Reply With Quote
This always amuses me because I'm Whitey O'Whitey, but technically a minority.
In no particular order.
1. A reduction in the capital gains tax(on stock) is solely a tax cut for the rich and has almost nothing to do with helping the economy.
2. Tax cuts don't always mean Revenue Reduction.
3. Minorities need access to capital. A TAX Incentive for rich people(accredited investors) to directly invest in Minority owned businesses would do wonders. My idea, allow accredited investors to make $25,000 tax deductible loans to minority owned businesses.
4. We can eliminate Defense Spending and still have a budgetary problem. Medicare is eating us alive. When people think of Welfare baby, they need to stop picturing minority families on food stamps. White Elderly People are the Elephant in the room.
This always amuses me because I'm Whitey O'Whitey, but technically a minority.
I pretty much agree with this. As a small business owner - the ONLY thing the capital gains rate does is affect how I take my income; as W-2 or as a dividend (which is capital gains, PLUS the corporation can't deduct it).
2. Tax cuts don't always mean Revenue Reduction.The govt. is incapable of policing "minority owned". Look at the govt. contracting business for example. Also, seems like a violation of the Cons ution; although I'm sure the courts wouldn't see it that way. Also, too many rich people with too much money to shelter; NO WAY you could keep any such scheme from actually achieving its purpose; it would be worked and bas ized.3. Minorities need access to capital. A TAX Incentive for rich people(accredited investors) to directly invest in Minority owned businesses would do wonders. My idea, allow accredited investors to make $25,000 tax deductible loans to minority owned businesses.
True that.4. We can eliminate Defense Spending and still have a budgetary problem. Medicare is eating us alive. When people think of Welfare baby, they need to stop picturing minority families on food stamps. White Elderly People are the Elephant in the room.
"Medicare is eating us alive"
1) Americans inflict themselves with disease. All Freedom, No Responsibility. But don't ever dare ask Americans to eat responsibly, take care of themselves, quit eating too much, and quit eating coporate . $200B/year in obesity costs alone. And that ain't genetic, it's good ol' "Christian" gluttony (eg, morbidly obese "Christian" John Hagee).
2) Medicare is paying what the health care providers bill, and the providers still complain that Medicare/Medicaid doesn't pay enough for the docs to live their luxurious life-styles, even after ordering all kinds of useless tests to run up the bill. The real target is not the govt, but the super high cost American health care, because coverage and outcomes are are not better, and often worse than national/universal health care in other industrial countries.
Great, start a business and hire other Whitey O'Whitey minorities.This always amuses me because I'm Whitey O'Whitey, but technically a minority.
I like All Freedom with Consequences for bad behavior. The No Responsibility of the individual is that part I argue with all the time.
American Health Care is much more technologically advanced than other national/universal health care programs. The doctors I've talked to argue the technology adds little to no value in a lot of cases, but does increase the cost. I couldn't tell you, because it's beyond me.2) Medicare is paying what the health care providers bill, and the providers still complain that Medicare/Medicaid doesn't pay enough for the docs to live their luxurious life-styles. The real target is not the govt, but the super high cost American health care, because coverage and outcomes are are not better, and often worse than national/universal health care in other industrial countries.
What I do know is too many people want something for nothing. We need to increase the skin in the game.
Agreed. Bumping the cap gains tax rates to more closely match the ordinary income tax rates should happen. Maybe not so much at the lower brackets, but definitely up top.
Agreed.2. Tax cuts don't always mean Revenue Reduction.
Not a fan of racially targeted tax breaks.3. Minorities need access to capital. A TAX Incentive for rich people(accredited investors) to directly invest in Minority owned businesses would do wonders. My idea, allow accredited investors to make $25,000 tax deductible loans to minority owned businesses.
Agreed. Medicare & SS pose the largest threats to our financial security.4. We can eliminate Defense Spending and still have a budgetary problem. Medicare is eating us alive. When people think of Welfare baby, they need to stop picturing minority families on food stamps. White Elderly People are the Elephant in the room.
Tax cuts of any stripe without reductions in spending do not help the economy as a whole.
Investments that don't help businesses ac ulate capital don't either.
Thinking of using minority opportunity funds to monetize some hobbies, and found others actually.
