, your definition, you just decided to pass down an edict that the graph's definition was misleading. It's only misleading if it's somehow wrong, relative to the point it's trying to make.

Frankly, i think anyone can look at a graph showing 160 million people being affected by the payroll tax, comparing that to 21 million people affected by the ACA "tax", and determine that the ACA "tax" is clearly not the biggest tax grab in history. Under pretty much any definition you wanna use.

Are the exemptions to the "tax" (Don't you start!) constitutionaly acceptable. They "feel" unfair to me.

Me too. I wish they weren't there.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem i had with your point (and still do, frankly) is that "biggest tax grab and control over the individual" is not exactly spelled out as to what it means.

The graph has it's definition, and you have yours. Your attempts at using the example of 1 million people being taxed a dollar or 100,000 people all being taxed $1000 notwithstanding, i don't see where the graph attempted to fool anyone.

The difference between 160 million people paying the payroll tax and 21 million paying the ACA "tax" is a pretty stark difference. It's not as if they attempted to insert some ultimately minor tax such as the gasoline tax into the graph and use that.

Nevertheless, rather than point out how it is the biggest tax grab according to another definition, your definition, you just decided to pass down an edict that the graph's definition was misleading. It's only misleading if it's somehow wrong, relative to the point it's trying to make.

Frankly, i think anyone can look at a graph showing 160 million people being affected by the payroll tax, comparing that to 21 million people affected by the ACA "tax", and determine that the ACA "tax" is clearly not the biggest tax grab in history. Under pretty much any definition you wanna use.

I understand your point Doove, at least to a point. I just think that "tax grab" is comprised of multiple factors, not just # of taxpayers effected (affected?). I also stated that there are many more taxes included in the bill besides the tax regarding the purchase of health care. I guarantee that a goodly portion of those other taxes will fall on the shoulders of members of the 160 mil column. How many of them will see an increased tax burden is unclear at this point. If you define tax grab strictly in terms of population, the graph in question still doesn't contain the info necessary to determine biggest. I'm also apparently not the only one who sees it that way. CJ7 posted information about Bush 41's tax increases and there was nary a word relating to the # of people taxed. He also stated that there is no way to no yet the total of taxes to be levied, in dollars, I'd wager dollars to donuts that most folks look at it the way I do.
Even strictly looking at a "grab" in terms of population it is meaningless. No previous pres could possibly tax as many citizens as the current one and the current one won't be able to tax as many as his succesors because of the ever increasing populous, right? So I'll say it this way, 2Dogs threw out some meaningless shit that he didn't back up with any hard data. IMHO.
I also reiterate that I have not and was not taking a position on biggest/not biggest. Only on the reliability of the graph.
And when I retracted asshole, purposefully deceiving went with that. It was only accidentally deceiving.



Me too. I wish they weren't there.

We are in utter agreement on that one, my man.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove
Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem i had with your point (and still do, frankly) is that "biggest tax grab and control over the individual" is not exactly spelled out as to what it means.


BTW, you crack me up Doove. "I hate to beat a dead horse, but here goes." You're as bad as me. I know you don't know me but that oughta scare you.

[Jackie S]

One thing that still confuses me about the new Law is exactly how is the Government going to insure everybody.

There are many that live in what I call the underground economy. Many of the Verified Providers right her on ECCIE fall into this category. If the get sick, they go to a free clinic, or pay cash if they have it.

Will doctors be required by Law to report all patients that come in with no insurance, so the Government can then get them into the system. What happens once the Government becomes aware, and starts asking questions that many in the underground economy would rather not answer.

There are over 300,000,000 million people in the USA. More than many think do live out on the fringe, and don't vote, don't pay taxes, and in some cases, don't even exist.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

One thing that still confuses me about the new Law is exactly how is the Government going to insure everybody.

There are many that live in what I call the underground economy. Many of the Verified Providers right her on ECCIE fall into this category. If the get sick, they go to a free clinic, or pay cash if they have it.

Will doctors be required by Law to report all patients that come in with no insurance, so the Government can then get them into the system. What happens once the Government becomes aware, and starts asking questions that many in the underground economy would rather not answer.

There are over 300,000,000 million people in the USA. More than many think do live out on the fringe, and don't vote, don't pay taxes, and in some cases, don't even exist.

They haven't made that part up yet, have to wait and see what they come up with. For the most part the middle aged will be a wash and the young will pay for the old, so they'll need to target the young, maybe Facebook?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Will doctors be required by Law to report all patients that come in with no insurance, so the Government can then get them into the system.

Keep in mind, not everyone is required to have insurance. Obviously, one can opt out and pay the penalty tax, but separate from that, you can be exempt from the requirement based on income. So doctors and ER's will still get people without insurance as a matter of course. So I doubt they'll be required to help police the thing.

I suspect it'll be policed strictly by the line item on tax returns.

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes, Doofie. Health care will be policed by the IRS. That should make you happy. And you can be sure that people that show up without health insurance, who don't file tax returns, will be investigated. That's how the IRS works. Trust me on this one.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, Doofie...... Trust me on this one.

Yes StupidOldFart, we will "Trust" you on that one just as we trusted you on the 6-3 Health Care decision and the 7-2 Immigration decision!

You're so trustworthy!

SOF is the lead eatn', shitn' and squawkn' Teagull!

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey, BigTurd. Name three people who got the ObamaDoesn'tCare decision right. No one guessed it would be Constitutional as a tax. I had a lot of company on that one.

And now I know the SCOTUS is just as statist as the rest of government. Won't make that mistake again. We will have to rely on the people to restore freedom, our institutions are all against it.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey, BigTurd. Name three people who got the ObamaDoesn'tCare decision right. No one guessed it would be Constitutional as a tax. I had a lot of company on that one.

Chief Justice Roberts got it right! And that's the one who mattered!

Eat your heart out!

[CuteOldGuy]

We'll see how right he got it when the IRS demands to see your insurance policies and receipts. Don't worry, it will happen.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We'll see how right he got it when the IRS demands to see your insurance policies and receipts. Don't worry, it will happen.

I have had employer based insurance plans since I first went in the Army in the late 60's. In a couple of years, I will be retired and on Social Security and Medicare that comes with an employer based (retiree) Medicare supplement.

I don't believe the IRS is going to be interersted in my "insurance policies and receipts,' but if so I will be more than happy to work with the employer to provide the IRS with whatever information they might need.

Why? Cuz I am not a eatn', shitn' and squawkn' Teagull who sits in the corner and cries like a friggin' two year old every time something doesn't go my way!

This idea of impeaching Roberts so Obama can choose the successor is starting to grow on me! ROTFLMAO