American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436598]The ACA tax when combined with Obama's other tax rate increases have caused me to decide to work less, which means my income is lower. Ironically this means I will pay less tax. Thank you Mr. Obama![/QUOTE]Until the marginal tax rate that one pays reaches 100%, work still puts money in your pocket. Granted less work means less tax, but it also means less money left over to spend on chicas. Something tells me there is an ulterior motive behind your "working less", and you are just trying to blame ACA and Obama.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436599]Until the marginal tax rate that one pays reaches 100%, work still puts money in your pocket. Granted less work means less tax, but it also means less money left over to spend on chicas. Something tells me there is an ulterior motive behind your "working less", and you are just trying to blame ACA and Obama.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]There are secondary reasons but no ulterior motive. The primary reason is that I'm fed up and am not going to bust my ass when government is taking 50% of my marginal income. That's the tipping point. One secondary reason is that administrative work, which doesn't make any money, has ballooned in recent years, leaving less time to generate income. A good part of the reason for that is compliance with government regulations. It takes a month or two every year to put together the info to report my taxable income, and they keep coming up with more stupid forms which require additional record keeping and reporting. I don't need or want more money to spend on fucking chicas. I would like more time. Maybe that's a secondary reason too.

Leave the facking Country.

P.S., Oh Yes, another gas line Blew Up in THE GREAT OF STATE OF TEXASS.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436600]There are secondary reasons but no ulterior motive. The primary reason is that I'm fed up and am not going to bust my ass when government is taking 50% of my marginal income. That's the tipping point. One secondary reason is that administrative work, which doesn't make any money, has ballooned in recent years, leaving less time to generate income. A good part of the reason for that is compliance with government regulations. It takes a month or two every year to put together the info to report my taxable income, and they keep coming up with more stupid forms which require additional record keeping and reporting. I don't need or want more money to spend on fucking chicas. I would like more time. Maybe that's a secondary reason too.[/QUOTE]

Has been stealing my retirement for years, now I have been switched to Blue Shield.

Like I said in the earlier posts, Pick The One that the Republicans don't Want You to Use!

Think about Your Heath Care. Not what the right wingers want, Just what You need and can afford!

Use Your Own Mind, not these jackasses!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436598]Bumrungrad is on the list. Have a look for others: [URL]https://www.bluecardworldwide.com/index.cfm?[/URL].

I think I will like it better than my old plan. Actually my old plan, offered by a professional organization, threw me in with a bunch of sickies (I'm relatively fit) but with no discount so it wasn't the best deal available. However I was too lazy to shop around.

The ACA is not relevant - I could have purchased the Blue Cross policy years ago if I'd known about it.

As to my personal situation, the ACA is a big bummer. The ACA tax when combined with Obama's other tax rate increases have caused me to decide to work less, which means my income is lower. Ironically this means I will pay less tax. Thank you Mr. Obama![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436602]Use Your Own Mind, not these jackasses![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436601]Leave the facking Country.

P.S., Oh Yes, another gas line Blew Up in THE GREAT OF STATE OF TEXASS.[/QUOTE]You, Esten and President Obama should be more gracious. You won. You've got what you want, a cradle-to-grave nanny state and a sharply progressive income tax.

The USA occupied a position between dynamic economies like Hong Kong and Singapore and "also rans" like France and Italy. The country made its choice and is now pursuing the Western European model. Someday the Federal Reserve will no longer be able to prime the pump, and countries like China will stop financing our profligacy. And the USA will be condemned to a future of stagnant economic growth and low employment.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436598]Bumrungrad is on the list. Have a look for others: [URL]https://www.bluecardworldwide.com/index.cfm?[/URL].

[/QUOTE]Black Shirt, I noticed you can't get into the web site without the first three letters of a policy, sorry about that. Try "GPS" if you want to check it out.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436600]There are secondary reasons but no ulterior motive. The primary reason is that I'm fed up and am not going to bust my ass when government is taking 50% of my marginal income. That's the tipping point. One secondary reason is that administrative work, which doesn't make any money, has ballooned in recent years, leaving less time to generate income. A good part of the reason for that is compliance with government regulations. It takes a month or two every year to put together the info to report my taxable income, and they keep coming up with more stupid forms which require additional record keeping and reporting. I don't need or want more money to spend on fucking chicas. I would like more time. Maybe that's a secondary reason too.[/QUOTE]Why do you not admit it? You want to work less or not at all, and taxes have little or nothing to do with it. At least you are not a slug who does not want to work or pay taxes, and just suck on Uncle Sugar's tit. I worked for over forty years and retired. I get by with less, and my home is paid for, but no longer have to get up early every morning. I am happy not working, but I still pay local, state, and federal taxes. Although I find some government expenditures objectionable and wasteful, I do not mind paying taxes. That is the law, and I enjoy highways, roads, bridges, sewers, running water, airplanes that are safe, harbors that accommodate trade, a military that can fight and defend me in my elder years, etc., etc. Etc.