So more Federal Programs. I thought you were a conservative? Accredited Investors know much more than the federal government. Hence, making underwriting more appropriate for each individual situation. Get the Government out of the way.3. Minorities need access to capital. A TAX Incentive for rich people(accredited investors) to directly invest in Minority owned businesses would do wonders. My idea, allow accredited investors to make $25,000 tax deductible loans to minority owned businesses.
stupid idea. 1) Minorities are not discriminated against in business loans. In fact, Banks aggressively look for legitimate lending opportunities in the minority communities because of existing Federal lending guidelines. 2) If minority loans were a big deal then set up a Federal business loan program where the Feds guarantee bank loans with the borrowers permission. Default on your loan and the Feds pay the bank off and then the IRS collects from you
4. We can eliminate Defense Spending and still have a budgetary problem. Medicare is eating us alive. When people think of Welfare baby, they need to stop picturing minority families on food stamps. White Elderly People are the Elephant in the room.
Just WHITE old people? Dumbass. BTW, those "old people" have paid into the medicare "trust fund" all their lives..*checking my statement* As an example, I'm only 55 and have already paid in over $100,000 to Medicare alone. Too bad the mother ers in Washington already spent my $100,000 on other
so of the 1.45% you pay a year in Medicare, you have paid $100,000 at 55. So you have made almost $7,000,000 since the age of 30. About $275,000 per year. No bad, you've almost paid in what you will take out. You need about 20 more working years.
biggest hurdle, but I'll explain why it makes sense later. Be back in an hour or so.
Just to point out, Medicare pays what health care providers bill it for because health care providers arent' allowed to bill it for anything else. I'm not a doctor, so it's not like I can give a comparison regarding cost vs payout, just wanted to be clear that Medicare is very restricted in what Dr.s are allowed to bill it for and what the payouts will be.
It's not like the Drs are billing their normal prices and Medicare is paying them. Every year Drs write off a large amount of money between what they normally charge and what Medicare pays.
Very powerful word is "AUDIT". The mere fact it's a red flag issue should police it IMO.
If he's self-employed, then he's paying 2.9%, not 1.45%.
I would mostly agree.
I do think we need to bite the bullet and just get a single payor system. We need more socialism, not less, simply because health insurance is one area where capitalism doesn't work well due to our own laws.
You know, those laws that require hospitals to take anybody in their emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay or not.
I think we have two choices in the long run:
1) Decide we are comfortable with letting people who can't pay literally die on the steps of hospitals
or
2) Realize that this begins a cycle of highly inefficient cost-shifting
It is a bit more complicated than that, of course, but one other thing I think a single payor system will do is to reduce the administrative costs associated with health care providers having to file bazillions of different forms with bazillions of different insurance companies who have bazzillions of different policies.
Our aging population poses the largest threat to our financial security, followed closely behind by our over-dependence on fossil fuels.
Medicare/SS are simply convenient whipping-boys. Get rid of them if you want, but the problems will not go away.
How then do you deal with an aging population who would not, or for that matter could not, save the required amount of money to retire, when they are literally too old to work?
Forced euthanasia? What is the free-market solution for poor, sick old people? Anyone?
The sad part is he doesn't realize that he's paying 2.9% too. That other 1.45% he "forgot" about is his compensation that his employer deducted and paid before he wrote the paycheck he saw that took out the next 1.45%.
No, I didn't give you credit for being a business owner. If so, you paid about 2.4% after-tax.
Still waiting for why you are advocating bigger government?
Our country is built on taking care of our elderly and poor. Problem is that we do it inefficiently. I'm in agreement on a one payer system if we do it in the form of an annual Tax Credit that pays for government mandated minimum coverage from private insurer. People who want additional coverage can pay for it on their own.
why don't you drop the healthcare and give your employees the option?
thats what i'm considering. right now, not including my family, i'm paying 17k a month.
Bingo. Most tend to forget that, so it is a widely repeated mistake.
First, you have the numbers wrong.
It's a sleight of hand to make you think you pay less.
Before your employer writes your check he pays 6.2% of that number for SS and 1.45% for medicare. Then he writes the check to you and deducts another 6.2% for SS and another 1.45% for medicare.
If your check for the month says you made $3000 less taxes you employer REALLY paid you an additional $230 that month that he just deducted for your taxes before he wrote the check.
Your cost to him as an employer was $3230. for that month, not counting other taxes and expenses like unemployment insurance, workmans comp, etc.
And what makes you say I'm for bigger government? Because I preferred a loan guarantee backed up by the IRS hammer over tax credits you never get back?
I feel the same way about student loans. , yeah, lets give government guarantees for student loans. Then, if they try to default then turn it over to the IRS and garnish their paychecks forever till the loans are paid off.
not to mention the anxiety i get with every piece of literature that comes from blue cross.
Private insurers cost far more in terms of overhead than Medicare does to do the exact same job.
Forcing everybody onto the rolls of private insurers simply will make insurance cost far more to society as a whole than it would otherwise.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
