You're right, it's hopeless. Let's not even try.
:)
On 1/25/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > care. Right now, the insurance companies bargain with big companies
> > and ignore the individual.
>
> So you think that Republicans, historically the enemy of big business
> an
> Sam wrote:
> care. Right now, the insurance companies bargain with big companies
> and ignore the individual.
So you think that Republicans, historically the enemy of big business
and friend of the little guy, are going to support this?
~~
Apparently, this is an attempt to separate big business from health
care. Right now, the insurance companies bargain with big companies
and ignore the individual.
If we can move the bargaining power back to the people, the market
will correct many of the problems. The main target is probably the
un
mmm.. most everthing *you* are reading perhaps...
> plan while most everything written supports this plan.
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs
http:http:/
> Sam wrote:
> Weird thing is you found an article that finds some way to doubt this
> plan while most everything written supports this plan.
>
No, it's not weird. It's human nature to read some facts on comment
on only what you read. All of your articles take the plan in a vacuum
at a single po
If you don't stop the bleeding the operation is moot.
On 1/25/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well ... we don't differ in general, but in this case we do because
> band-aids remove urgency and so, in my experience, things don't get
> done and you end up with blood seeping out from unde
The way I read it now is everyone that has insurance gets the 15,000
deduction. So the people with the $20,000 plan have to pay tax on
$5,000, but they already deducted $15,000 so now they only have a
$10,000 deduction. No increase.
Weird thing is you found an article that finds some way to doubt t
> MoJo wrote:
> Ah, where we really differ is that you seem to think it's an either-or
> situation.
Well ... we don't differ in general, but in this case we do because
band-aids remove urgency and so, in my experience, things don't get
done and you end up with blood seeping out from under a hundr
>I understand that your instinct is to mitigate the problem today in
>favor of dealing with it tomorrow. That's human nature.
Ah, where we really differ is that you seem to think it's an either-or
situation. Either do a short-term fix *or* fix it long-term. I would like to
see both. Problem is
oh oh I had not realized the distinction you were making there about
self-employment tax and was saying wait a minuteas far as I know
it's tax-deductible.
As you were,,,
On 1/25/07, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >wait a minute.. why can't you take it off a schedule c?
>
> Uh...
> MoJo wrote:
> And therein lies the problem and why *nothing* has been done so far to help
> people.
We differ and I would argue that what we have is a root cause that's
never solved with an increasingly complex set of short term mitigation
strategies piled on top of a crumbling foundation.
The
> This policy, on the other hand, simply delays solving the problem and
> possibly discourages working towards doing it. It is metaphorical
> duct tape. And so I firmly oppose it.
>
> As Yoda said, "Do or do not. There is no try.
And therein lies the problem and why *nothing* has been done so
FISCALLY FIT
By TERRI CULLEN
Tax Break or Burden?
Terri Investigates Whether Bush Health Plan
Would Help or Hurt the Cullens' Bottom Line
January 25, 2007
This week President Bush proposed a radical change in the way the
government taxes health insurance, in an effort to spur more
indivi
> MoJo wrote:
> It's a deducted expense *after* you figure your schedule C
Which brings up the problem of re-engineering the tax code. From a
Flat Tax foundation, of course.
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2
>wait a minute.. why can't you take it off a schedule c?
Uhbecause that's not the law. It's not considered a business expense if you
are self-employed. It's a deducted expense *after* you figure your schedule C,
so you end up paying the self-employment tax on it.
There is though a bill tha
> Mary Jo wrote:
> Agreed...however, it would at least help people out in the interrim until
> they *do* get to work on the core problems.
Maybe, but the question is whether it "helps" or if it just subsidizes
bad decisions. Welfare proved that it's possible to do more harm than
help by subsidiz
a 15k tax break is meaningless if you are too sick to work. Which is
the problem with this proposal as I see it.
On 1/24/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but they have nothing now. With this at least they get a 15k tax
> break. I hope that they fix that before it's implemented.
>
> On 1/2
wait a minute.. why can't you take it off a schedule c?
On 1/24/07, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If your employer pays for your insurance you don't pay tax on that
> >money as income, yet if you pay for your own insurance, it's from
> >after taxed income.
>
> It's even worse than
On 1/24/07, GeeeGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wealthy and redistributes it to you (even though he earned it).
Interesting question: Do we have a class system here in da US?
Anyways, "earning" has always been an interesting concept for
me. Just a deep idea.
I'll tell you what tho, as soo
On 1/24/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to make a new law that takes $0.05 per week from RoMunn The
> Wealthy and redistributes it to you (even though he earned it).
I'm going to make a new law that takes $0.05 per week from RoMunn The
Wealthy and redistributes it to you (
>Question: Did I solve the problem? Or did I simply delay the
>inevitable while giving you the false impression that I'm doing
>something to solve the problem?
Agreed...however, it would at least help people out in the interrim until they
*do* get to work on the core problems. I don't think anyo
> Sam wrote:
> Whatever. Next.