Tres3.

Tres, Good job of psychoanalyzing someone you don't know. Leftist academic economists who think government should operate like the mafia or a for-profit corporation, that is by maximizing revenues, think about a 70% tax rate is the tipping point. That is, at 70% people work so much less that the government will receive less revenues from taxes. Well, for me the tipping point is under 50%. I happily pay tax to my state and local governments for highways, roads, bridges, sewers, and running water, and believe I receive good value for those taxes. On the other hand, my payments to the federal government will exceed what I'll get back in return by double digit multiples. Furthermore, a good % of federal government expenditures are wasted, spent inefficiently, or spent for things that hurt people instead of helping them.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436604]Someday the Federal Reserve will no longer be able to prime the pump, and countries like China will stop financing our profligacy. And the USA will be condemned to a future of stagnant economic growth and low employment.[/QUOTE]And it will still be George Bush's fault!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436611] On the other hand, my payments to the federal government will exceed what I'll get back in return by double digit multiples. Furthermore, a good % of federal government expenditures are wasted, spent inefficiently, or spent for things that hurt people instead of helping them.[/QUOTE]You are correct when you say that I do not know you, and I do not want to know you. From 1954 to 1969 the marginal federal rate was 90%, and yet the USA prospered. I assume that you worked some of that time. Before stating that all federal taxes go for federal expenditures, you need to look at the percentage of state and local expenditures that come from the federal government. There is waste and inefficiency at all levels, but the law says that we must pay taxes. We are one of the few countries with large scale voluntary compliance with the tax laws. No one gets back everything he paid in, some get more and some get less. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "No team ever went to the World Series with a perfect record." I believe we are still a system where the rule of law prevails most of the time. With regard to getting back what you pay, I assume that you still pay property (school) taxes. When did you or your children finish school? Did your property (school) taxes go down when you no longer had anyone in school?

You must be either very wealthy, not very smart, or lazy in you elder years. I made in excess of six figures for over twenty years, lived in zero state income tax states, and never paid the federal government more than twenty five per cent of my total income in taxes. That includes social security and medicare. I do not consider myself a rocket scientist or wealthy.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436613] From 1954 to 1969 the marginal federal rate was 90%, and yet the USA prospered. I assume that you worked some of that time. [/QUOTE]Probably, but I don't remember. I was in kindergarten during part of that period. The thing about the 90% rate that others have already pointed out here is that very few paid it. Most Americans paid taxes at much lower rates, which accounts in part for the dynamism of the USA economy during this period. Both federal government revenues and expenditures were relatively low, in the range of 15% to 18% of GDP, and the feds weren't spending a lot more than they were taking in.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436613]...the law says that we must pay taxes. We are one of the few countries with large scale voluntary compliance with the tax laws....I made in excess of six figures for over twenty years, lived in zero state income tax states, and never paid the federal government more than twenty five per cent of my total income in taxes. That includes social security and medicare. I do not consider myself a rocket scientist or wealthy.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]I pay my taxes and don't cheat. There are no special tax breaks that I can take advantage of, except long term capital gains. I believe the majority of wealthy Democrats don't care about tax rates because they (a) cheat on their taxes or (b) take advantage of special write-offs or government subsidies or (c) buy off politicians and government officials or (d) are trust fund mutants who were handed life on a silver platter by their daddies and have no appreciation of what it takes to make it in the real world.

I'm honestly not intending to imply you fit in any of these categories btw. But who cares what the rates are if you have special loopholes (John and Teresa Heinz Kerry). Or you intentionally don't report all your income (Timothy Geithner and Charles Rangel). Or you just say to hell with it and don't pay your taxes (36 members of Obama's well paid executive staff). Well, at least you have to give credit to Obama for having balls, putting someone in charge of the IRS (Geithner) who intentionally underpaid his taxes.

The latest big news it is that the republicans say that Obama is the worst President in history!

