HR-2: Repeal of "Obama Care"

[thisisthatwhichis]

are there enough "high income=1M/yr." earners, to make a difference, at a high level?

I always understood, that, the real numbers, and money, lay in the "middle class".

Just wonderin, if taxed at 80%, would enough money come from "them" to make a difference?

Well, that's actually where most of the federal income comes from. The top 10% pay almost 80% of the taxes.... or so the saying goes.... but it's kinda true.
Only problem is those 10% are pretty smart and won't provide the investments needed in the private sector to keep it growing, so the gov coffers loose more in the long run. You can see it with all of the offshoring that everyone complains about.

[ygmir]

hhhm well, ok.
so, if the top10% pay so much, how can they take more? and, how fair is it to put that much burden there?

I really like the idea of a flat tax.......probably in the form of a national sales tax.

[Eric]

IF, they had OUR best interests at heart,

And there, my friend, is the crux of the matter.

Until we can buy elections like the corporations can, they will never have our interests at heart. With the ruling that lets unlimited funds get dumped into elections anonymously, they may never have our interests in mind again.

I think that's something Left, Right & Center can agree on.

[littleflower]

and it's so easy to say tax the rich, but does anyone know how to do it? does anyone out there really think that raising tax on earnings above $250,000 will affect people who are actually "wealthy" ... ie, more than $25M net worth??????

Yes. Tell the Republicans you don't want the taxes on the wealthiest Americans extended again. They're the ones who did it- the Dems wanted it to lapse. Remember last month? The Republicans blocked all legislation until the richest got to keep a tax break. At a cost of over $100 billion to the deficit.

We're also the only major democracy that puts everyone over $250,000 in one catagory. We could set new tax levels at $1 million, $10 million, $100 million- wherever. Of course, it will be blocked as a "job killer", because we all know that when the top median tax bracket was 90% (roughly 1947-1970) America was in the garbage heap. Unlike the current 37.5%, when we're on top of the world.

my point is that over $250K is not wealthy. $500K/year isn't wealthy. and that's who gets slammed by raising taxes. i am absolutely against raising tax at that level.

when federal income taxes were at 90%, the wealthy weren't paying it, due to loopholes. most of those loopholes were closed in 1986, as well as many deductions - even itemized deductions are phased out around the 250K level. also, state taxes have increased, and sales taxes..... i mean, how much do you think is fair to take from people who earn a lot of money?

[ygmir]

IF, they had OUR best interests at heart,

And there, my friend, is the crux of the matter.

Until we can buy elections like the corporations can, they will never have our interests at heart. With the ruling that lets unlimited funds get dumped into elections anonymously, they may never have our interests in mind again.

I think that's something Left, Right & Center can agree on.

I think (wish) it has less to do with money being dumped into elections, that it has to do with a lazy electorate, who vote based on soundbites and sexual fantasy, rather than learning about the candidates, and, also, holding them responsible for lies told during campaigns, just to get elected.

I totally agree, there is way to much money available, and spent, on elections......

I'd like to see a series of finite lenght essays written by candidates, as well as pre determined length "infomercials".

no money spent, other that on those productions.

and handshaking.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Well, I don't think that 10% tax will fly now either, cause it will raise taxes huge for lower income folks, that can't afford it.

I think it's working OK kinda for now if gov will quit spending more than they make.... But that's for another thread. This is the Healthcare thread.

[ygmir]

well, there is a "health care" thread, somewhere........this is the repealing of same.........

[littleflower]

I think it's working OK kinda for now if gov will quit spending more than they make.... But that's for another thread. This is the Healthcare thread.

actually, i think the "spending less than they make" line works for any thread discussing the government ...

[thisisthatwhichis]

IF, they had OUR best interests at heart,

And there, my friend, is the crux of the matter.

Until we can buy elections like the corporations can, they will never have our interests at heart. With the ruling that lets unlimited funds get dumped into elections anonymously, they may never have our interests in mind again.

I think that's something Left, Right & Center can agree on.

(((((Hugs Eric)))) Yea, that's the business as usual they all go to fight with in one hand, while taking the contirbution in the other.

[ygmir]

I think it's working OK kinda for now if gov will quit spending more than they make.... But that's for another thread. This is the Healthcare thread.

actually, i think the "spending less than they make" line works for any thread discussing the government ...

"........and the lavender team gets to points for brevity and content"...........

