Taxes are bad (in general)

[SpeedoGuy]

When you factor in the number of available deductions it falls to zero or nearly. I referenced earlier for a family;

Think Progress » Hastert: ‘If You Earn $40,000 a Year and Have a Family of Two Children, You Don’t Pay Any Taxes’

Hmmm. I might re-install Turbo Tax 2006 and verify this myself.

Btw, the comments on that site about the veracity of Rep. Hastert's claims were not complimentary. I have to admit I liked this one the best:

1. If you eat 40,000 donuts and don’t take a dump, you will turn into Hastert.
   Comment by RyanSeacrust — May 18, 2006 @ 12:20 pm

 

[kalipygian]

It is an anomaly of our system that some fields of endeavor are ridiculously over compensated, both in their absolute value, and relative to others. A lawyer who charges $200. an hour should be thanking every person they meet who is working at minimum wage for subsidizing them-which they are certainly doing, every hour of their working lives. A decent minimum wage would be about $15.
Every underpaid teacher is volunteering more of their time and effort than they are being paid for by our society.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Hmmm. I might re-install Turbo Tax 2006 and verify this myself.

Btw, the comments on that site about the veracity of Rep. Hastert's claims were not complimentary. I have to admit I liked this one the best:

1. If you eat 40,000 donuts and don’t take a dump, you will turn into Hastert.
   Comment by RyanSeacrust — May 18, 2006 @ 12:20 pm

Hastert is an idiot.

 

[surferboy]

Every underpaid teacher is volunteering more of their time and effort than they are being paid for by our society.

and within a few years, i shall be one of those underpaid teachers

 

[Freddie53]

and within a few years, i shall be one of those underpaid teachers

And a damn good one, I suspect.

 

[rob_just_rob]

General comments:

The richest 10% do pay a disproportionate amount of taxes relative to the rest of society. However, the richest 10% also earn a disproportionate amount of income relative to the rest of society, and hold a disproportionate amount of wealth. One can (and many have) argue that the rich are undertaxed.

Regardless of what the unemployment rate is, take a look at the minimum wage. A lot of people who are fully employed aren't earning enough to support themselves adequately. And no, this isn't because the poor are lazy. This is because society has decided to keep minimum wages low so that business owners can have a pool of cheap labour.

As for the OP, this isn't the first time he's posted a poor-little-rich-boy thread:

http://www.lpsg.org/et-cetera-et-cetera/45186-retirement-schemes-and-fables.html

Goose, brag threads are really obvious on a large penis group. If you are in fact doing as well as you claim you are, be happy that you're doing well enough to be in a position to pay all these horrible taxes. If you can't be happy with that, there's always the option of selling your business, giving all your worldly goods to charity, and becoming an ascetic. You will pay hardly any taxes, if you pay taxes at all.

Up for that?

 

[Ethyl]

There is no way to compare Sweden to the US. Sweden has 9,000,000 people. Sweden isn't even the size of a large US state. Interestingly Sweden is right now beginning to re think their cradle to grave socialist state. Rich people are abandoning Sweden in droves. The founder of IKEA, gone. Abba, gone. Bjorn Borg, gone. There is a move afoot to reduce taxes and get people not to leave.

We spend more in real dollars on education than the Swedes if memory serves. We are 3rd in the world.

Your post is too simplistic and naive. Add 291,000,000 people and see how it works.

No, i'm not simplistic and naive. The real reason this wouldn't work is because physicians would go on strike if our gov't tried to implement socialized health care. The fear of no longer being able to charge exhorbitant fees alone would keep this from becoming a reality.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

General comments:

The richest 10% do pay a disproportionate amount of taxes relative to the rest of society. However, the richest 10% also earn a disproportionate amount of income relative to the rest of society, and hold a disproportionate amount of wealth. One can (and many have) argue that the rich are undertaxed.

Regardless of what the unemployment rate is, take a look at the minimum wage. A lot of people who are fully employed aren't earning enough to support themselves adequately. And no, this isn't because the poor are lazy. This is because society has decided to keep minimum wages low so that business owners can have a pool of cheap labour.

As for the OP, this isn't the first time he's posted a poor-little-rich-boy thread:

http://www.lpsg.org/et-cetera-et-cetera/45186-retirement-schemes-and-fables.html

Goose, brag threads are really obvious on a large penis group. If you are in fact doing as well as you claim you are, be happy that you're doing well enough to be in a position to pay all these horrible taxes. If you can't be happy with that, there's always the option of selling your business, giving all your worldly goods to charity, and becoming an ascetic. You will pay hardly any taxes, if you pay taxes at all.