They say that what Bush did in Iraq was not a Lie.

Obama did say he was wrong. He apologized about the Health Care problem.

But Where Is he New Health Care Package that the Republicans want?

Bill Maher said what Bush said about WMDs in Iraq, was just A Little White Lie and that is Okay!

But, Obama Lies are not White Lies.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436612]And it will still be George Bush's fault![/QUOTE]Bizarre?

From the Washington Post, Nov. 18,2013.(selected paragraphs).

"The ACA has been successful in our states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Washington) because our political & community leaders grasped the importance of expanding health care coverage and have avoided the temptation to use health care reform as political football.

In Kentucky, two independent studies showed that the Bluegrass state couldn't afford to not to expand Medicaid. Expansion offered hugh savings in the state budget and is expected to create 17,000 jobs."

So what gives? Why are some states seeing ACA as a beneficial & successful legislation, whilst others look at it like a plague? Just because your Daddy tell you so?

Let the ruckus, and bellyaching go on for a while. Goodness & Truth will prevail. When the voting public see how the stubborn Republican governors have screwed them, you might see a few meltdowns. 15 lashes of the cane for the con men.

Tiny12 already has benefited indirectly from his cancelled insurance. Who's next? And the saga of Punter127 continues?

[B] "We All Knew' Obama Was Lying"[/B]

[QUOTE]On Sunday, appearing on ABC’s This Week with fill-in host Martha Raddatz, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) admitted that [highlight]Democrats knew full well that Americans would be booted from their health insurance plans as an effect of Obamacare implementation.[/highlight]

When asked whether Democrats were misled by President Obama about whether Americans would be able to keep their plans in the individual insurance market, Gillibrand answered: “He should’ve just been specific. No, we all knew.”

She added that the whole point of Obamacare was to “covering things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy.” [highlight]The redistributive nature of Obamacare, Gillibrand stated, was the point of the program; anyone claiming ignorance, therefore, is not telling the truth.[/highlight][/QUOTE]I guess Democrats don't care if Obama lied as long as it serves the agenda!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436623]
Bizarre?[/QUOTE]Your post is Bizarre. Do you know what you are attempting to say?

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436614]Probably, but I don't remember. I was in kindergarten during part of that period. The thing about the 90% rate that others have already pointed out here is that very few paid it. Most Americans paid taxes at much lower rates, which accounts in part for the dynamism of the USA economy during this period. Both federal government revenues and expenditures were relatively low, in the range of 15% to 18% of GDP, and the feds weren't spending a lot more than they were taking in.

I pay my taxes and don't cheat. There are no special tax breaks that I can take advantage of, except long term capital gains. I believe the majority of wealthy Democrats don't care about tax rates because they (a) cheat on their taxes or (b) take advantage of special write-offs or government subsidies or (c) buy off politicians and government officials or (d) are trust fund mutants who were handed life on a silver platter by their daddies and have no appreciation of what it takes to make it in the real world.

I'm honestly not intending to imply you fit in any of these categories btw. But who cares what the rates are if you have special loopholes (John and Teresa Heinz Kerry). Or you intentionally don't report all your income (Timothy Geithner and Charles Rangel). Or you just say to hell with it and don't pay your taxes (36 members of Obama's well paid executive staff). Well, at least you have to give credit to Obama for having balls, putting someone in charge of the IRS (Geithner) who intentionally underpaid his taxes.[/QUOTE]Be careful about your history. The top marginal federal income tax rate did not go below 70% until 1982. In 1987 the top marginal rate went below 50% for the first time since 1932. The top marginal rate has not been above 39.6% since 1987.

Tres3.

The message was about being Black or White.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436627]Your post is Bizarre. Do you know what you are attempting to say?

Tres3.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tres3;436628]Be careful about your history. The top marginal federal income tax rate did not go below 70% until 1982. In 1987 the top marginal rate went below 50% for the first time since 1932. The top marginal rate has not been above 39.6% since 1987.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]The top marginal federal rate on income since January 1, 2013 is 43.4%. The top marginal federal + state + local income tax rate in California is around 56%, in New York City around 55%. And, as you know, there are also sales and property taxes, that both individuals and businesses must pay.

