Obama Health Plan to tax the rich

Jeanwah

PearlJain wrote:

I'm not going to get into some kind of "We Are The World" type conversation with you - nor anyone else. I don't know anyone personally who wants people to starve, or go without the basics. But soaking the (so-called) rich is not the answer. Even before the U.S. fell onto these hard economic times. I've certainly worked with people within the community whom were just plain lazy. I don't want to support people like this...- those whom's career choice is to do nothing, with alot of support to not even try, and just decide to live off of tax-payer dollars. (And that goes for Illegals as well.) There is something wrong with THAT, too.

Oh, because you may have had experience with SOME lazy people, you're going to generalize that everyone who doesn't think like you are lazy. Lump everyone into two categories. See, that's the problem; everything's not black and white.

_

PearlJain wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

It figures. I don't know your situation (don't want to -so please don't share it with me). In general - the only people whom agree with this - are those whom have not worked their asses off to earn this kind of income. I'm sure I stand, for the most part, alone (on this websight). However - until one earns it, and has reaped what they earn - you wouldn't understand that position. No one should ever have the arbitrary right, nor entitlement- to someone else's money.

You might want to change your signature then.....

Your statement can also work the other way, you know. Until you have worked your ass off only to remain poor and uninsured, you wouldn't understand that position. And no one should have the arbitrary right to the fruits of another's labor - especially without providing basic health care in exchange. (You may say it's not arbitrary because the employees off whose backs most of those rich people "earn" their money could just get another job if they don't like it... to which I'd say the rich people who pay taxes could just move to another country if they don't like it.)

By the way, it's my understanding that two of the richest (and, by your logic, therefore most hard-working) people in this country (Buffett & Gates) do agree with this.

ajedigecko

scb wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

It figures. I don't know your situation (don't want to -so please don't share it with me). In general - the only people whom agree with this - are those whom have not worked their asses off to earn this kind of income. I'm sure I stand, for the most part, alone (on this websight). However - until one earns it, and has reaped what they earn - you wouldn't understand that position. No one should ever have the arbitrary right, nor entitlement- to someone else's money.

You might want to change your signature then.....

Your statement can also work the other way, you know. Until you have worked your ass off only to remain poor and uninsured, you wouldn't understand that position. And no one should have the arbitrary right to the fruits of another's labor - especially without providing basic health care in exchange. (You may say it's not arbitrary because the employees off whose backs most of those rich people "earn" their money could just get another job if they don't like it... to which I'd say the rich people who pay taxes could just move to another country if they don't like it.)

By the way, it's my understanding that two of the richest (and, by your logic, therefore most hard-working) people in this country (Buffett & Gates) do agree with this.

good point and well said..............that is why i like this place, i am confused on this subject.

Anon

scb wrote:

JB811 wrote:

Stealing is stealing, no matter what coat of paint you try to cover it with.

Wait - remind me again how they're stealing? Breaking the law, sure... but stealing?

There are plenty of citizens in this country that would take those jobs. Time and time again after these meatpacking plants are raided there are hundreds of citizens applying for those jobs the very next day. The employer crackdowns need to be ramped up greatly and the fines for employing illegal aliens needs to be severe, up to and including jail time for these CEO's.

This country is in a mess, we can't afford to not work for our own citizens.

_

JB811 wrote:

scb wrote:

JB811 wrote:

Stealing is stealing, no matter what coat of paint you try to cover it with.

Wait - remind me again how they're stealing? Breaking the law, sure... but stealing?

There are plenty of citizens in this country that would take those jobs. Time and time again after these meatpacking plants are raided there are hundreds of citizens applying for those jobs the very next day. The employer crackdowns need to be ramped up greatly and the fines for employing illegal aliens needs to be severe, up to and including jail time for these CEO's.

This country is in a mess, we can't afford to not work for our own citizens.

Eh... stealing's a stretch considering that they were hired for the jobs. I'll agree that they're criminals in that they don't live here legally, but I'm pretty sure you know (and the law agrees) that there are varying degrees of severity of crime. Comparing these people to violent felons is inappropriate and I believe it's only done to dehumanize them so as to justify the attitude that they are less deserving of health care than those of us who were fortunate enough to have been born on this side of the border.