[geekster]

I think it was ironic to note that the repeal bill got more total votes today than the original passage vote got. Add to the mix the fact that only 8000 people in the entire country have signed up for the program and now it looks like they are going to run out of money anyway, I would be surprised if the repeal bill passes. But it will get vetoed. But then the House will simply cut off the funding and it will die of starvation.

[Elderberry]

Oh yea, and I forgot a BIG ONE.... Tort reform.... Niether side is willing to take that up because....... Drum Roll... They are all (mostly) a bunch of freakin lawyers.......



Bajeez, just look in the yellow pages..... "Call 1-800 to take a bunch of money from someone else, cause by god it's there to take".... Hehehehe ignore the huge percentage we rake off of it, hehehehe.....

Tort reform is a red herring. I'm not saying that it might not be a good idea, but the amount of money saved would be negligible. Certainly not enough to effect the argument.

JK

[thisisthatwhichis]

Oh yea, and I forgot a BIG ONE.... Tort reform.... Niether side is willing to take that up because....... Drum Roll... They are all (mostly) a bunch of freakin lawyers.......



Bajeez, just look in the yellow pages..... "Call 1-800 to take a bunch of money from someone else, cause by god it's there to take".... Hehehehe ignore the huge percentage we rake off of it, hehehehe.....

Tort reform is a red herring. I'm not saying that it might not be a good idea, but the amount of money saved would be negligible. Certainly not enough to effect the argument.

JK

Well in a way ya might be right. Them full page ads, TV comercials, lawyers dream houses, cars and boats get paid for from funds gained by nothing produced of tangible value ... But, they do spread it around in the economy (kinda like them bankers).

[geekster]

I disagree, tort reform is crucial. These idiotic "litigation lotto" lawsuits have to stop.

1. Allow insurers to compete across state lines (federal government clearly is within its mandate to make that happen).

2. Allow private individuals and small businesses to form groups to get lower rates from having a larger group.

3. Eliminate the idiotic lawsuits that force providers to perform unnecessary procedures. Example: One John Edwards of South Carolina is single-handedly responsible for an amazing increase in cesarean births. He specialized in lawsuits against any practitioner that naturally delivered a baby later having cerebral palsy claiming that had there been a c-section, the cp would not have happened. As a result, most births are now by c-section but the rate of cp is unchanged. There are lawyers who make a good living suing doctors.

4. I would almost go so far as to say that if #1 and #2 are enacted, outlaw employers providing health insurance. People should have their own insurance just like they have their own car insurance, their own home owners insurance and their own life insurance. People are often trapped in jobs they don't want because of insurance. Employers only provide medical insurance because in WWII during wage controls, it was the only way companies could increase compensation ... by increasing fringe benefits. Then it became widespread and eventually traditional. We need to end that tradition. We need to be responsible for our own medical insurance.

Costs would go down if that were the case. Insurance is what has allowed costs to go so high to begin with.

[Elderberry]

I think it was ironic to note that the repeal bill got more total votes today than the original passage vote got. Add to the mix the fact that only 8000 people in the entire country have signed up for the program and now it looks like they are going to run out of money anyway, I would be surprised if the repeal bill passes. But it will get vetoed. But then the House will simply cut off the funding and it will die of starvation.

Nothing will happen to repeal the bill or defund it. Mark my words. This little game the Republicans are playing will backfire on them big time. It is spotlighting all of the things in the bill that the majority of the people like and already are benefitting from and making the republicans look like they don't give a damn about grandma's donut hole or not getting insurance because of pre- existing conditions, or keeping your kids on your policy while they are in school until they are 26, etc., etc.

JK

[thisisthatwhichis]

Damn, I left my cocktail back in Da bar......

[littleflower]

an old insurance exec i know mentioned that in the old days, health insurance was purely catastrophic. people paid to see the doctor just as they paid for any other regular expense, and the insurance kicked in when a serious problems appeared. people who wanted to go to the doctor more often paid for it, people who were more proactive about their health got a break.

makes sense to me.

[Eric]

my point is that over $250K is not wealthy. $500K/year isn't wealthy. and that's who gets slammed by raising taxes. i am absolutely against raising tax at that level.

when federal income taxes were at 90%, the wealthy weren't paying it, due to loopholes. most of those loopholes were closed in 1986, as well as many deductions - even itemized deductions are phased out around the 250K level. also, state taxes have increased, and sales taxes..... i mean, how much do you think is fair to take from people who earn a lot of money?