Fortunately the Republicans prevented tax rates from going up on everyone this year, so that total federal revenues as % of GDP are still reasonable by historical standards. Unfortunately, Tea Party Republicans were not able to prevent the federal government from continuing to spend like there's no tomorrow. So, despite the sequester, we continue to pile up massive amounts of debt for future generations to pay. Esten's and possibly your idea that this can be solved by increasing taxes on the rich is a pipe-dream. Even if some haven't already changed their behavior in response to higher rates, they don't have enough money to come close to solving the problem.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436629]The message was about being Black or White.[/QUOTE]So you are race baiting?

[b]With 39 Dems behind it, House passes Obamacare fix[/b]

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436625]From the Washington Post, Nov. 18,2013.(selected paragraphs).

"The ACA has been successful in our states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Washington) because our political & community leaders grasped the importance of expanding health care coverage and have avoided the temptation to use health care reform as political football.

In Kentucky, two independent studies showed that the Bluegrass state couldn't afford to not to expand Medicaid. Expansion offered hugh savings in the state budget and is expected to create 17,000 jobs."
[/quote] Woo-hoo Obamacare is successful in three state out of 50, baby we're cookin with gas now, it just don't get much better than this!

Wait until the employer mandates kick in, possibly 50-90 million more cancellations.
[quote]So what gives? Why are some states seeing ACA as a beneficial & successful legislation, whilst others look at it like a plague? Just because your Daddy tell you so?
[/quote]I didn't hear Daddy say anything, why you dragging him in this?

[quote]Let the ruckus, and bellyaching go on for a while. Goodness & Truth will prevail. When the voting public see how the stubborn Republican governors have screwed them, you might see a few meltdowns. 15 lashes of the cane for the con men.[/quote] Sorry this is not Singapore, no caning allowed. You know the forum was quite until you and WT poured gas on the fire.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436623], But Where Is he New Health Care Package that the Republicans want?[snip][/QUOTE]
“Thirty-nine House Democrats on Friday broke ranks to support a [u]Republican bill[/u] that would allow health insurers to continue selling plans canceled under Obamacare through 2014, the first test of support on Capitol Hill since the law’s disastrous rollout.

The House voted, 261-157, to pass the bill by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.). It’s a significant show of disloyalty to the White House.” Obama says he will veto the bill, but most of those 39 are up for reelection next year, do you think they see the handwriting on the wall? Oh and remember these guys are part of the party that let the government be shut down rather than negotiate on ObamaCare. Now they've got their tails tucked between their legs and their running for the door.

[quote]Tiny12 already has benefited indirectly from his cancelled insurance. Who's next? And the saga of Punter127 continues?[/QUOTE]
What a piece of work you are, you got the guys insurance cancelled so he went outside ObamaCare and found another policy, and now you want credit for his good luck. [Shaking my head]

Btw BS I know it's hard for a nanny like you to understand, but you needn't concern yourself with the Punter 127 saga, my decisions have been made and as always I will take care of myself!

WT69, So you admit that Obama lied?

I admit to nothing. Just like the Republicans.

It was a Bill Maher joke that I said wrong.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436633]WT69, So you admit that Obama lied?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436630]The top marginal federal rate on income since January 1, 2013 is 43.4%. The top marginal federal + state + local income tax rate in California is around 56%, in New York City around 55%. And, as you know, there are also sales and property taxes, that both individuals and businesses must pay.

