if you don't work you don't have to buy the insurance.
if you don't drive you don't have to buy the insurance.
Enslavement-to-the-Health-Care-Sector Act of 2010
- Thread starter bootsie
- Start date
if you don't drive you don't have to buy the insurance.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
Duh!!Sorry really stoned...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hahahahahaha. not even close.
that is the most asinine and dishonest description i've ever heard to describe health insurance. health insurance is not simply paying someone else to pay your doctor, it is protection against enormous debt that comes with a major medical emergency.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i could be wrong, but i believe anyone within 133% of poverty gets access to medicaid rather than a fine for being poor.
i could also be wrong here, but i believe subsidies exist up to 3 or 4 times poverty. those are a lot of people who would likely get insured if they could afford it, and now that will be more possible.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Doesn't anyone here remember what happened in England when they raised their tax limits on the wealthy? They left.
psilocybryan
Member
ok, i'm old enough to know that insurance is a drain down which your hard earned money goes, until you need it. Then they tell you you have preexisting conditions and cannot have it.
Never believed in insurance, period! but as I said I'm old...and I carry it. not because I want to.
Whatever happened to the great idea of 'calamity accounts'? you bank money(instead of giving it to an insurance carrier) and it is availabe when it is needed?
I agree that "forcing" peoples to purchase health insurance is slavery.
As quickly as this bill was passed, my insurance carrier raised my rates by double!!! Sounds like the death knell for freedom.
There is no saving the United States with the federal government acting as enforcers for the corporations. These corporations (and banks) have a firm grip on this countrys testicles and they make policy.
Anyone who runs for office claiming to be ’for the people’ is using you. Anyone running for office claiming they will legalize cannabis, or do any other great humanitarian feat, knows that their success depends on average Joe not knowing what time polls close.
The federal government is just another corporate department, allowed to exceed its budget with the implied requirement of some return come April 15. They make us pay them to fuck us over!
The very thought of less government is itself an oxymoron. When the Dems first had their balanced budgets in the Clinton administration it looked like change was occurring. In hindsight this was a simple parry to set us up for the bush knockdown.
How can anyone figure the current political system will pull us out of this morass?
Yes, R. Paul & Son seem to represent what I would deem a step in the right direction, but we all know how that is working out, and things in Washington are getting weirder.
The pharma is opposed to any cheap effective remedy that they do not control in some way, so they will direct the government to continue the war against cannabis. They own both sides of the street in this game, so they make money coming and going, it is all just a shell game to them.
‘Course this is just how I feel.
Never believed in insurance, period! but as I said I'm old...and I carry it. not because I want to.
Whatever happened to the great idea of 'calamity accounts'? you bank money(instead of giving it to an insurance carrier) and it is availabe when it is needed?
I agree that "forcing" peoples to purchase health insurance is slavery.
As quickly as this bill was passed, my insurance carrier raised my rates by double!!! Sounds like the death knell for freedom.
There is no saving the United States with the federal government acting as enforcers for the corporations. These corporations (and banks) have a firm grip on this countrys testicles and they make policy.
Anyone who runs for office claiming to be ’for the people’ is using you. Anyone running for office claiming they will legalize cannabis, or do any other great humanitarian feat, knows that their success depends on average Joe not knowing what time polls close.
The federal government is just another corporate department, allowed to exceed its budget with the implied requirement of some return come April 15. They make us pay them to fuck us over!
The very thought of less government is itself an oxymoron. When the Dems first had their balanced budgets in the Clinton administration it looked like change was occurring. In hindsight this was a simple parry to set us up for the bush knockdown.
How can anyone figure the current political system will pull us out of this morass?
Yes, R. Paul & Son seem to represent what I would deem a step in the right direction, but we all know how that is working out, and things in Washington are getting weirder.
The pharma is opposed to any cheap effective remedy that they do not control in some way, so they will direct the government to continue the war against cannabis. They own both sides of the street in this game, so they make money coming and going, it is all just a shell game to them.
‘Course this is just how I feel.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
when was that then?
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
From April 1965 the standard rate of personal income tax to rise to 41.25% from 38.75% (no change in the reduced rates).
Proposals announced for new corporation tax to replace company income tax and profits tax, not likely to exceed 40%, to become operative in 1966. Stricter control of foreign investment and exchange announced.
corporation tax to be raised in the next Budget to 42.5% from 40% for 1967/68.