Corporate profits the last quarter (3 whole months) were 1.659 trillion dollars. Trillion- the highest on record. Yet the economy is still stagnant and 30 million Americans still can't find work- why is that?

Oh, could it be that the people making that profit pay extremely low taxes (and almost none on investments), and it's in their interest not to re-hire people (cuts into profits) or upgrade industrial infrastructure (cuts into profits). Also makes sense to send work oversees where it's cheaper (increases profits)

When the top tax rate is higher, more money gets invested back into the businesses and more people are hired. The work is out there- how many people today are doing the work that just a decade ago was done by two? I don't mean work that computers have simplified, I mean you have a double workload now. That's because it makes sense to the people making the money to get as much work out of as few people as possible so they can have the cash.

The rich in the 50's & 60's were still rich, but they had an investment in keeping everyone afloat. That doesn't exist amongst the rich anymore.

So, to answer your question- I'd go at a minimum for Ronald Reagans 50% top rate. 65-70% is more where I'd like it for over $5 million earners, plus high taxes on capital gains. Besides, getting over $2 million a year still when most of the country lives on less than $47 thousand isn't peanuts.

[Elderberry]

me too, titwi, me too....

i have so many questions about how all of this works ... and unlike JK and eric, i do not trust the government to make it work. i mean, really, a tax on people who don't pay for insurance? it'll go into the same old pot, and be used for whatever. people will stop buying insurance, because the tax is cheaper ..... and then where will we be? more calls to tax the rich to pay for all of the people who have no other insurance.

and it's so easy to say tax the rich, but does anyone know how to do it? does anyone out there really think that raising tax on earnings above $250,000 will affect people who are actually "wealthy" ... ie, more than $25M net worth??????

that stupid little lie annoys me more than anything.

The problem with what you ate saying now is that none of it is true. Stop guessing, speculating and believing the spin and start doing your homework. Read the damn bill.

JK

i don't believe spin, my dear .... YOU do ...!!! geez .... do you really think you - or anyone else - can read a bill ....even a smaller one .... and KNOW how it will actually work in real life?

and if you know i am so wrong, why don't you point me to the piece of the bill that proves it? i do not have time to read these things, and, like most people, i fall asleep reading them anyhow.

i have a great idea. when you read these bills, perhaps you would be willing to copy out some sections that you know will help you to convince people...? that would be far more interesting than simply reciting the usual spin from the left.

I actually have a copy of the entire bill on my desktop. I'll be happy to provide you with a copy or a link. You can do your own research, then I'll find your comments creditable.

JK

[Elderberry]

my point is that over $250K is not wealthy. $500K/year isn't wealthy. and that's who gets slammed by raising taxes. i am absolutely against raising tax at that level.

when federal income taxes were at 90%, the wealthy weren't paying it, due to loopholes. most of those loopholes were closed in 1986, as well as many deductions - even itemized deductions are phased out around the 250K level. also, state taxes have increased, and sales taxes..... i mean, how much do you think is fair to take from people who earn a lot of money?

Corporate profits the last quarter (3 whole months) were 1.659 trillion dollars. Trillion- the highest on record. Yet the economy is still stagnant and 30 million Americans still can't find work- why is that?

Oh, could it be that the people making that profit pay extremely low taxes (and almost none on investments), and it's in their interest not to re-hire people (cuts into profits) or upgrade industrial infrastructure (cuts into profits). Also makes sense to send work oversees where it's cheaper (increases profits)

When the top tax rate is higher, more money gets invested back into the businesses and more people are hired. The work is out there- how many people today are doing the work that just a decade ago was done by two? I don't mean work that computers have simplified, I mean you have a double workload now. That's because it makes sense to the people making the money to get as much work out of as few people as possible so they can have the cash.

The rich in the 50's & 60's were still rich, but they had an investment in keeping everyone afloat. That doesn't exist amongst the rich anymore.

So, to answer your question- I'd go at a minimum for Ronald Reagans 50% top rate. 65-70% is more where I'd like it for over $5 million earners, plus high taxes on capital gains. Besides, getting over $2 million a year still when most of the country lives on less than $47 thousand isn't peanuts.

And all this time I thought they weren't hiring because of Obama's anti-business policies.

JK

[ygmir]

my point is that over $250K is not wealthy. $500K/year isn't wealthy. and that's who gets slammed by raising taxes. i am absolutely against raising tax at that level.

when federal income taxes were at 90%, the wealthy weren't paying it, due to loopholes. most of those loopholes were closed in 1986, as well as many deductions - even itemized deductions are phased out around the 250K level. also, state taxes have increased, and sales taxes..... i mean, how much do you think is fair to take from people who earn a lot of money?