Fortunately the Republicans prevented tax rates from going up on everyone this year, so that total federal revenues as % of GDP are still reasonable by historical standards. Unfortunately, Tea Party Republicans were not able to prevent the federal government from continuing to spend like there's no tomorrow. So, despite the sequester, we continue to pile up massive amounts of debt for future generations to pay. Esten's and possibly your idea that this can be solved by increasing taxes on the rich is a pipe-dream. Even if some haven't already changed their behavior in response to higher rates, they don't have enough money to come close to solving the problem.[/QUOTE]You should do your homework before you post. According to the IRS, the top marginal rate for 2013 is 39.6% NOT the 43.4% stated in your post. The difference between what you say is a marginal rate of 43.4% and 39.6% is a surcharge that does not kick in until a single taxpayer earns more than $200,000 or a married taxpayer earns more than $250,000. We pay sales and property taxes no matter which party is in charge. You also conveniently neglect to mention that state and local income taxes as well as property taxes are deductible from federal income taxes, as are a host of other expenditures. If you do the arithmetic, it still does not add up to your original reason for working less. If you make more than the surcharge limits, you make a lot of money; however I still think you are lazy and no longer want to work. I do not care for Obama, but I do not blame him for everything that is wrong. I agree that Obama is inept, but so are a lot of other politicians, and there is plenty of blame for everyone.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436636]You should do your homework before you post. According to the IRS, the top marginal rate for 2013 is 39.6% NOT the 43.4% stated in your post. The difference between what you say is a marginal rate of 43.4% and 39.6% is a surcharge that does not kick in until a single taxpayer earns more than $200,000 or a married taxpayer earns more than $250,000. We pay sales and property taxes no matter which party is in charge. You also conveniently neglect to mention that state and local income taxes as well as property taxes are deductible from federal income taxes, as are a host of other expenditures. If you do the arithmetic, it still does not add up to your original reason for working less. If you make more than the surcharge limits, you make a lot of money; however I still think you are lazy and no longer want to work. I do not care for Obama, but I do not blame him for everything that is wrong. I agree that Obama is inept, but so are a lot of other politicians, and there is plenty of blame for everyone.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Tres, You should do your homework before you post. The maximum marginal rate is 43.4%, period. You can call it a surcharge if you wish. That doesn't alter the fact that if an individual, directly or through an LLC, makes $10 million in a year, he or she is going to pay 43.4% tax to the federal government on every dollar of ordinary income over $402,200. I did take into account the deduction for state and local income tax in what I quoted for California and New York rates. What you don't take into account is the effect of the Pease Amendment, which severely limits the amount of deductions on Schedule A for many upper income taxpayers. And yes, I agree, a host of other expenditures may be deductible if you are willing to lie and say personal expenditures are attributable to your business. Or if you're willing to do things that shouldn't make business sense but reduce your tax bill. I guess I am lazy as I now only work about 40 hours a week, a good part of which is keeping up with federal government bull shit, instead of around 70 hours a week in 2012. I do strongly agree with the last sentence of your post.

P.S. You conveniently neglect to mention that when you add sales taxes and property taxes to income taxes, the total taxes paid by many unincorporated businesses (and the individuals who own them) are much higher than the net profit. And the owners typically re-invest more of that profit in the business than they put in their pockets. When the owner dies, the maximum marginal federal death tax on what he owned is 40%. In other words, the majority of the "spoils" go to government.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436635]I admit to nothing. Just like the Republicans.[/QUOTE]Well played, WT69! All of a sudden, who is being self-righteous?

We should all learn to get along better since WE are all going to be neighbors!

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

Probably most "good people" would agree that "murderers, and whoremongers" deserve hell—but "the fearful, and unbelieving, . . . And all liars"? Would that not include just about everyone?

This shit sounds serious!

TL.

Murderers and whoremongers!

[QUOTE=Punter127;436632] Woo-hoo Obamacare is successful in three state out of 50, baby we're cookin with gas now, it just don't get much better than this! [/QUOTE]So arrogant. If 3 states can show that they can be successful, the other 47 states should be asking themselves how come they are shooting their own feet. Stubborn is stubborn. Anything with Obama's name, yeah, got to be crap, right?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]So arrogant.[/QUOTE]I assume that's what you say when you look in that famous magic mirror of yours.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]If 3 states can show that they can be successful, the other 47 states should be asking themselves how come they are shooting their own feet.[/QUOTE]First of all I'm not convinced they are successful, other than for medicaid, but if and that's a big if they are why can't your all knowing big government do the same thing nationwide? Are you making a case for states rights?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]Stubborn is stubborn.[/QUOTE]More words of wisdom from your magic mirror?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]Anything with Obama's name, yeah, got to be crap, right?[/QUOTE]Am I required to like him? I can't remember one time that you ever spoke out against anything with Obama's name on it, can you?

Nope, not all would be crap, his resignation would be considered a godsent.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436638]Tres, You should do your homework before you post. The maximum marginal rate is 43.4%, period. You can call it a surcharge if you wish. That doesn't alter the fact that if an individual, directly or through an LLC, makes $10 million in a year, he or she is going to pay 43.4% tax to the federal government on every dollar of ordinary income over $402,200. I did take into account the deduction for state and local income tax in what I quoted for California and New York rates. What you don't take into account is the effect of the Pease Amendment, which severely limits the amount of deductions on Schedule A for many upper income taxpayers. And yes, I agree, a host of other expenditures may be deductible if you are willing to lie and say personal expenditures are attributable to your business. Or if you're willing to do things that shouldn't make business sense but reduce your tax bill. I guess I am lazy as I now only work about 40 hours a week, a good part of which is keeping up with federal government bull shit, instead of around 70 hours a week in 2012. I do strongly agree with the last sentence of your post.