1969 corporation tax raised to 45%, indirect taxes raised and the two lowest bands of income tax - first £100 of taxable income at 20% and next £200 of taxable income at 30% - merged into one single band of first £260 taxable income at 30%.
income tax: personal allowances raised, standard rate remains at 41.25%, reduced rate of 30% on first £260 taxable income abolished; rate of initial allowances for capital expenditure in 1970/71 and 1971/72 on industrial buildings and structures increased from 15% to 30% (40% in development areas, intermediate areas and Northern Ireland); £900 limit to Domestic Credit Expansion (DCE) for 1970/71, bank lending restrictions eased.
new unified system of personal direct taxation, to begin in April 1973, a basic rate of 30% rising in steps to a maximum 75%; prescribed rate for VAT, to be introduced in April 1973, of 10%, with allowance to be made for alterations of rate in the range of 7.5%-12.5%; cut in rate of purchase tax on luxury goods.
1973 1.6 million strikers disrupt wide areas of industry, as part of protest against the introduction of Stage Two. Increases in prices to be based on allowable costs and profit margins.
FYI-1973 Price of gold closes at new peak of $126 per ounce in London markets.
Proposals announced for new corporation tax to replace company income tax and profits tax, not likely to exceed 40%, to become operative in 1966. Stricter control of foreign investment and exchange announced.
corporation tax to be raised in the next Budget to 42.5% from 40% for 1967/68.
1969 corporation tax raised to 45%, indirect taxes raised and the two lowest bands of income tax - first £100 of taxable income at 20% and next £200 of taxable income at 30% - merged into one single band of first £260 taxable income at 30%.
income tax: personal allowances raised, standard rate remains at 41.25%, reduced rate of 30% on first £260 taxable income abolished; rate of initial allowances for capital expenditure in 1970/71 and 1971/72 on industrial buildings and structures increased from 15% to 30% (40% in development areas, intermediate areas and Northern Ireland); £900 limit to Domestic Credit Expansion (DCE) for 1970/71, bank lending restrictions eased.
new unified system of personal direct taxation, to begin in April 1973, a basic rate of 30% rising in steps to a maximum 75%; prescribed rate for VAT, to be introduced in April 1973, of 10%, with allowance to be made for alterations of rate in the range of 7.5%-12.5%; cut in rate of purchase tax on luxury goods.
1973 1.6 million strikers disrupt wide areas of industry, as part of protest against the introduction of Stage Two. Increases in prices to be based on allowable costs and profit margins.
FYI-1973 Price of gold closes at new peak of $126 per ounce in London markets.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
I'm not old enough to remember it either, but I do know history. I believe that the British realized they had to make a change when a Beatle (I think) John Lennon moved to the US and actors like Oliver Reed moved to L.A.
It can happen here too. The United States can have an exodus if they tax the wealthy beyond what is reasonable. I bet that the politicians will even invent an exit tax, if they haven't already.
It can happen here too. The United States can have an exodus if they tax the wealthy beyond what is reasonable. I bet that the politicians will even invent an exit tax, if they haven't already.
abe23
Active Member
The current tax rate for the top bracket is relatively low, historically speaking. I'm pretty sure there was no exodus of the wealthy prior to the 1980s....
And we're talking about going back to levels we had during the 1990s for the top bracket. It's a raise from 36 to 39%...and this is only on income above 250,000, everything below is not taxed at that rate.
Excellent point. I believe you captured the author's intent here in a nutshell. Slavery doesn't have to be the blatant kind that normally gets all the attention. It can be suttle. And I agree with the author's use of the term in this case.
budsmoker87
New Member
I think it's absurd that the "wealthy" in this country are referred to as those who make what? $250,000/year? What's 250K after all property taxes, mortgage payments, SS, medicare/medicaid, automotive expenses, living expenses (6% inflation on food annually...an ever-rising inflated price in ALL commodities when the government does nothing but pump liquidity into the system)...those dollars you earn buy less. 250k is not what is was even 6 years ago
That's not wealth. WEALTH is those top hedge fund managers, recipients of bailout AND tarp money...making $900,000/HOUR...who the fuck makes that kinda dough?
WEALTH is obama's chief economic advisor larry summers, making $5 million in less than a week by Wells Fargo to give a schpeil to its investors
WEALTH is that faggot ass Warren Buffett, at every State of The Union address lol...who came out yesterday, saying that "critiques of obama's fiscal policies need to hush" LOL easy for him to say
WEALTH is david rockefeller...the wealthy OWN everything...just cuz u make 250K and can afford to OWN a house and pay your property taxes hardly makes u "wealthy"
I see a huge disconnect in realities between the truely wealthy and what seems to be defined as WEALTH
That's not wealth. WEALTH is those top hedge fund managers, recipients of bailout AND tarp money...making $900,000/HOUR...who the fuck makes that kinda dough?
