PDA

View Full Version : how much will you pay



pat addis
03-23-2010, 10:02 AM
for all you who like bho.how much are you willing to pay in taxes for his programs like health care,cap and tax etc.is 50% enough or more say 80%.don't for get to add in state and local and sales tax to,and any others you can think of

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 10:04 AM
for all you who like bho.how much are you willing to pay in taxes for his programs like health care,cap and tax etc.is 50% enough or more say 80%.don't for get to add in state and local and sales tax to,and any others you can think of
I would love to see taxes return to 2000 levels.

Hoosier
03-23-2010, 10:25 AM
I would love to see taxes return to 2000 levels.

I would love to see taxes on your income bracket at 99%, and my income bracket should get more back then we pay in. If you can't beat em join em.

Mike W.
03-23-2010, 10:31 AM
I would be happy of if the 50% of Americans that currently pay no tax, pay tax.

muddin
03-23-2010, 09:14 PM
I would be happy of if the 50% of Americans that currently pay no tax, pay tax.

theres a thoughtto ponder. the sad part is the ones that arent paying taxes and working under the table are a good majority that use the tax dollars on benefits klike welfare and medical, childcare and what not.

dnf777
03-23-2010, 09:30 PM
theres a thoughtto ponder. the sad part is the ones that arent paying taxes and working under the table are a good majority that use the tax dollars on benefits klike welfare and medical, childcare and what not.

Many who aren't paying taxes are sitting in board rooms across America....or Belize, or Costa Rica, or UAE.....not to worry, though, the middle class working guy will cover them.

Sabireley
03-24-2010, 05:21 AM
Everybody should have to pay at least $1 in taxes to be able to fully participate in all of the benefits afforded citizens. They should have to put it in an envelope and send it to the IRS. It is only fair. I know almost everyone pays sales tax, fuel tax, etc, but there is something sobering about taking money out of your pocket and sending it to government. Paying into the system gives you the right to comment on how the money is spent or misspent.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 05:50 AM
Everybody should have to pay at least $1 in taxes to be able to fully participate in all of the benefits afforded citizens. They should have to put it in an envelope and send it to the IRS. It is only fair. I know almost everyone pays sales tax, fuel tax, etc, but there is something sobering about taking money out of your pocket and sending it to government. Paying into the system gives you the right to comment on how the money is spent or misspent.
I actually agree that this is important. In fact, I believe that all income should be taxed regardless of source. This would include, for example, paying income of welfare payments even where that means grants need to be increased to cover the tax. Paying taxes is sobering and helps build a sense of ownership in how money is used. It also eliminates the nonsensical distinction between "tax payers" and non-tax payers. The reality is that everyone pays taxes, no matter what, and even the lowest income groups pay a relatively high percentage of their incomes in taxes when all the numbers are added together.

Hoosier
03-24-2010, 07:49 AM
I believe if everyone had to pay taxes the way self-employed people do, they would have a different attitude toward things. Like was said, actually writing that check makes you think about it. I know we couldn't do it that way because a lot of people just wouldn't write the check.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 07:52 AM
I believe if everyone had to pay taxes the way self-employed people do, they would have a different attitude toward things. Like was said, actually writing that check makes you think about it. I know we couldn't do it that way because a lot of people just wouldn't write the check.
For a long time, I have also believed that companies should not be permitted to buy health insurance on behalf of their employees, but that employees should have to pay for their insurance directly. That would probably do more to control health care costs than anything that can ever be done through regulation.

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 07:59 AM
That would be a good idea if they would pay me more to cover the extra costs I would be incurring. Would that happen? Not a chance. You would end up with people having even less of their net pay to live off of. What happens to the economy when people don't have much expendable income?

Sabireley
03-24-2010, 08:19 AM
For a long time, I have also believed that companies should not be permitted to buy health insurance on behalf of their employees, but that employees should have to pay for their insurance directly. That would probably do more to control health care costs than anything that can ever be done through regulation.

I agree as well. Companies providing insurance is the result of tax law allowing them to provide a benefit to employees without paying taxes on the incremental value. Having people pay for their own health insurance and eliminating the tax withholding from pay checks would drastically change healthcare costs and government spending. It would require an army of jack booted thugs to collect the taxes, however. ; ).

luvmylabs23139
03-24-2010, 08:47 AM
I would be happy of if the 50% of Americans that currently pay no tax, pay tax.

It would be only be fair if they paid for what they get.
It will never happen. THe dumms try to reduce the # of people who pay federal income taxes so they will vote for SOCIALISM!!!!

luvmylabs23139
03-24-2010, 08:55 AM
For a long time, I have also believed that companies should not be permitted to buy health insurance on behalf of their employees, but that employees should have to pay for their insurance directly. That would probably do more to control health care costs than anything that can ever be done through regulation.

Even going back to the old days when health insurance was " Major Medical"
would help.
How many people race their kids to the doctor for a cold or a sneeze because it only costs $20 co-pay and demand a useless antibiotic.

M&K's Retrievers
03-24-2010, 09:41 AM
Even going back to the old days when health insurance was " Major Medical"
would help.
How many people race their kids to the doctor for a cold or a sneeze because it only costs $20 co-pay and demand a useless antibiotic.

That would make too much sense. Catastrophic coverage as it was meant to be before state and federal regs destroyed it.

Sabireley
03-24-2010, 10:46 AM
Even going back to the old days when health insurance was " Major Medical"
would help.
How many people race their kids to the doctor for a cold or a sneeze because it only costs $20 co-pay and demand a useless antibiotic.

Health insurance has really become a prepaid medical plan rather than insurance protecting you from financial hardship due to catastrophic illness.