P.S. You conveniently neglect to mention that when you add sales taxes and property taxes to income taxes, the total taxes paid by many unincorporated businesses (and the individuals who own them) are much higher than the net profit. And the owners typically re-invest more of that profit in the business than they put in their pockets. When the owner dies, the maximum marginal federal death tax on what he owned is 40%. In other words, the majority of the "spoils" go to government.[/QUOTE]As I said before, the maximum marginal FEDERAL rate is 39.6%. The surcharge kicks in at $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for marrieds. At that level of income, the top marginal rate is less than 39.6% by more than the surcharge rate, and the surcharge is levied only against "investment income", not salaries or earnings from actual work. The 39.6 bracket is for high income persons who make over $400,000 per year from work. For the marginal rate to exceed 39.6% and equal 43.4%, a person must have a combination of work income over $400,000 per year AND investment income. Those are the facts, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.

$400,000 per year is a lot of money, and more than most all of the posters and readers of this forum make. Hats off and kudos to you, especially if you have investment income in excess of $200,000. You have my envy, but not my sympathy.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436644]As I said before, the maximum marginal FEDERAL rate is 39.6%. The surcharge kicks in at $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for marrieds. At that level of income, the top marginal rate is less than 39.6% by more than the surcharge rate, and the surcharge is levied only against "investment income", not salaries or earnings from actual work. The 39.6 bracket is for high income persons who make over $400,000 per year from work. For the marginal rate to exceed 39.6% and equal 43.4%, a person must have a combination of work income over $400,000 per year AND investment income. Those are the facts, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.

$400,000 per year is a lot of money, and more than most all of the posters and readers of this forum make. Hats off and kudos to you, especially if you have investment income in excess of $200,000. You have my envy, but not my sympathy.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Tres, About the surcharge, you can call a train an orange as much as you want. That doesn't mean it's an orange. Every dollar of self-employment, interest, short term capital gains, or royalty income over $402,200 is taxed by the federal government at 43.4%. For people who get a paycheck, the marginal rate on salary income is 41.95%, with the employer picking up the 1.45% differential between two rates. I believe some part of the 3.8% Medicare / ACA component of tax on self employment income can be avoided if your business is in a Sub S corporation. But this strategy creates problems and doesn't work as well as LLC's for most businesses. I'm not looking for sympathy. I am pointing out that increasing marginal tax rates does not necessarily increase the amount of tax collected. High taxes, whether they be on people/businesses who make $20,000 a year or $20 million a year, reduce incentives and make the economy less dynamic.

[QUOTE=Punter127;436643]I assume that's what you say when you look in that famous magic mirror of yours.

First of all I'm not convinced they are successful, other than for medicaid, but if and that's a big if they are why can't your all knowing big government do the same thing nationwide? Are you making a case for states rights?

More words of wisdom from your magic mirror?

Am I required to like him? I can't remember one time that you ever spoke out against anything with Obama's name on it, can you?

Nope, not all would be crap, his resignation would be considered a godsent.[/QUOTE]I think I've gone as far as I can with this subject, anymore is not going to add additional value. It was never my intention for it to get personal. Time & elections will be the barometer for what Americans want.

For me, ACA has already achieve its purpose, and that is to change the footprint for health care in America. How it will survive in its original form does not matter to me as long as the universal mandate is present.

Buenos suerte.

Two prominent candidates for the Man of the Year, 2013 was in the news in the last 24 hours. George Zimmerman of the "Right to Carry" fame, was charged with aggravated assault (pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend), domestic violence battery and criminal mischief. Way to go, George. I know, your girlfriend was probably encroaching and looking suspicious & dangerous.

And the 2nd, none other than the king of loansharks, Jamie Dimon. Him of the "you use our services, we charge you a fee. That's all we do". I need not say more.

