Reply With Quote
60k in Texas with no family to support will get you anything u want plus be able to save a ton tbh
When you're on your own you'll understand my frustrations. Not trying to be a but collecting a paycheck is much different than writing one.
60k in Texas with no family to support will get you anything u want plus be able to save a ton tbh
I have no doubt it is. I think the current system burdens small business owners which is a big reason why I'm for public healthcare so small businesses don't have to pay out the ass to ensure their employees while it's a drop-in-the-bucket cost for large businesses.
Honest question, when Mitt Romney was saying "Corporations are people too!" do you really think he was saying it with people like you in mind?
Agree, people more often than not eat meat for its taste rather than its nutrition imho. Eggs contain every substance meat has that your body needs, and eggs are much chaper and much easier to cook.
People like me? you mean small business? I don't know. I feel that he meant there is a person or many behind each. Too often we think if you're a big business, you don't deserve profit or you're employees are more important that the company.
Someone, somewhere busted there ass or took risks to make that big company.
I also think price gouging is totally acceptable so i'm probably just a piece of trash anyway.
Small business would rather hire illegal aliens for whom they don't need to pay healthcare at all. If you think the current system burdens small business owners, you're supposed to be an opponent against the idea of "public healthcare" or compulsory healthcare which would financially squash them even more, imho.
I don't know the answer to healthcare but my very healthy family of the wife and two young boys are over $11k a year with a $2500 deductable. All the more reason that somedays i think i should just move to Galt's Gulch and say f it.
No it wouldn't. Public healthcare would level the playing field. Right now bigger companies can provide better private healthcare to their employees at a lower cost per employee than small businesses can.
Illegal aliens aren't around here much but i'd imagine that if they were available that the work ethic would be better and the main reason why a company would want to do that.
The only manual labor available here is drugged out and/or spends their days typically playing many hours of Black Ops. Which is why i really don't think much of when I hear how hard it is to get a job. Either move or become competent.
Yup. You're not a part of a large pool so you get screwed regardless of your health. In a true single payer system (notbamacare) small businesses don't get shoved in the ass with healthcare costs.
The company I work for provides a preferred PPO plan to me where I pay $55 a month, which is something any small business would be incapable of doing.
Yup. You're not a part of a large pool so you get screwed regardless of your health. In a true single payer system (not
The company I work for provides a preferred PPO plan to me where I pay $55 a month, which is something any small business would be incapable of doing.
BC&BS I called a few years ago prior to having our second son and asked if we could move to a higher deductable but keep maternity. Long pause, Well there IS a plan with a $5000 deductable but you would have to give up maternity.
My brother has rheumatoid arthritis. I had pain in my knee for a year and i had it checked out and asked them if it was that. They said no, i just overused it and needed to rehab it. Fast forward a year later when we changed to a family plan they wanted to put a rider on for ligament damage. I don't see how that's even possible.
It would be great if health insurance could be purchansed on a leveled ground for everyone, but I believe that healthcare should be optional rather than obligatory. For example, I'm healthy and vigorous as so I'm probably never gonna need that . Some politicians (you know who) are trying to impose it on everyone's head like tax, and I don't see how they're gonna succeed doing this in a true democracy that the US is.
For healthcare to be optional and fairly priced in my unwise eyes the only option is to curtail free healthcare for the poor.
Nothing is free, those that pay for insurance are also paying for those without.
What do you figure genetically modified olive oil will do to you, just out of curiosity?
It's still a pain in the ass though. I used to cook a bunch with olive oil till I figured out olive oil is basically a sure thing to have genetically modified ingredients
Last edited by pgardn; 08-11-2013 at 09:01 AM.
"in my unwise eyes the only option is to curtail free healthcare for the poor."
your eyes are full of , seeing that the poor are the (primary? sole?) cause of the USA paying double what other industrial countries pay for health care and getting worse health outcomes.
On the topic of the poor, if Walmart and other labor exploiters paid a living wage, the working poor could make (public) health insurance payments without taxpayer support.
Why does the American middle class continue to struggle financially?
