Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

That's the typical liberal response - tax the wealthy. There aren't enough wealthy people to solve this. It falls to the middle class.

Donald Trump hasn't paid taxes in decades. I'm sure he's not the only one. Liberal billionaires and celebrities have remarked that they don't pay their fair share...because they aren't asked to.

Why are you against increasing the tax burden on the wealthy? Befuddling.

+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

One has to conclude that people like the PP don't truly understand how much wealth the truly wealthy have amassed, and when they're allowed not to have any skin in the game - and they arguably have less than anyone with their ability to exist above and apart from the rest of us - we all suffer.

But let's take $10 from poor people because you believe some internet story about someone who says the government pays for everything.

First, why is it so wrong to want poor people to kick in $10, but there's no problem requiring someone earning $50k to pay $15,000 a year for medical? Again, all the liberal defense that poor people should get a completely free ride even if it means bankrupting people in the middle class.

And second, the idea that increasing taxes on the wealthy is how to solve it is the old liberal belief that simply isn't true. There just aren't enough wealthy people to cover the entitlement expansions. We would have to drop pretty for down into the middle class to raise the tax revenues needed.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-raising-taxes-1-will-not-lead-surprising-amounts-revenue

I think a sliding scale is fine, but for the truly poor, paying $10 for medical service could mean one less meal to eat during the week. Many senior citizens already have to choose between eating and paying for rx. Why are people trying to make it worse for them?

There are enough wealthy people, income over $1mil where if they are assessed a flat 25% tax rate, it would help. How can it not help? Why do you think the IRS provides those amnesty programs for people who have hidden money overseas to bring them back in? Why do you think gov'ts are trying to get corporations to bring back income from overseas? Because all of that helps.

-not a liberal, but someone whose actual federal tax rate is 28%.

For the truly poor who can't pay $10 and would miss a meal, OK. But if it's a "truly poor" person who smokes - and there are a lot of them - NO. They have to pay, and if they have to buy one less pack this month, great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

[Anonymous]

I was standing behind a young woman in her. 20s, non.-English speaking, with six kids under 8 in tow. I bet she and her family gets better medical care than I do!

P.S. This was at Walmart. I had never even been to a Walmart until two years ago when the Obamaczre costs started burying me. Now it's where I buy a lot of my stuff. That's what socialism does. Raises the lifestyle of the poor, and lowers the lifestyle of the middle class who is subsidizing the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

[Anonymous]

A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

[Anonymous]

^^^Neglected to credit the author of that passage: w. James Antle III, an acclaimed conservative political author/journalist/editor

Far from a liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

Yes, that's the simplistic picture the liberals paint. The poor get insurance, and who cares about anyone else. In the meantime, MILLIONS of people are now unable to afford health insurance as a result of the redistribution. And how do you know that "most" are happy it passed? As I recall, the majority of the country was opposed to it, and that's why Obama delayed aspects of the implementation - to hide how much it hurt people. And it's not just self-employed people, either. Employers are finding the increased costs under Obamaczre so great that they're dropping coverage. Don't kid yourself. This law has caused a tremendous amount of financial pain to millions of previously insured middle class people. Maybe you can open your mind to THAT.

I myself have opened a HELOC and plan to draw $10k per year to offset my increased costs. But it's really a shame that after years of being able to cover my medical costs from current income, I now have to BORROW money to ensure I get the care I need. But that money will have to be paid back eventually, so I'm just postponing the pain. My other choice is to downsize and buy a condo, which I may do in a couple of years if this law is still as harmful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They do - sales taxes, fees, etc.

Regressive taxes.

Those are taxes that go to states NOT FIT. All income levels pay those taxes which do not go into the computation. FIT has phaseouts for various credits and deductions which do NOT appear to have any consistency. CCTC has some level of unlimited-10m maghi it's available. Casualty losses? huge phaseout. Child refund-huge phaseout. Education? huge phaseout. Even itemized deductions have a phaseout feature.

If you have a higher income and donate over 50% to charity? Phaseout. Many for example in the DMV and other high cola areas pay over 39% FIT and FICA/SS/Medicare is another percentage. So what's the effect of the 125k free college? SS for SAHM? 2000 [doubling] Child refund?

Ever wonder who actually pays for destroyed /flooded beach front/bayou property? Chinese drywall? Ponzi schemes? There are even tax relief moments if a tree falls , misses a structure, and has to be dealt with by a tree company! https://www.irs.gov/publications/p547/ar02.html But check phaseouts-some kick in on different categories.

Anyone have flood insurance? It is a separate plan from home owners and has some really screwy underwriting. We looked at a place that had the most unlikely/best rating. 2 blocks away was the worst rating and a freakin swamp and interconnected development drainage mechanisms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

The big picture with age 26, pre-existing is fine. but the devil is in the underwriting. The most junior underwriter or actuary could see the flaws. Penalties too low. Age 26? Stay on parent plans. And who can enroll? It's like medicare. Let into the group any elderly person here 5 years and they can get subsidies or pay a measly 550 or so /month. Meanwhile others have stashed 100000+ to keep medicare rolling. Or best of all? Enroll for surgery then dump the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

PP. Oops. just noticed you didn't write that passage, but an acclaimed conservative did. No wonder it sounded so reasonable!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something no one seems to talk about in this discussion is what a rip off social security is for the middle class. If instead of having to pay nearly 7% in FICA taxes, I could add that to a 401k and just buy the S&P index, I guarantee you that we'd all be able to retire a lot earlier. But noooooooo, nanny government needs to give us a crappy rate of return to subsidize the bad decision-making of less prudent people who have less impulse control not to spend it right now. That's what really pisses me off.

Well if you're self-employed you have to pay nearly 15% in FICA taxes as well as contribute to a SEP IRA. Stop your belly aching or man up and start your own business.

You're missing the point. I agree it's even MORE unfair to the self employed person. Fact is, Social Security is just a way to screw over people who exercise self control and save prudently.

The problem with social security and many other government programs is that they do not reflect the current reality. When SS was created, the country was much less affluent and older people lived only on their savings or the often reluctant largesse of their children. Most men died within a few years of retiring and women struggled on for a few more years. Many older people are in the same situation and many are not. I am 71 and was forced to take social security at age 70 and was forced to take disbursements from my IRA at 70.5. I continue to work, and these two contributions just make me pay more in taxes. I do not want a pity party, but if I could have refused to take the disbursements I would have more incentive to continue to work in a job I love I am self employed, so I am not blocking a younger person from doing my work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

I posted that passage written by a conservative. I'm a bleeding heart liberal anti-poverty advocate, and I think it's a good summary. I suspect Clinton would agree with the statement as well. Remember (or learn now for the first time): Clinton is NOT liberal. Bernie forced her to skip left, but she's a moderate. Google "Clinton Democrat" or Blue Dog Democrat...it's a thing ;0)

Clinton has said that ACA needs to be fixed. Nobody thinks ACA is perfect. But most conservatives simply want to do away with it. And that's just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

PP. Oops. just noticed you didn't write that passage, but an acclaimed conservative did. No wonder it sounded so reasonable!!

I think you are missing the points about how conservatives are directly to blame for ACA.