OutOfBreath

Just a comment from an outsider on the whole healthcare issue.

I see that perceived huge additional costs with providing health care to all is an issue. To that I'd say that it doesn't have to cost more than you are spending today on various Medicare/Medicaid measures plus the money you use for insurance premiums. Noone in the world spends as much money as you per capita on health. Not even "socialist Europeans" come close. Noone has as many doctors as you do per capita. That you still have millions without care is not because more money is needed. It's purely an organizational and structural issue. You get rid of the maximised profit incentive and having a state single payer system would reduce overhead by so much that millions more could get care without a single added cent. Probably all of them. The state could then use it's bargaining power to bear against the doctors and medical companies to get discounts and lower fees. (And yes, they would still make more than enough money to stay happy)

It is completely doable, and is done in many countries that are otherwise pretty comparable to the US. And these other countries spend far less on it too.

The quality is also brought up all the time. To that I'll say that for many people, if they could have the choice of 3 slightly different shitty plans, and a compulsory mediocre plan, there's no doubt which they'd want. It is about priority really. Should most people get decent care, or should some get super care on the expense of huge numbers getting none? I also feel very strongly that access to health care should be dictated by need and seriousness of the condition, not your bank account. Would mean that you'd have to wait a bit longer to deal with smaller nuisances. But I for one, dont have a problem waiting a bit to have someone look at my moderately ailing knees, if that means they treat someone's heart attack before me. Also, at some point the people who havent gotten any prior treatment turn up at the emergency room with a REALLY serious condition that must out of moral conscience be treated at once at huge expense. You may stick a bill in their pocket on their way out (if they survive), but chances are they can't really pay it, incurring a cost on the system anyway. It's not very efficient, not to mention morality.

People have a right to life, and the right to health care comes naturally along as a consequence. People have as much need for health services as they do army and police for instance. And I never hear much complaining about spending on those.

Peace
Dan

Pepe Silvia

JB811 wrote:

Here is another thing. All of these politicians, no matter the party, that want this package to go through should also be forced to accept it for their own health care. After all we are paying their salaries and benefits, they are not Kings and Queens, they should accept what they think is good enough for the American citizen.

and they and their families continue to receive these benefits after they leave office, don't they?

Gern Blansten

PearlJain wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

It figures. I don't know your situation (don't want to -so please don't share it with me). In general - the only people whom agree with this - are those whom have not worked their asses off to earn this kind of income. I'm sure I stand, for the most part, alone (on this websight). However - until one earns it, and has reaped what they earn - you wouldn't understand that position. No one should ever have the arbitrary right, nor entitlement- to someone else's money.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our system...

Whose money was it before it was yours? Someone else's?

I make a decent living and of course no one likes to pay taxes but that's capitalism. The same system that allows you to make what you make and spend what you spend needs to dip into your pockets every once in awhile....that's just the way it is....I'm guessing you aren't old enough to remember the 50% income tax bracket last seen in 1986?????

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

It figures. I don't know your situation (don't want to -so please don't share it with me). In general - the only people whom agree with this - are those whom have not worked their asses off to earn this kind of income. I'm sure I stand, for the most part, alone (on this websight). However - until one earns it, and has reaped what they earn - you wouldn't understand that position. No one should ever have the arbitrary right, nor entitlement- to someone else's money.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our system...

Whose money was it before it was yours? Someone else's?

I make a decent living and of course no one likes to pay taxes but that's capitalism. The same system that allows you to make what you make and spend what you spend needs to dip into your pockets every once in awhile....that's just the way it is....I'm guessing you aren't old enough to remember the 50% income tax bracket last seen in 1986?????

thats not capitalism, thats socialism. get your isms right

Gern Blansten

Jeanwah wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

I'm not going to get into some kind of "We Are The World" type conversation with you - nor anyone else. I don't know anyone personally who wants people to starve, or go without the basics. But soaking the (so-called) rich is not the answer. Even before the U.S. fell onto these hard economic times. I've certainly worked with people within the community whom were just plain lazy. I don't want to support people like this...- those whom's career choice is to do nothing, with alot of support to not even try, and just decide to live off of tax-payer dollars. (And that goes for Illegals as well.) There is something wrong with THAT, too.

Oh, because you may have had experience with SOME lazy people, you're going to generalize that everyone who doesn't think like you are lazy. Lump everyone into two categories. See, that's the problem; everything's not black and white.

exactly....my right winger Rush Limbaugh disciple brother in law is the same way....yes there are lazy people who are on welfare...there are also lazy rich people who get their asses in debt and file bankruptcy...bankruptcy is the rich mans welfare

Anon

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

JB811 wrote:

Here is another thing. All of these politicians, no matter the party, that want this package to go through should also be forced to accept it for their own health care. After all we are paying their salaries and benefits, they are not Kings and Queens, they should accept what they think is good enough for the American citizen.

and they and their families continue to receive these benefits after they leave office, don't they?

I'm not going to say yes for sure but I think so. I know their health care right now is 100% free and 100% coverage. Not to mention the best doctors, and no waiting.

PearlJain

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

Gern Blansten

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

its 5% on top of the nearly 40% they already pay.

PearlJain

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

....because enough money (taxes) is NEVER enough. It's going to be like the Energizer Bunny....it's going to keep going...and going...and going...and going......................................until there's no one left to bleed dry.

gimmesometruth27

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

i agree. i have never seen so many selfish "rich people" on one message board in my life. from what i can tell, most of the people that are against this around here are not the ones affected by it. if i made $350 k i would not mind paying extra tax if less fortunate people could have health care. part of that might be in my make up, or the religious training i had when i was younger that tells me i am my brother's keeper.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

its 5% on top of the nearly 40% they already pay.

misleading....someone in the 40% bracket isn't paying 40% of their income in tax....they are paying 40% of the amount of their taxable income (total income less deductions and exemptions) that is in the 40% bracket

Gern Blansten

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

i agree. i have never seen so many selfish "rich people" on one message board in my life. from what i can tell, most of the people that are against this around here are not the ones affected by it. if i made $350 k i would not mind paying extra tax if less fortunate people could have health care. part of that might be in my make up, or the religious training i had when i was younger that tells me i am my brother's keeper.

exactly...it drives me nuts when they say "how can you raise taxes in a bad economy"....I mean come on....if you're making over $350K in a bad economy you should be able to afford it

I hate paying taxes....hell I'm a CPA and help people reduce their taxes

Gern Blansten

PearlJain wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Some of you sound like very angry broke people..... Attack and clobber the rich people whom earn $350,000 a year! Be for real. I don't think it's wise to attack the small business owner - as it's the same as slitting your own economic throats. BTW - Bill Gates is a Billionaire. I don't see him living in a shack. Do you think he will be first in line to accept this Healthcare Plan? Why all of the anger? You got the President you wanted, with a Democratic Congress to boot. I'm the one whom should be angry. :roll:

I have a hard time believing that raising the income tax 5% on someone making $350,000 per year is "clobbering"

....because enough money (taxes) is NEVER enough. It's going to be like the Energizer Bunny....it's going to keep going...and going...and going...and going......................................until there's no one left to bleed dry.

do a little research on the history of our tax rates....we've had it very good for quite some time....Reagan was smart to reduce the rates when he did...the problem was they should have slowly crept up every year but they didn't because that was political suicide....George Bush was right to raise taxes and they crucified him...if taxes had been raised over the years since 1986 this recession would not have hit as hard and there would be the ability to drop the top tax rates again like Reagan did to stabilize the economy

jlew24asu

when is enough, enough? people who make $350k a year already pay the MOST and now you want to tax them more.

what happens when 5% isn't enough to pay for this plan. should we just tack on another 5%? no no, maybe 15%. because thats what it will probably end up costing.

and its almost hilarious that some here think its selfish for OTHERS not to pay more in taxes. are those of you who want the rich to pay for everything going to donate more of your check to the IRS voluntarily? if not, why are you so selfish?