If it was an AP vote, both men would be top contenders for the award. Alot of supporters and apologizers here. So who should I vote for the Man of the Year, 2013? No, no, no. The name does not start with O. O is having a shitty year. Initials, BB. BB King is the wrong answer.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436648]I think I've gone as far as I can with this subject, anymore is not going to add additional value. It was never my intention for it to get personal. Time & elections will be the barometer for what Americans want.
[/QUOTE]When you're debating politics and you can't adequately defend your position it's easy to succumb to attack the messenger tactics, I think its just the nature of the beast. So if you're not thick skinned or if you wear you heart on your sleeve you should avoid this thread. I agree with you about time and elections, and if the number of Democrats running from ObamaCare and current polls are any indication it's going to be painful for Democrats. Though his tactics may not have been optimal Ted Cruz made the public very aware that Democrats own ObamaCare, and control of the Senate could well change hands in 2014.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436648]For me, ACA has already achieve its purpose, and that is to change the footprint for health care in America. How it will survive in its original form does not matter to me as long as the universal mandate is present.

Buenos suerte.[/QUOTE]If your goal was to see millions of Americans health insurance cancelled and have millions see their rates sky rocket, then you should be tickled pink, very pink.

In 1988 the Catastrophic Health Care Act was signed into law and it was repealed in 1989 because the people didn't like it, so don't think ObamaCare can't be repealed or changed. The ObamaCare Ponzi scheme can not support itself without gouging the American people.

Universal mandate? Sir we are citizens of a free Constitutional Republic and in our Republic the government doesn't put mandates on the people, "We The People" put mandates on the government.

My dislike for President Obama stems from his (and your) disrespect for the Constitution. In my opinion President Obamas distain for the Constitution coupled with the support of people like you has put the Republic in jeopardy. Below is links (pages 1 & 2) to an article that explains what I'm talking about, I strongly suggest everyone read it.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/2/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Punter127;436652]When you're debating politics and you can't adequately defend your position it's easy to succumb to attack the messenger tactics, I think its just the nature of the beast. So if you're not thick skinned or if you wear you heart on your sleeve you should avoid this thread. I agree with you about time and elections, and if the number of Democrats running from ObamaCare and current polls are any indication it's going to be painful for Democrats. Though his tactics may not have been optimal Ted Cruz made the public very aware that Democrats own ObamaCare, and control of the Senate could well change hands in 2014.

If your goal was to see millions of Americans health insurance cancelled and have millions see their rates sky rocket, then you should be tickled pink, very pink.

In 1988 the Catastrophic Health Care Act was signed into law and it was repealed in 1989 because the people didn't like it, so don't think ObamaCare can't be repealed or changed. The ObamaCare Ponzi scheme can not support itself without gouging the American people.

Universal mandate? Sir we are citizens of a free Constitutional Republic and in our Republic the government doesn't put mandates on the people, "We The People" put mandates on the government.

My dislike for President Obama stems from his (and your) disrespect for the Constitution. In my opinion President Obamas distain for the Constitution coupled with the support of people like you has put the Republic in jeopardy. Below is links (pages 1 & 2) to an article that explains what I'm talking about, I strongly suggest everyone read it.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/2/[/URL][/QUOTE]I am speechless.

[B]CBS Poll: 84% of Democrats Want ObamaCare Changed or Repealed[/B]

[QUOTE]A fascinating number in Wednesday's CBS poll is that only 7% of the American public want ObamaCare "kept in place." A full 93% either believe that changes are needed to the law (48%) or want a full repeal (43%). This pits President Obama and Democrat lawmakers -- who thus far have refused to make any meaningful changes -- against 93% of the American people and 72% of Democrats.

Moreover, only 12% of Democrats want ObamaCare "kept as is." Another 12% want it repealed.

If only 12% of Democrats want nothing changed with ObamaCare, there is no question that Democrat lawmakers and the president are defying their own base with this ongoing refusal to make any real changes to the law. Furthermore, they are blocking proposed changes, including changes proposed by fellow Democrats.

[i]The growing narrative from the media and ObamaCare champions is that Democrats need to "stay the course." Analyzing the Democrats' political options, ABC's Rick Klein writes today:

Lost in the Democratic angst over Obamacare is a simple fact of 2014 politics: They don’t really have any choice but to own it. … No quantity of votes on “fixes” now will matter in the broad messaging wars later; no lawmaker, and virtually no Democratic challenger, will be able to seal him or herself off from potential political damage.[/i]

Klein is not alone with this advice. But how exactly is that a smart play when 84% of Democrats disagree?

A fair question to ask is, "What kind of changes do Democrat voters want?" [highlight]A poll released by ABC News yesterday showed that two-thirds of Americans oppose ObamaCare's individual mandate.[/highlight] There are definitely some Democrats in that group.

It is also safe to guess that a whole lot of Democrat voters would like to see laws passed that ensure people don’t lose the insurance Obama repeatedly promised they could keep. But those are legislative changes the president has threatened to veto and Democrat leaders refuse to even put to a vote.

As the 2014 midterms loom large late next year, ObamaCare is almost certain to have begun its rampage through the lives of the 95% of Americans who are insured through group and employer plans. The administration itself predicts that tens of millions will lose their insurance as the new employer mandate kicks in. For obvious reasons, the media is covering this fact up. But cover-ups can't stop reality from becoming reality.

[highlight]By this time next year, "stay the course" is probably going to look like a suicide pact.[/highlight][/QUOTE]There won't be any gratification in the failure of ObamaCare because so many Americans were hurt by it, but I hope it helps people realize the pitfalls of big government.

What are you reading? FOX SHIT?

[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cbs-poll-obamacare-repealed/2013/11/20/id/537683[/URL]

[QUOTE=Punter127;436660][B]CBS Poll: 84% of Democrats Want ObamaCare Changed or Repealed[/B]

There won't be any gratification in the failure of ObamaCare because so many Americans were hurt by it, but I hope it helps people realize the pitfalls of big government.[/QUOTE]

Walmart pays $8.18 cents an hour. There cost there for employees a year is $1700 + or. Salary a year.

The level of poverty rate in this country now is $23,000 a Year.

The company wants the workers to give there fellow workers Money or gifts, because of there low wages for the Holidays.

Walmart is largest employer in the World. They also sell the most food products in the world.

They can't give away a Free Turkey! They are the most greediest Mother Fuckers in the world.

Each of the family is worth Billions of dollars.

Just think how much you would be willing to share help our girl friends and their families for a few dollars.

They Need to Unionize, but the Republicans will not let Them Do it.

Or the Republican Supreme Court.

WTF.

Come On You guys are not that dis-hearted.

Eron123 or others tell us you Care about the people or the Republicans that Don't Care about them and you?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436662]What are you reading? FOX SHIT?

[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cbs-poll-obamacare-repealed/2013/11/20/id/537683[/URL][/QUOTE]"CBS Poll: 84% of Democrats Want ObamaCare Changed or Repealed".

Dude can you read? That's from a "CBS poll". Now I guess CBS is on the same "FOX SHIT" list?

[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government[/URL]



Added info: [highlight]"Just 7 percent of Americans think the Affordable Care Act is working well and should be kept in place as it is."[/highlight] That's from your Newsmax link WT.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436663]Walmart pays $8.18 cents an hour. There cost there for employees a year is $1700 + or. Salary a year.

The level of poverty rate in this country now is $2300 a Year.

The company wants the workers to give there fellow workers Money or gifts, because of there low wages for the Holidays.

Walmart is largest employer in the World. They also sell the most food products in the world.

They can't give away a Free Turkey! They are the most greediest Mother Fuckers in the world.

Each of the family is worth Billions of dollars.

Just think how much you would be willing to share help our girl friends and their families for a few dollars.

They Need to Unionize, but the Republicans will not let Them Do it.

Or the Republican Supreme Court.

WTF.

Come On You guys are not that dis-hearted.

Eron123 or others tell us you Care about the people or the Republicans that Don't Care about them and you?[/QUOTE]Would this be the same Walmart that Hillary ('What Difference Does It Make?) Clinton served on the board of directors? How many turkeys did she give away?

I was in my 20's. All of us felt there was hope for our country and then JFK was Killed, but when Bobbie was killed, I did not now how the world cared about US?

I was In Sweden when Robert was killed, Most People Were crying, I did not understand Swedish, but I asked what was happening. They told me that Robert Kennedy was killed. I thought how could a foreign Country Care about Us?

Now, I have been reading stories of kids about "where you were when when JFK was killed" "I remember where I was during my Apprenticeship in printing I was in my 20's," I did not know about kids 10 to 15 in those years felt, it brought tears to my eyes reading their stories in today's SF Chronicle. I cared and did not know how the rest of the world cared about us.

Ask a Kid today Who is the President? They do not know anythings about today's history? {There answer to who is the President is would be who cares?

Check What the Republican have done for you?

Do You Know What progress the Republicans has helped the workers in the last few Years?

Speak up or Apologize?

Answer is: NONE to help the workers!! Or Health Care!

Again what are the Plans?

I could not understand how a foreign country could feel any thing about who our next President could be? But they do.