Up for that?

Yeah I was showboating a bit. Why is that bad? On a site where women can state they won't fuck anyone under 8X6 or * I got a 9 incher and here are the pics* I don't get the didain. I think this is a place wher eyou can popoff a bit. No one is hurt and don't read them if you don't like it.

BTW Rob you did find that post valuable ergo:

From Rob: Good post, although I would contest one point you made...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyldgusechaz

For example, if you need $50000 a year to retire comfortably, you will likely need $1,200,000 in your 401K invested at a safe 4%. Once retired you can’t risk this money, it needs to be safe hence the low risk low reward of a Tbill rate. Building up $1.2 Million can be very tough.

Why can't you risk any of this money? If you retire at 65, you can probably expect to live another 20 years or so. Your time horizon is still fairly long for most of this money, so you can afford to be less than completely defensive. Sure, you'll want to weight yourself more towards bonds, prefs, tbills, but there's no reason you can't have a growth component to your portfolio. Stay diversified (diversified by product, country AND industry) and your chances of a loss over even a 10-year time horizon are vanishingly small. Stay away from the hot growth stocks - if you buy stocks, dividend bearing ones have done the best in the long run.

As for what I'm doing? I own my home, and I'm invested 30:40:30 Canada:USA:Everywhere else. My core stock holdings are dividend-bearing common shares with DRIPs set up. I invest regularly. I don't borrow very often, and I don't borrow unless the rate is close to prime. I do have a "play account" for cyclical buying and option strategies, but the bulk of my holdings are in large-cap names with fat dividends.

Bottom line: There's no sure thing; don't ever put all your eggs in one basket. End Rob

I was OK then now I am bad, a braggart?

In truth I am really happy with my life, I love it. Its fun. And I am a very very generous person in real. But thats boring. I don't mind being a punching bag here and posting stuff in an *in your face* way because now I have people thinking. How many here realized that a family of 4 paid little income tax till they got over $40K?

Yes I could post in a less intrusive way but thats no fun. I read a lot. I study a lot. Minimum wage? I employ 25 people. I have never started anyone, right out or in high school at less than $10/hr and we give them a 401k and medical.. You cannot get good help at the minimum wage. I don't know about Walmart or Home Depot but I doubt seriously anyone stays at MW for long at either. I used to own franchises and I never hired at MW.The minimum wage issue is a smoke screen for big labor.

What employers start anyone at MW? Give me a fucking list if you know. I think Walmart starts at $8 but whose fault is it that WM are so successful? Don't shop there. And do you understand Walmart economics? Walmart has a $6000/employee profit margin w/o health care bennies. I myself pay $12000/year for Health insurance w a $2500 deduct. HOw will WM purchase med Ins. for its employees when each employee only has a $6000 cushion. Intel is likely $100000 per employee so ther is room for HI.
So WM would have to raise prices dramatically and who gets hurt? The poor.

Someone here talked to her mom and now totally understands med ins. Did she know how WM works? I talk to doctors(about 150) and Hospital admin ( Cook county, Denver Health, LA County) and they tell me what is going on but we can assume this mom/child conversation is correct because she said so?

There are some bright folks here but so many are damn poorly informed. I know what I am talking about and I provide references always but somehow I am wrong?

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

No, i'm not simplistic and naive. The real reason this wouldn't work is because physicians would go on strike if our gov't tried to implement socialized health care. The fear of no longer being able to charge exhorbitant fees alone would keep this from becoming a reality.

Does this seem excessive?

Family practice doc: Salary Information for Physician Jobs

Cardiology: Salary Information for Physician Jobs


You can go down the list. The high end of cardiology, $434K is likely an interventional cardiologist. What IC has done is replace the cardiac surgeons and so reduced health care costs.

If you could please answer. Does $197K seem too much for someone who has put in 24 years at least of education w 8 years post grad?? I know this stuff intimately. Would you burn up years 22-30 of your life in school for about $175K? Studying round the clock for 8 years in your best and brightest years, the fun years of youth?

Thats a very tough call. as an aside, In fact most Docs WANT the gov to take over. They believe it will be a gravy train. Becoming a physician is a very bad economic decision as it stands today. 25 year ago it was fantastic. Not today. I can expound on this at length if you need but don't go to med school.

BTW interventional cardiology is risky shit. You are placing specialized medicated stents in people's heart vessels by TV screen, starting thru the femoral artery, in the leg. How much should a woman who pokes a hole in your leg and threads a small piece of mesh tubing all the way into your heart get paid? You fuck up and the person dies right there. Plus you get sued a ton cuz the stents have a short half life and they are still a bit experimental.

 

[Ethyl]

Someone here talked to her mom and now totally understands med ins. Did she know how WM works? I talk to doctors(about 150) and Hospital admin ( Cook county, Denver Health, LA County) and they tell me what is going on but we can assume this mom/child conversation is correct because she said so?

There are some bright folks here but so many are damn poorly informed. I know what I am talking about and I provide references always but somehow I am wrong?

My mother was as an administrator in the Dep't of Health and management in several hospitals in the Midwest until rheumatoid arthritis forced her into early retirement. Poorly informed, indeed. But thanks for playing.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

My mother was as an administrator in the Dep't of Health and management in several hospitals in the Midwest until rheumatoid arthritis forced her into early retirement. Poorly informed, indeed. But thanks for playing.

Good for her and sorry about the RA. . However did she say the Swedish model would work? I bet not. I would love to have you give us her thoughts.

And I love playing, in so many ways.

 

[Ethyl]

Does this seem excessive?

Family practice doc: Salary Information for Physician Jobs

Cardiology: Salary Information for Physician Jobs


You can go down the list. The high end of cardiology, $434K is likely an interventional cardiologist. What IC has done is replace the cardiac surgeons and so reduced health care costs.

If you could please answer. Does $197K seem too much for someone who has put in 24 years at least of education w 8 years post grad?? I know this stuff intimately. Would you burn up years 22-30 of your life in school for about $175K? Studying round the clock for 8 years in your best and brightest years, the fun years of youth?

Your links above show only salaries in numbers. Benefits aren't included. If my passion was medicine, hell yes, i'd burn up years of my life to pursue that passion. Too many enter the medical field because they want to make the almighty buck and it makes you appreciate the ones who do care about their patients. I've no problem with physicians making six figures, they need to in order to pay off $100-200K in student loans, another matter left out of this discussion that should be addressed. Another issue to be addressed is the fact that there's a shortage of GP's in the states. Why? Often because one can make much more money engaging in a specialty.

Thats a very tough call. as an aside, In fact most Docs WANT the gov to take over. They believe it will be a gravy train. Becoming a physician is a very bad economic decision as it stands today. 25 year ago it was fantastic. Not today. I can expound on this at length if you need but don't go to med school.

It makes much more sense to become a malpractice lawyer if money is what you're after, i'll agree with you there.

BTW interventional cardiology is risky shit. You are placing specialized medicated stents in people's heart vessels by TV screen, starting thru the femoral artery, in the leg. How much should a woman who pokes a hole in your leg and threads a small piece of mesh tubing all the way into your heart get paid? You fuck up and the person dies right there. Plus you get sued a ton cuz the stents have a short half life and they are still a bit experimental.

Of course it's risky and every medical student is aware of this fact. Yet they still forge on with their studies and I commend them for their courage in this day of expensive malpractice insurance rates. My point in all this was that the quality of care many receive in the US is dependent on how much they can pay, if anything, and too many people have little or no access to health care. Senior citizens are halving their pills so they can make their prescriptions stretch out further. Are you trying to tell me that someone who makes six figures is more entitled to good health care than someone who makes minimum wage?

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Your links above show only salaries in numbers. Benefits aren't included. If my passion was medicine, hell yes, i'd burn up years of my life to pursue that passion. Too many enter the medical field because they want to make the almighty buck and it makes you appreciate the ones who do care about their patients. I've no problem with physicians making six figures, they need to in order to pay off $100-200K in student loans, another matter left out of this discussion that should be addressed. Another issue to be addressed is the fact that there's a shortage of GP's in the states. Why? Often because one can make much more money engaging in a specialty.

out to senior citizens and a total ass rape of the tax payer.


It makes much more sense to become a malpractice lawyer if money is what you're after, i'll agree with you there.

Of course it's risky and every medical student is aware of this fact. Yet they still forge on with their studies and I commend them for their courage in this day of expensive malpractice insurance rates. My point in all this was that the quality of care many receive in the US is dependent on how much they can pay, if anything, and too many people have little or no access to health care. Senior citizens are halving their pills so they can make their prescriptions stretch out further. Are you trying to tell me that someone who makes six figures is more entitled to good health care than someone who makes minimum wage?