WEALTH is obama's chief economic advisor larry summers, making $5 million in less than a week by Wells Fargo to give a schpeil to its investors
WEALTH is that faggot ass Warren Buffett, at every State of The Union address lol...who came out yesterday, saying that "critiques of obama's fiscal policies need to hush" LOL easy for him to say
WEALTH is david rockefeller...the wealthy OWN everything...just cuz u make 250K and can afford to OWN a house and pay your property taxes hardly makes u "wealthy"
I see a huge disconnect in realities between the truely wealthy and what seems to be defined as WEALTH
ganja girl
New Member
Hey there!
Is that graph for the US or the world? There are no references.
Winter Woman is right, the wealthy Brits left England in the 1970's and then the leaders realized they HAD to change the tax laws. If we go where Obama is taking us we will be heading in that direction very soon. The smartest, the best, the creative will leave if they are taxed beyond what is considered appropriate.
One country that might take them is Ireland. They have no income tax for people they consider 'artist'. And by artist they had said is recording artists, writers, and get this software writers, and INVENTORS, etc. So I'd say if you are making a very good living and you want to save you earnings and don't mind being Irish... But, they also have been hit by the global financial crisis and those rules may change, but... Oh yeah, they do have very poorly run government healthcare, but you can have private healthcare if you choose. Something more than we will be allowed here, unless we take healthcare vacations to say, India.
Is that graph for the US or the world? There are no references.
Winter Woman is right, the wealthy Brits left England in the 1970's and then the leaders realized they HAD to change the tax laws. If we go where Obama is taking us we will be heading in that direction very soon. The smartest, the best, the creative will leave if they are taxed beyond what is considered appropriate.
One country that might take them is Ireland. They have no income tax for people they consider 'artist'. And by artist they had said is recording artists, writers, and get this software writers, and INVENTORS, etc. So I'd say if you are making a very good living and you want to save you earnings and don't mind being Irish... But, they also have been hit by the global financial crisis and those rules may change, but... Oh yeah, they do have very poorly run government healthcare, but you can have private healthcare if you choose. Something more than we will be allowed here, unless we take healthcare vacations to say, India.
The current tax rate for the top bracket is relatively low, historically speaking. I'm pretty sure there was no exodus of the wealthy prior to the 1980s....
And we're talking about going back to levels we had during the 1990s for the top bracket. It's a raise from 36 to 39%...and this is only on income above 250,000, everything below is not taxed at that rate.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
well that shows tax rise but wheres evidence that all the wealthy british people left? it is a bit before my time too but having a rockstar and an actor move to LA isnt exactly proof
our tax rates are still much higher than yours yet we have more than a couple of "wealthy people" here even with paying such rates
I think the article wasn't bad, as far as it goes.
But like many attempts to analyse the web of problems in which much of the west is currently mired, it goes as far as pointing the finger at 'government' then stops. This is sloppy, stupid or disingenuous. 'Government' is critical to the functioning of any modern society. It is theoretically democratic and answerable to the general citizenry. The problem is that like many western governments, arguably more than most, the 'commanding heights' of the American government, the key agencies, have been captured by corporate interests so that you now have government by the corporations and for the corporations.
As for the comment that Britain suffered an exodus of its wealthy elites in recent decades, that's the first I've heard of that and, uh, so what? It can only have improved the nation's collective IQ and general productivity by shedding a bunch of useless parasites.
And its fucking unbelievable that people are going to bat here for the motherfucking rich! A moment's surfing will confirm that at least since the reign of the moronic Reagan, the rich, and particularly the extremely rich, have been making out like bandits. While income for the middle and working classes have been static or slightly declining since then, the wealthy have been steadily increasing their share of the total pie - at the expense of everybody else. Bush's tax cuts were the most shocking of all, favouring not the richest 1% of the population but only the richest 0.1%, who captured most of the cuts. I recall a clip of the microcephalic GW addressing a bunch of supporters as 'the haves - and the have-mores'. That says all you need to know about who your government is governing for.
So don't stop your analysis at this vague abstraction 'government' - follow the money, to the economic elite whose interests government represents. Obama is just the latest frontman from Wall Street, and when he is gone, you will all vote from a list of candidates that are acceptable to Wall Street - all other candidates will have been filtered out long before YOU get a chance to exercise your democratic rights.
So in this case, whatever Obama's intentions, he was simply unable to overcome the resistance of the private health insurance industry and instead, has fattened their purses even further. Direct your anger to the industry pulling the strings and not the compliant puppet whose smooth talking fooled so many.