A brief summary:
Household spending on goods that fulfill pleasure, self-esteem, or social status needs have generally been falling, including personal care items, apparel, home furnishings, and automobiles.
However, consumption spending has risen most in four product categories that shape families' health, safety, and economic viability: health care, education, housing, and commuting costs.
Prices in these four product markets have greatly outpaced both wages and prices in general.
Americans may be systematically pressed to overspend on housing because access to better schools, public services, and transportation infrastructure varies considerably across communities, and better-heeled communities often restrict affordable housing developments. Americans may face a relatively high well-being penalty for living in more modestly-priced homes.
Compared to other highly-developed countries, the U.S. does considerably less to control the personal financial burden borne by households to ensure access to these products and services essential to well-being.
Soaring tuition and health care costs are not the principal drivers of household financial distress, but they cons ute the fastest-growing problem.
Cohen argues that our penchant to blame household spending problems on wastefulness or frivolities obscures the fact that Americans increasingly face a lose-lose dilemma in which they must choose between sustainable finances and access to quality schools, child care, medical care, public safety, and employment opportunities.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdt080613.php
So by not requiring everyone to have health insurance, what solution do you have to provide insurance for the poor?
One that does not consist of me paying theirs either through bloated premiums or medical costs.
Also without the use of taxes?
Why is it my responsibility?
I'm already fed up with the current risk/reward system. Now you expect me to somehow foot another $12k for my employee? (I pay the nonsmoking healthy single premium for him)
Sounds to me it would be a lot easier if I just downsize and get rid of an employee.
zeitgeist
Fair point, though when I saw "all that matters" I did mean within the context of the discussion at hand.
And in your above statement, I think you mean to say "the higher the nominal rate, the higher the "tax avoidance" benefit to the corporation."
If taxes are zero, there is no benefit to avoid paying them. The higher the tax rate, the greater incentive to find ways to avoid paying them (which includes still-legal methods such as hiring employees and increased capital spending)
Lots of legal ways, though admittedly gray, including tax shelters and havens. Deductions/expenses that force you to spend $1 to receive $.42 in benefit make no financial sense in a vacuum. Anyways, wasn't trying to pick-up where Tlong fell short. Just thought I would add my 2cents.
*When* hiring or capital investment are the top alternative, "$1 for $0.42" isn't the proper way to look it though. The right way to evaluate it at the margin is "$1*(1-marginal tax rate)" of investment for "$X (the marginal ROI)".
The problem is that "gray" (or explicitly illegal) tax shelters have increased the cost of hiring and capital spending. This is the whole rationale behind the idea of closing loopholes & lowering nominal rates (and even potentially effective rates) for a broader tax base as employment & output increase.
The biggest problem with the arguments of popular tax reformers is that they miss this, and focus on "less taxes means more money to hire/invest". We don't have a collective "ability to pay" problem among corporations, we have a "willingness to pay" problem bc our tax code has skewed incentives by making tax shelters so readily accessible.
But to be fair, I can see why the full logic of the need for reform would be lost on a segment of the population: there are those (far left liberals) who could never get behind any reduction in nominal rates, and there are those (tea party) who could never get behind limiting a company's right to shelter themselves from taxes via shady loopholes
I'll respond more fully later, but your first paragraph seems to suggest raising taxes would result in lower unemployment and increased corp capital expenditures?
yes, low corporate/capital taxes encourages corp mgmt, now mostly paid in 15% capital gains stock options (on that which they don't hide overseas) to maximize the profits (lay people off, reduce investment, etc etc), pay dividends, stock buy backs rather the retain the profits for investment. High taxes encourage investment to reduce the profit margin and taxes paid.
If you don't close loopholes, then no. Then raising rates will only give more incentive to shelter in other ways.
An alternative interpretation would be that eliminating loopholes would have the intended effect.
Accelerating depreciation could also have a similar effect.
so lets pretend all loopholes are closed. Are you saying that raising the tax rate on freetail to 60% would lead you to hire more people and make additional capital purchases? Ill admit im in the camp that believes lowering your tax rate would incentivize you to invest more in your company, while raising your rate would make it tougher for you to stay in business.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions