Printable View
[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!