Where did I say anything like what you just wrote? You said the high cost of med care is due to exorbitant Dr fees. In the next breath you commend Drs for the risk they take and the amount of education they endure. . You then bitch about drug costs which Drs have no control. I said absolutely nothing about who is entitled to health care. Nothing at all.

Honest, Mercurial I know you are bright but I have no idea what your point is in this case.

BTW your mom will surely know that MEDICAID, the federal health care for the poor covers care pretty well. Poor People on MC have decent health care. The working poor do not. Is that what you are trying to say?

Help me here you are all over the place.

BTW, the drug package Bush pushed thru recently was a complete sell out to AARP and a total ass rape of the tax payer. Interestingly enough, having been given such a plum of an entitlement with out regard for cost, Senior citizens are STILL squawking. Bush handed them a golden goose and they thanked him with a punch in the groin.

 

[Lordpendragon]

The UK hasn't been able to break the monopolistic stranglehold that senior consultants have on our Health Service in fifty years. They get a basic of around $250,000 for four hours a five day week. They then manipulate the waiting list for the richer people to go private for their consultation after which they go to the front of the queue, because what a lot of people have to wait for is the consultation. I am sure that there are committed consultants, but the ones who view the National Health as their God given right (because of study funnily enough), can make a further $500,000 + from the private work that they cherry pick from the Health Service. It would be nice to be able to split private and public work, but the British Medical Association is a closed shop union (otherwise illegal for blue collars) and controls the supply of doctors well below the demand.

You have to be a lot cleverer to become a vet in the UK, and study longer, but they earn a whole heap less.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, I have friends who are senior consultants and they tell me this with a completely straight face.

 

[Ethyl]

Where did I say anything like what you just wrote? I said absolutely nothing about who is entitled to health care. Nothing at all.

Its not GWBs fault. Its the American peoples fault. We want cadillac care at yugo prices. We could have a reasonably priced insurance but there would be an ugly kicker. Care would have to be with held from those with little chance of survival. Care would need to be rationed. Thats a tough political sell.

Quoted for purposes of clarity.

BTW your mom will surely know that MEDICAID, the federal health care for the poor covers care pretty well. Poor People on MC have decent health care. The working poor do not. Is that what you are trying to say?

The working poor make up the bulk of the 50 million who don't have health insurance. The single working poor aren't eligible for anything unless they have a disability as you can see here. If at any time you make a mere $50-100 dollars over the income guideline, you're fucked. A family with a disabled member can't get ahead at all because they know they'll lose their Medicaid if they make more than the limit set in the guidelines.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Quoted for purposes of clarity.


The working poor make up the bulk of the 50 million who don't have health insurance. The single working poor aren't eligible for anything unless they have a disability as you can see here. If at any time you make a mere $50-100 dollars over the income guideline, you're fucked. A family with a disabled member can't get ahead at all because they know they'll lose their Medicaid if they make more than the limit set in the guidelines.

I still don't see it. I guess I am dumb. I said nothing about access to care. You are seeing something not there. LOrd P just confirmed indirectly what i said. UKers have to queue up in line to get seen and wait for months maybe. That won't work in America politically. . In the UK they ration by waiting. Why am I always right?

I won't be kind here. If you think this is GWBs fault, you're frickin nuts. Hilary and Bill couldn't make this work, they had 8 years, and she tried hard.

 

[Ethyl]

I still don't see it. I guess I am dumb. I said nothing about access to care. You are seeing something not there. LOrd P just confirmed indirectly what i said. UKers have to queue up in line to get seen and wait for months maybe. That won't work in America politically. . In the UK they ration by waiting. Why am I always right?

I won't be kind here. If you think this is GWBs fault, you're frickin nuts. Hilary and Bill couldn't make this work, they had 8 years, and she tried hard.

I never said a word about Bush. I've not stated my political leanings on this issue once This problem is much larger than the presidency. You say you're right but you haven't provided any solutions to the problem except Medicaid and i've already pointed out why that's not a good long term solution.

Lpd brought up a very good point: is health care a god-given right? Does everyone deserve access to good health care? Some say yes, some say no. This is the crux of the health care issue. What is the worth of human life? Seems it has more do with income than anything else. How sad.

 

[Freddie53]

Don't know how this got into medical care, but it has. We have several problems in American health care. This aren't listed in a particular order.