Corporate profits the last quarter (3 whole months) were 1.659 trillion dollars. Trillion- the highest on record. Yet the economy is still stagnant and 30 million Americans still can't find work- why is that?

Oh, could it be that the people making that profit pay extremely low taxes (and almost none on investments), and it's in their interest not to re-hire people (cuts into profits) or upgrade industrial infrastructure (cuts into profits). Also makes sense to send work oversees where it's cheaper (increases profits)

When the top tax rate is higher, more money gets invested back into the businesses and more people are hired.

I don't understand this

The work is out there- how many people today are doing the work that just a decade ago was done by two? I don't mean work that computers have simplified, I mean you have a double workload now. That's because it makes sense to the people making the money to get as much work out of as few people as possible so they can have the cash.

isn't that the way of business? get as much work out of your workers as possible?
Isn't business about profit?


The rich in the 50's & 60's were still rich, but they had an investment in keeping everyone afloat. That doesn't exist amongst the rich anymore.

So, to answer your question- I'd go at a minimum for Ronald Reagans 50% top rate. 65-70% is more where I'd like it for over $5 million earners, plus high taxes on capital gains. Besides, getting over $2 million a year still when most of the country lives on less than $47 thousand isn't peanuts.

that sort of makes me queasy.
Who, should be able to draw a line, that says "you've made enough, give the rest to us"?
wow, how do you determine that?
Who draws that line?

I wonder, what the average U.S. income would be, if, as many would like, the "whole world" was brought into parity, related to wages?

Of course, in a socialist world, that is the idea.
But, you gotta want to be there.

I want to swim, or sink, by my own hand. don't help me, but, don't hold me back.
And, I'll decide, who or what I help, and how.

I suppose, that's just the independent streak in me talking.

[thisisthatwhichis]

my point is that over $250K is not wealthy. $500K/year isn't wealthy. and that's who gets slammed by raising taxes. i am absolutely against raising tax at that level.

when federal income taxes were at 90%, the wealthy weren't paying it, due to loopholes. most of those loopholes were closed in 1986, as well as many deductions - even itemized deductions are phased out around the 250K level. also, state taxes have increased, and sales taxes..... i mean, how much do you think is fair to take from people who earn a lot of money?

Corporate profits the last quarter (3 whole months) were 1.659 trillion dollars. Trillion- the highest on record. Yet the economy is still stagnant and 30 million Americans still can't find work- why is that?

Oh, could it be that the people making that profit pay extremely low taxes (and almost none on investments), and it's in their interest not to re-hire people (cuts into profits) or upgrade industrial infrastructure (cuts into profits). Also makes sense to send work oversees where it's cheaper (increases profits)

When the top tax rate is higher, more money gets invested back into the businesses and more people are hired. The work is out there- how many people today are doing the work that just a decade ago was done by two? I don't mean work that computers have simplified, I mean you have a double workload now. That's because it makes sense to the people making the money to get as much work out of as few people as possible so they can have the cash.

The rich in the 50's & 60's were still rich, but they had an investment in keeping everyone afloat. That doesn't exist amongst the rich anymore.

So, to answer your question- I'd go at a minimum for Ronald Reagans 50% top rate. 65-70% is more where I'd like it for over $5 million earners, plus high taxes on capital gains. Besides, getting over $2 million a year still when most of the country lives on less than $47 thousand isn't peanuts.

I'm not sure I get the logic, if I were a business. If I had to pay MORE taxes on income, why would I invest more in american workers? It will just cost me more.

And yes, the rich peoples money is just as worthless as poor peoples money... If they don't spend it............. But they do.

[TomServo]

Can we Repeal Republicans?

[ygmir]

Can we Repeal Republicans?

yeah, 'cause it'd be great to have a one party system, where the conversion to socialism, or dictatorship, would be seamless.

like it or not, you gotta have at least two parties (I'd prefer more, viable choices).
There are always more than one way to approach a problem, and, at any time, one side or the other has the best idea, and, the opposition can't see it.

[littleflower]

my point is that over $250K is not wealthy. $500K/year isn't wealthy. and that's who gets slammed by raising taxes. i am absolutely against raising tax at that level.

when federal income taxes were at 90%, the wealthy weren't paying it, due to loopholes. most of those loopholes were closed in 1986, as well as many deductions - even itemized deductions are phased out around the 250K level. also, state taxes have increased, and sales taxes..... i mean, how much do you think is fair to take from people who earn a lot of money?

