Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
I'm going to keep this simple for those with issues following along.
The Evolver promised that if you made less than $250,000.00 a year, then later under $200,000.00 per year, then later Biden said $125,000.00 per year, then later yet Obama put the bar back to under $200,000.00 per year, that you would see no tax increases, in fact you would see a tax cut.
Now we hear he is pushing for our medical insurance to be taxed, something for which he blasted his rival back in the run for president.
How does increasing tax equal a tax cut for 95% of American, especially when only half of that 95% actually pay income taxes to begin with?
I said I would keep it simple.
But what would I know; I'm just an Average American.
Under $200,000.00 a year, NO TAX INCREASE?
|
Posted By: Average American Posted on: Jun. 25, 2009 at 6:41 AM  32 Comments
|
3.0 / 5
Based on 2 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Jun. 25, 2009 at 03:01:08 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
||
|
Jun. 26, 2009 at 05:28:55 AM
|
|
| "Or that Obama ran against..." Ya, that's my problem with it. As I said before, just once I want to see a liberal say maybe we should try having the government live like the rest of us. When they don't have enough money for what they want, they have to live on what they have or move the money around that do have. Willy, good to see your back. Actually I am far more average than you will ever know. But you keep up the good fight old boy. |
||
|
|
Jun. 27, 2009 at 08:39:34 AM
|
|
| WTF? No explanations for the Evolver's actions? We were told no increases... not some in ways you won't notice. Face it, your boy's a fraud. |
||
|
Jun. 27, 2009 at 11:43:19 AM
|
|
| The explanation is he is letting the congress work on the matter, and he is using Rahmbo to craft the bill behind the scenes. So, alot of ideas are getting tossed around right now, some good, some not so good. But explain to me why compensation in the form of healthcare is not taxed, and yet ex-Sen. Dashcle got in trouble for not paying taxes on a limo service provided by an employer? I mean I pay taxes on all my income, but others get $15k a year tax free? |
||
|
|
Jun. 27, 2009 at 12:00:04 PM
|
|
| Sorry, premature comment - The rest of that is, so why now do Republicans favor using the tax code for social engineering? Are we to find more things that conservatives find worthy, and carve out preferential tax treatments for those? Will we have a Sanford tax break for wealthy Americans to deduct the cost of travel to go schtup their mistresses, so long as it is international? To look at it from a fresh perspective, imagine twin bros, Milo and Otis Milo gets sweet insurance from his quasi governmental employment at the US Postal Service, and he pays taxes on his income $45,000, but not on the healthcare portion his employer provides, say $15000 a year more. Otis, who works as a private contractor IT guy, earns $60,000, and buys insurance thru a private healthcare provider. Milo pays taxes on $45k, which if he has a wife + 2 kids, and is a homeowner washes out to taxable income of less than $15000, giving him something less than a $1600 tax bill. Otis pays taxes on $60k, which if he has a wife + 2 kids, and is a homeowner is still gonna leave him with taxable income of the same $15k of Milo's plus $15k extra income, of which then he can write off his healthcare costs, but he only can deduct them, he doesn't get to completely write it off as not income. Leaving him somewhere around $25k in taxable income, and a bill around $3000. Now, why give preferential treatment to Milo? Are we to prefer Americans to work for big companies, and not be entrepreneurial? Is the position of the American conservative movement away from the free market, and to monopolies and corporatism? Or is it more likely that this is only about killing change? The change that 72% of Americans want for healthcare. |
||
|
|
Jun. 27, 2009 at 01:01:01 PM
|
|
| 72%? where are you getting that number? More than half of all Americans say they are happy with their current provider. And I and most conservatives believe that the taxing of anything not previously taxed is a bad idea. What we should be doing is getting government out of healthcare all together and allowing the market to set the pricing. |
||
|
|
Jun. 27, 2009 at 02:35:20 PM
|
|
| 72%? where are you getting that number? More than half of all Americans say they are happy with their current provider. === In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health By KEVIN SACK and MARJORIE CONNELLY Published: June 20, 2009 Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector. Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care. That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like. Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better. The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.=== the bold parts were by me. So yes, 77% are satisfied with their own care, 72% support a medicare for all, and 85% want a total overhaul of the present system. A -- And I and most conservatives believe that the taxing of anything not previously taxed is a bad idea. B -- What we should be doing is getting government out of healthcare all together and allowing the market to set the pricing. ====The problem is, if we get govt outta healthcare, then how would you justify not taxing healthcare benefits paid to employees? I thought the cornerstone of all conservative thought was not to use the tax code to conduct social engineering, and yet by favoring companies that provide benefits over those who do not, aren't you then advocating social engineering? I mean then, why not allow for the use of the tax code to favor other industries that those in power favor, or to use the tax code to punnish those those in power oppose? Or, do you now relinquish the piss and moan argument against taxing and restricting tobacco sales and consumption? Or do you allow that liberals are fully within our rights to use the tax code to conduct social engineering? |
||
|
|
Jun. 27, 2009 at 05:17:21 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by Phaedrus on Jun. 27, 2009 at 02:35:20 PM]
Phaedrus
Jun. 27, 2009 at 02:35:20 PM 72%? where are you getting that number? More than half of all Americans say they are happy with their current provider. === In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health By KEVIN SACK and MARJORIE CONNELLY Published: June 20, 2009 Americans... View this Comment that's the way you do it right now, not us. Social engineering is a Democratic cornerstone, not a conservative one. Reduce taxes on all the people, all the businesses and all the corporations. Free capital to work for all. Not take more and more even though there is no way to pay it back to the Chinese. When will you people ever learn. |
||
|
|
Jun. 28, 2009 at 09:59:41 AM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jun. 27, 2009 at 05:17:21 PM]
Average American
Jun. 27, 2009 at 05:17:21 PM that's the way you do it right now, not us. Social engineering is a Democratic cornerstone, not a conservative one. Reduce taxes on all the people, all the businesses and all the corporations. Free capital to work for all. Not take more and more... View this Comment Social engineering is a Democratic cornerstone, not a conservative one. ? so then why are you using the power of govt to conduct social engineering to favor people and corps spending money on healthcare tax free? |
||
Do you mean the same tax increase that was key to Sen. John McCain's healthcare proposals? Or that Obama ran against, and that he is now saying he won't prejudge what the legislators are doing, until he sees the final bill?
And lets be clear, under the current system, employers who provide healthcare get to write it off as an expense, but the employee doesn't need to count it as income, and that is the only form of compensation treated that way, other than traditional IRA's, which still get taxed when withdrawls are made.
Lastly, the tax cut has already been passed, and even though 50% of the US doesn't pay income taxes, they do pay FICA and medicare taxes. Those payroll taxes that were doubled under Reagan, while he was cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% from 70% to 28%. And 70% of Americans pay more payroll taxes than they do federal income taxes.
Report Abuse