1. The American Medical Association. This is a high class union. They but the AFLCIO to shame in being able to set their hourly wage. They control how many doctors there are to make sure that there is always a demand for doctors and not a surplus of doctors. They do police themselves better than the blue collar unions and keep the level of competence up higher than what are called unions. But anyway you slice it The American Medical Association is a union. So is the National Education Association. Many teachers try to downplay that and say it is just a professoinal organization. I am a member of the NEA. I don't mind admitting was is. If it looks like a union, acts like a union than by george it must be a union. But you say doctors don't strike for their raises. Yes, they do, the prices are non negociable. Try to pay less than their rate and see how long you get treated.

2. The Insurance Compnies. We won't go to a universal health care in America ever unless the insurance companies get to run it and make untold millions and the top brass getting hugh bonuses. Medicare is run by the insurance companies and make a hefty profit on running medicare.

The drug companies. For some reason, the cost of producing new medications is paid for by Americans. Those durg companies sell their drugs as exports for less than what they sell them to Americans. Should it be illegal. Certainly. It is for all other products. A country can't by the internaitonal trade laws sell TVs as exports for less than what they sell for in the country where they are manufactured. But somehow, durgs are exempt from this.

Insurance companies and drug companies year in and year out have the highest profit margins.

So we Americans get screwed not once but three times in our medical care.

We do have to find a workable program for those 50 million uninsured. Why? The cost of taking care of them is higher item for the tax payer than most folks realize. Since hospitlals have to treat patients. The uninsured go the the emergency room for routine visits for sinus infections, other infections and other non emergency routine medical care. The cost is considerably more expensive than the cost at a meidcal doctor's clinic and the government ends up paying for nearly all this meidcial expense.

We can actually save money to have a plan where these uninsured people can get care at a medical clinic.

I propose that one a major tax benefit be given for medical insurance. That would make it very convenient for many people who chose not to ahve medical insurance to have it.

Two we need a national insurance company that will accept people who can't get insurance anywhere else because they are too ill and no one will insure them at any price. And we could have a law that if you don't have a private insurance policy then the premium for this national "bare bones insurance' will be decucted from your paycheck or will be due when you pay your income taxes.

Three, we need to make more use of nurse practitioners under a physician to treat routine, not life threatening situaions that a simple blood test can verify such as blader infections, strep throat, the flu, simple wounds etc.
These nurse practitioners don't take as long in their studies and it would be much cheaper. Any serous situation can always be referred to the physician in charge immediately. I've found most of my visits to the doctor are for presciptions for a problem I can already tell I have and I know what drugs I need, but since they are prescription, I have to see a doctor.

 

[Blocko]

From blocko:

>>>The government spending their tax dollars helps the economy as much as you spending yours, if not more.<<<

I don't believe this to be true. I spend money relatively efficiently. The government does not. I agree with the stuff about the infrastructure but a lot of gov spending is inefficient. The bigger the inefficiency the more the small man is hurt. Rich people aren't hurt by inefficiencies but the little man is.

This is actually a fallacy - not all government spends money inefficiently. I have customers from both government and private companies and without a doubt the most inefficient spenders are private. Government doesn't have to spend money inefficiently, there is no inherent reason they do. In fact, they have a level of budgeting and accountability that is unheard of in much private business.

 

[Big Dreamer]

I still don't see it. I guess I am dumb. I said nothing about access to care. You are seeing something not there. LOrd P just confirmed indirectly what i said. UKers have to queue up in line to get seen and wait for months maybe. That won't work in America politically. . In the UK they ration by waiting. Why am I always right?

I won't be kind here. If you think this is GWBs fault, you're frickin nuts. Hilary and Bill couldn't make this work, they had 8 years, and she tried hard.

Saying that Americans won't line up and wait in a queue makes you sound arrogant, to say the least. Canadians and British live under this system, and while it's definitely flawed, it does turn basic health care into a less purchasable commodity. The obvious extension of that is the lower income people of each country don't feel like second class citizens when their health is in jeopardy.

LordP mentioned systemic corruption in how health care is doled out in the UK. That's a fucking shame, but I think the best solution would be to clean the corrupt assholes out of the system than to throw out the baby with the bathwater and scrap the whole ideal.

It's a little too convenient to hold viewpoints in opposition to "healthcare for all" if we exist at an income level where we've never been exposed to the physical ailments and stress that can accumulate from a lack of health coverage. Saying "Well I have this friend who's a social worker and she says........blah,blah,blah." doesn't give you the same frame of reference as someone who comes from generations of not having access to these basic services.