Corporate profits the last quarter (3 whole months) were 1.659 trillion dollars. Trillion- the highest on record. Yet the economy is still stagnant and 30 million Americans still can't find work- why is that?

This is not news to me. i am very close to both a CEO and a money manager who does little but study corporations, so he knows where to invest. Neither is a staunch republican. Both are extremely open to various viewpoints. Both are heavily involved in charity work.

Oh, could it be that the people making that profit pay extremely low taxes (and almost none on investments), and it's in their interest not to re-hire people (cuts into profits) or upgrade industrial infrastructure (cuts into profits). Also makes sense to send work oversees where it's cheaper (increases profits)

It could be .... i am not one to suggest that any complicated problem has a single answer ... although i smile at the suggestion that 50% in taxes - you have to add in state & local, property, sales, SS & medicare, &c - is "extremely low."

When the top tax rate is higher, more money gets invested back into the businesses and more people are hired. The work is out there- how many people today are doing the work that just a decade ago was done by two? I don't mean work that computers have simplified, I mean you have a double workload now. That's because it makes sense to the people making the money to get as much work out of as few people as possible so they can have the cash.

Again, i have to smile at the idea that taxes get invested back into the economy on a large scale. i seriously doubt this - there is too much waste, IMHO. As for workloads, my father's was cut in half in the 70's or so .... he often blamed it on the fact that so many women suddenly entered the workforce, creating a glut in workers. employment seems very fluid and changing to me... computers and automation have definitely cost jobs, but have created other jobs as well. i have as much trouble as anyone justifying some of the ridiculous payments to corporate executives, movie stars, athletes, &c .... this certainly has changed from earlier days .... and i wouldn't care if they were taxed to death, either.

but make no mistake .... both of my friends will tell you that businesses are afraid to hire with democrats in power. the fear is over-regulation, the difficulty in firing or laying off people when necessary, racial quotas, employment taxes, new obamacare health insurance requirements, &c &c. the money is out there, but businesses - including small ones - are waiting to see how things shake down.

[TomServo]

Can we Repeal Republicans?

yeah, 'cause it'd be great to have a one party system, where the conversion to socialism, or dictatorship, would be seamless.

like it or not, you gotta have at least two parties (I'd prefer more, viable choices).
There are always more than one way to approach a problem, and, at any time, one side or the other has the best idea, and, the opposition can't see it.

Im sure the Republicans would want the same. I say give Libertarians a shot at it.

[Trishntek]

The repeal of this law requires more votes than the number of votes it oozed its way through the legislative process originally. Everyone blames Republicans because they didn't play along during the process. Excuse me, but the Dems had vast majorities in both houses of Congress and it still only passed by a slim margin.

Don't you think a law which claims to take over a FIFTH of the U.S. economy should have bipartisan support? This law does not and never will have the support of scant more than half the country. A law this huge, affecting all of us, needed to be scrutinized before the vote! It was Nancy P who so eloquently said, "We've got to pass the law to find out what's in it."

What moron thinks like that out loud? And now we just let the gubmint take care of us from the womb to the tomb,,,,, OOOOOPs! That's right,,,, the womb is off limits,,,,, I forgot about that,,,,, but the rest of our bodies are in the hands of an all knowing gubmint that knows how to spend money better than we do!

Why the move for repeal? Because the GOP never supported this takeover law from the beginning. And if it gets to the Dem controlled Senate, it will be struck down. The Dems will own this big time. If somehow it gets to the Pres and he vetoes the repeal,,,, he owns it and all the consequences of it for generations to come.

Sure it's political,,,,, psssst anything to do with people is political,,,, so pull your heads out of your sparklepony ass and understand that about half of us enjoy INDEPENDENCE!

[Simon of the Playa]

why bother arguing with someone whose opinions make you want to vomit.

have a nice day, toots.

[Sail Man]

Under the current system your taxes are paying for people who don't have insurance, every time they go to the emergency room. Really. Wouldn't you rather they pay for it themselves, or are you enjoying paying it?

Really? And if they cant afford to pay for it now, how are we to expect for them to be able to afford it then? Or will they just decide to pay the tax/penalty for not having insurance (which btw is my big turn off to this socialist insurance plan)

People with a sense of entitlement have been living off of the gov't dole for years. What makes you think this will change with this new health care plan?

[Simon of the Playa]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/