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 10:58 AM
Even going back to the old days when health insurance was " Major Medical"
would help.
How many people race their kids to the doctor for a cold or a sneeze because it only costs $20 co-pay and demand a useless antibiotic.

So people shouldn't be allowed to take their children to the doctor unless big brother approves?

Franco
03-24-2010, 12:52 PM
for all you who like bho.how much are you willing to pay in taxes for his programs like health care,cap and tax etc.is 50% enough or more say 80%.don't for get to add in state and local and sales tax to,and any others you can think of

Just as in Health Care, look for the government to nationalize the oil companies, just like Mexico's Pemex. Watch as several hundred-thousand well paying jobs get exported and the price at the pump mirrors that of the socialist European contries.

Hew
03-24-2010, 04:15 PM
I actually agree that this is important. In fact, I believe that all income should be taxed regardless of source. This would include, for example, paying income of welfare payments even where that means grants need to be increased to cover the tax. Kinda like the grants given to those who receive Earned Income Tax Credits so that in addition to receiving tax refunds on taxes they never paid in the first place they also don't have to pay their share of FICA/Social Security? Paying taxes is sobering and helps build a sense of ownership in how money is used. Paying taxes might be sobering if it actually came out of their pocket. What your proposing is akin to telling your teenager that you're going to charge him rent to live in your house and then giving him the money to pay the rent back to you. What the heck kind of lesson does that teach? That their parents are crazier than sh!thouse rats? And when did it become the government's job to impart life lessons and a sense of ownership to the governed? It also eliminates the nonsensical distinction between "tax payers" and non-tax payers. The reality is that everyone pays taxes, no matter what, and even the lowest income groups pay a relatively high percentage of their incomes in taxes when all the numbers are added together. The reality is that nearly 50% of the country doesn't pay a dime in federal income tax. And of the nearly 50% that don't pay a dime, a goodly chunk of them receive tax refunds for taxes they never paid a dime of in the first place. The taxes they do pay are almost entirely state or local.
.....................

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=588779#post588779)
I actually agree that this is important. In fact, I believe that all income should be taxed regardless of source. This would include, for example, paying income of welfare payments even where that means grants need to be increased to cover the tax. Kinda like the grants given to those who receive Earned Income Tax Credits so that in addition to receiving tax refunds on taxes they never paid in the first place they also don't have to pay their share of FICA/Social Security? Paying taxes is sobering and helps build a sense of ownership in how money is used. Paying taxes might be sobering if it actually came out of their pocket. What your proposing is akin to telling your teenager that you're going to charge him rent to live in your house and then giving him the money to pay the rent back to you. What the heck kind of lesson does that teach? That their parents are crazier than sh!thouse rats? And when did it become the government's job to impart life lessons and a sense of ownership to the governed? It also eliminates the nonsensical distinction between "tax payers" and non-tax payers. The reality is that everyone pays taxes, no matter what, and even the lowest income groups pay a relatively high percentage of their incomes in taxes when all the numbers are added together. The reality is that nearly 50% of the country doesn't pay a dime in federal income tax. And of the nearly 50% that don't pay a dime, a goodly chunk of them receive tax refunds for taxes they never paid a dime of in the first place. The taxes they do pay are almost entirely state or local.

Taxes are taxes. Many cry that social security taxes shouldn't count because they pay for a future benefit. The same people tend to be the first to argue that benefits should be cut so that it won't be necessary to pay back all the money borrowed from the social security tax fund to finance current operating deficits. If all taxes are added together, the percentage of income paid tends to be pretty constant across all income groups except that it goes down for people at the highest income levels. Someone like Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than any of us because his income comes primarily from dividends and capital gains that enjoy a preferred status (why should return on capital be subject to less taxation than return on labor?). If it weren't for the negative income tax (i.e., low income tax credits), the poorest among us would be paying the highest percentage of our incomes in taxes. I am a strong believer in a progressive tax system. However, most of our taxes are not even proportional; they are regressive. That is true for property taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, unemployment taxes, and disability taxes. Few states have progressive income taxes; most are proportional. Only the Federal income tax has been historically progressive and the creation of tax and deduction preferences that strongly favor those with higher incomes has has reduced that progressive effect dramatically. By the way, I think protection of income and wealth is a bigger driving force for how we spend our government money than provision of any social safety net.

freefall319
03-24-2010, 04:54 PM
For a long time, I have also believed that companies should not be permitted to buy health insurance on behalf of their employees, but that employees should have to pay for their insurance directly. That would probably do more to control health care costs than anything that can ever be done through regulation.


N/M, i mis-read that statement.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 05:05 PM
What? You cant be serious? Do you know how much that would cost the average family? The wages sure as hell would have to climb. I make a decent living and I know if I had to pay 100% of my Kaiser for my wife and kid's we'd have to move back into an appartment to make ends meet.

The employeer paying thier end actually means more to me than the COLA i get every year.

Amazing..........
My reasoning is threefold. My assumption is that employers would modify compensation to reflect the change so that employees would receive salary adjustments equal to the value of the benefits lost. For sake of argument, assume that happens.

The first thing noticed will be gross salary inequities since those receiving family coverage will be getting paid more that those without dependents even if they are doing the same job. We may believe that is desirable, but it would not stand in the face of competition for staff.

Second, employees would begin to understand the true cost of their benefits, increasing pressure for cost reductions that is not there now. Many will want to drop coverage or reduce the scope of benefits covered to reduce cost, forcing improved efficiency in health care.

Third, the competitiveness or American businesses within the global economy will be improved since they will not be paying health care costs. These costs are not paid by businesses in other countries.

If businesses were not paying health benefits, we would have had national health insurance years ago and health care would be consuming 10-12% of GDP instead of 16-17%.