My two cents.
But like many attempts to analyse the web of problems in which much of the west is currently mired, it goes as far as pointing the finger at 'government' then stops. This is sloppy, stupid or disingenuous. 'Government' is critical to the functioning of any modern society. It is theoretically democratic and answerable to the general citizenry. The problem is that like many western governments, arguably more than most, the 'commanding heights' of the American government, the key agencies, have been captured by corporate interests so that you now have government by the corporations and for the corporations.
As for the comment that Britain suffered an exodus of its wealthy elites in recent decades, that's the first I've heard of that and, uh, so what? It can only have improved the nation's collective IQ and general productivity by shedding a bunch of useless parasites.
And its fucking unbelievable that people are going to bat here for the motherfucking rich! A moment's surfing will confirm that at least since the reign of the moronic Reagan, the rich, and particularly the extremely rich, have been making out like bandits. While income for the middle and working classes have been static or slightly declining since then, the wealthy have been steadily increasing their share of the total pie - at the expense of everybody else. Bush's tax cuts were the most shocking of all, favouring not the richest 1% of the population but only the richest 0.1%, who captured most of the cuts. I recall a clip of the microcephalic GW addressing a bunch of supporters as 'the haves - and the have-mores'. That says all you need to know about who your government is governing for.
So don't stop your analysis at this vague abstraction 'government' - follow the money, to the economic elite whose interests government represents. Obama is just the latest frontman from Wall Street, and when he is gone, you will all vote from a list of candidates that are acceptable to Wall Street - all other candidates will have been filtered out long before YOU get a chance to exercise your democratic rights.
So in this case, whatever Obama's intentions, he was simply unable to overcome the resistance of the private health insurance industry and instead, has fattened their purses even further. Direct your anger to the industry pulling the strings and not the compliant puppet whose smooth talking fooled so many.
My two cents.
abe23
Active Member
This is for US only....the marginal tax rate for the top income bracket.
Where is obama taking us as far as taxes go? As far as I can tell, all he is suggesting is that tax rates for the top bracket return to pre-bush era rates in order to reduce the deficit. Specifically, a 3% increase on income over 250k. Why the hyperbole? Oh yeah...election year politics.
And seriously, if you think a 3 is the path towards socialism and the nanny state, Ireland might not be the best place for you. Corporate tax rates are among the lowest in the EU, true, but income tax rates are actually higher:
41% on income about 45k EUR compared to obama's proposed 39% on income above 250k USD. I don't know about this exemption for creative professions, but it seems like if you're a millionaire, you're probably better off staying in the US of A. The best part is that if you're a fund manager, you're taxed on capital gains not income, so you actually end up paying 15%. Those poor rich bastards...
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Please don't twist my words, I never said ALL the wealthy left. But here is some more famous people that left the Emerald Isles back then, there is no idea how many wealthy but unknown have left. George Harrison and John Lennon wrote ‘Taxman’ for a reason
Richard Burton
Cat Stevens
Rolling Stones
John Lennon
Dave Clark
Michael Caine
Jethro Tull
Ronnie Corbett
David Bowie
Bad Company
Donovan
David Rowland
Ronnie Barker
David Barclay
Fredrick Barclay
Pink Floyd
Shirley Bassey
George Harrison
Ringo Starr
Tom Jones
Freddie Mercury
Rod Stewart
Oliver Reed
Roger Moore
Guy Hamilton
Rex Harrison
Joan Collins
Noel Coward
I'm sure there is more...
Richard Burton
Cat Stevens
Rolling Stones
John Lennon
Dave Clark
Michael Caine
Jethro Tull
Ronnie Corbett
David Bowie
Bad Company
Donovan
David Rowland
Ronnie Barker
David Barclay
Fredrick Barclay
Pink Floyd
Shirley Bassey
George Harrison
Ringo Starr
Tom Jones
Freddie Mercury
Rod Stewart
Oliver Reed
Roger Moore
Guy Hamilton
Rex Harrison
Joan Collins
Noel Coward
I'm sure there is more...
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Money is relative obviously but I think most people in the United States would consider someone who makes $250,000 a year wealthy.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Most people would realize that it is well off, but not wealthy. People who make $250k are still working people. I don't consider it rich, but I do consider it well off.
I used to work for a high-end landscaper to the truly wealthy and $250,000 is just a drop in the bucket. $250,000 is just a nice home, a cool car and great vacations.
That being said I sure wouldn't mind $250,000. My feelings are that we should have a Flat Tax and everyone just pay up. No deductions