>
My thoughts about the policy exactly.
All it does is delay the inevitable while giving people a false sense
of action when there is, in fact, no solution in place to solve the
core problem.
For example, let's say food costs $1 and rises $0.10 per week. If the
li
Whatever. Next.
On 1/24/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's just wealth redistribution which, like all Robin Hood
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platf
It's never happened, and can't realistically happenbut i guess you could
call it the "Idealized Fantasy Version of Socialism"
On 1/24/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> nope.
> its a REAL question, and 'cause you politicos are all here...
> i figured i would ask here :)
> thats all.
>
> s
> MoJo wrote:
> While this proposal would do a world of good for people like me, I have a
> hard time seeing it as truly feasible.
>
+100, it's just wealth redistribution which, like all Robin Hood
schemes, sounds good on the surface but is a simple, and wrong,
solution.
> Larry wrote:
> Another case of the rich getting the tax breaks on the backs of the middle
> class.
>
This is good in that it opens the door for debate, but the policy
itself does little to solve the problem, it simply treats the
symptoms.
~~~
> Yes right. Those who are uninsured are typically those who don't make
> enough to benefit from tax breaks. Those who do benefit from this tax
> break again are in the upper income tax brackets. Another case of the
> rich getting the tax breaks on the backs of the middle class.
I don't think y
>Yes, but they have nothing now. With this at least they get a 15k tax
>break. I hope that they fix that before it's implemented.
>
>On 1/24/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
Yes right. Those who are uninsured are typically those who don't make enough to
benefit from tax breaks. Tho
Fantasy
On 1/24/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> whats it called when everyone is REALLY equally paid, honored, take
> care of, with no corruption and no bs.
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integr
nope.
its a REAL question, and 'cause you politicos are all here...
i figured i would ask here :)
thats all.
sorry for the diversion
On 1/24/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this meant for a different thread or are you calling a tax break communism?
>
> On 1/24/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is this meant for a different thread or are you calling a tax break communism?
On 1/24/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> whats it called when everyone is REALLY equally paid, honored, take
> care of, with no corruption and no bs.
>
> a REAL normal society where everyone has every opp. the same
whats it called when everyone is REALLY equally paid, honored, take
care of, with no corruption and no bs.
a REAL normal society where everyone has every opp. the same, same
salaries, etc?
socialism? communism?
tw
On 1/24/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but they have nothing now. With
Yes, but they have nothing now. With this at least they get a 15k tax
break. I hope that they fix that before it's implemented.
On 1/24/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man, that's messed up. The hardest hit are going to be the very sick,
> meaning people with long-term illnesses like
>If your employer pays for your insurance you don't pay tax on that
>money as income, yet if you pay for your own insurance, it's from
>after taxed income.
It's even worse than that, actually. The company paying for your health
insurance gets to deduct that as a cost of doing business. However, a
Man, that's messed up. The hardest hit are going to be the very sick,
meaning people with long-term illnesses like cancer, and the elderly. In
other words, the people that can least afford another tax.
On 1/24/07, Sam wrote:
>
> It isn't. It's evening out the tax burden. The poor pay tax and the
> If your employer pays for your insurance you don't pay tax on that
> money as income, yet if you pay for your own insurance, it's from
> after taxed income.
Ah yes. Been awhile since i had to think about insurance in that respect.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and
It isn't. It's evening out the tax burden. The poor pay tax and the
rich don't. So rewrite the tax code so everyone gets the break and
only the excessive (or really sick) have to pay a small tax.
On 1/24/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Let's call it a luxury insurance
If your employer pays for your insurance you don't pay tax on that
money as income, yet if you pay for your own insurance, it's from
after taxed income.
On 1/24/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's call it a luxury insurance tax. How about a Paris
> > Hilton health tax.
>
> erk..
> Let's call it a luxury insurance tax. How about a Paris
> Hilton health tax.
erk... holy crap... I actually agree with Sam... =-o
Maybe it is because, while highly paid (it's not contractor money, but
pretty good :-), I don't shell out 15K/year for my health
insurance...that's a lot o'money...
> Sam wrote:
> Let's call it a luxury insurance tax. How about a Paris
> Hilton health tax.
>
Ah, ya fecking liberal! That's called wealth redistribution! You
take from the rich and give to the poor. Classic liberal move ...
welfare, for example ...
Redistribution of wealth? That's funny. People with employer insurance
don't pay tax while the rest do. With the new plan 90% of the people
won't but the few that spend over $15k a year might have to pay a
little tax. Let's call it a luxury insurance tax. How about a Paris
Hilton health tax.
On 1
"The president's proposal would impose a stiff tax increase on people
with the most costly employer-provided health coverage, which includes
not only highly paid union members but also the well-heeled executives
of many of the nation's largest companies."
Just another liberal wealth re-distributio
42 matches
Mail list logo
