The Warren Buffet Challenge

[Chutney Daftcraft]

D just called me, and told me about what he just saw on the Today Show.

Warren Buffet was on, and has posed a tax challenge that I can't wait for the results to.

He has pledged one million dollars, donated to charity of choice, if *ANY* Chief Executive from a Fortune 500 company can prove they paid higher than a 17% income tax rate.

Keep in mind that most of us pay 30% or so.

I can't find a link to the challenge, as it was literally just announced, but here is a story with his sentiment:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[Starbuck]

Quote from Mr. Buffet: "If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Egg-sactly

[derricksonb]

17% income tax rate.

Keep in mind that most of us pay 30% or so.

17% of $10,000,000 = $1,700,000.00
30% of $30,000 = $9,000.00

Not to mention that the person earning $30,000 is more likely to ACTUALLY use the Federal and State provided services and programs which these tax dollars fund.

Por Exemplo- You and a group of co-workers walk in to a McDonalds and You order an All-American Meal. Do you pay for that or does the person with the highest salary foot the bill?

[Starbuck]

When a billionaire challenges other ultra-rich to pay their fair share, then something's askew in economic policy. Why else would he be advocating paying more in taxes? What are these ultra-rich afraid of that they are speaking out about wealth discrepancies?

Maybe the person making 30K/year wouldn't have to use federal program paid for by taxpayers if he/she was allowed to keep more of that 9K they paid the gubmint.

The McDonald's example isn't really apropos, because you choose to go there. You can't choose how much money you pay in taxes. Similarly, you can't choose where that money goes.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

17% of $10,000,000 = $1,700,000.00

30% of $30,000 = $9,000.00


Ok, and your point being?

[derricksonb]

Ok, and your point being?

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently but, the fact still remins that the persons who pay the highest percent are the ones least likely to use the programs.

You yourself have said it before that even if the programs went away the government would not scale back the percentages or issue refunds, but would re-allocate the funds to different programs.

Starbuck I'm glad you bit on the McDonalds comparison, because in essence that is exactly whats happening in healthcare.


The McDonald's example isn't really apropos, because you choose to go there. You can't choose how much money you pay in taxes. Similarly, you can't choose where that money goes.

Those people who choose not to have insurance also chose to use the Emergenct Room as their primary care physicians. They can't pay for the goods and services provided by the ER and so the highest wage earners end up paying for their care.

I wonder what would happen if the government actually allowed the people to specify what programs and percentage of their taxes go to fund what programs. Pretty sure that 90%+ of the top wage earners would not allocate theirs to welfare, health care and other social programs. The reason most people are wealthy is because they know how to invest their money and pissing it away on social programs is a bad investment.

[JiveTurkey]

Those people who choose not to have insurance also chose to use the Emergenct Room as their primary care physicians. They can't pay for the goods and services provided by the ER and so the highest wage earners end up paying for their care.




I can attest!!! He's not making it up! Or how about this one:

"I called 911 for my kid who was vomiting because knew she would get seen faster in the ER."

Meanwhile, people who are actually sick an have actual emergencies are left dying at home so this woman can hog an unnecessary ambulance that we are all paying for. Because she deems herself far too important to wait.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently but, the fact still remins that the persons who pay the highest percent are the ones most likely to use the programs.

So?


You yourself have said it before that even if the programs went away the government would not scale back the percentages or issue refunds, but would re-allocate the funds to different programs.

That is what I believe. Once someone has a revenue stream, they are not going to let it go. Our government is no different.


Starbuck I'm glad you bit on the McDonalds comparison, because in essence that is exactly whats happening in healthcare.

Irony! One is causing the other!


Those people who choose not to have insurance also choose to use the Emergenct Room as their primary care physicians. They can't pay for the goods and services provided by the ER and so the highest wage earners end up paying for their care.

One mnore reason to promote Universal Coverage. I, as a taxpayer, would rather pay a 150 dollar office visit, and for a 40 dollar drug rather than paying for a multi-thousand dollar ER bill. Oh, and we're paying these ER bills, lemme tell you...


I wonder what would happen if the government actually allowed the people to specify what programs and percentage of their taxes go to fund what programs.

The war in Iraq would end due to a severe lack of funds.


Pretty sure that 90%+ of the top wage earners would not allocate theirs to welfare, health care and other social programs. The reason most people are wealthy is because they know how to invest their money and pissing it away on social programs is a bad investment.

Yes they would. Everyone likes to feel good about where their money goes, and I think you must be sheltered, because the majority of the people I have met would rather see a hungry child eat than to see a well-paid "above law" mercenary shoot a hungry child overseas.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Because she deems herself far too important to wait.

How about "The doctors office told her that the only way she will be seen is if full payment is tendered BEFORE services are rendered"

[derricksonb]

The only way to make it truly fair is to take the Federal and State budgets allocated to each state and divide by the number of residents over the age of 18.

Everyone pays the exact same amount from the White House to the Outhouse and from Beverly Hills to West Ridge Hills.

[ValentineJessi]

I wonder what would happen if the government actually allowed the people to specify what programs and percentage of their taxes go to fund what programs. Pretty sure that 90%+ of the top wage earners would not allocate theirs to welfare, health care and other social programs. The reason most people are wealthy is because they know how to invest their money and pissing it away on social programs is a bad investment.
I would def. be part of that 90%. I for one am tired of paying for people that don't want to get up and help themselves. I'm all about helping people that can't actually help themselves i.e. elderly people, people with disablites, but let's face it people, LAZINESS is not a disablity!

[derricksonb]

So?

You may want to go back and re-read my response. I had to self edit to read, "The people paying the most are the LEAST likely to use the programs."




That is what I believe. Once someone has a revenue stream, they are not going to let it go. Our government is no different.

Kind of like whan a pimp has a hooker who's willing to turn 15 tricks a day. He ain't gonna let that b!tch go. So like it or not, right now you're W's B!tch.....



One mnore reason to promote Universal Coverage. I, as a taxpayer, would rather pay a 150 dollar office visit, and for a 40 dollar drug rather than paying for a multi-thousand dollar ER bill. Oh, and we're paying these ER bills, lemme tell you...


WRONG- Thats one more reason for people to get insurance or a primary care physician. Have you any idea what Comrade Clintons "Universal" Healthcare Proposal is actually going to cost (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09192007c.shtml) in comparison to the rest of the budget???

More than 120 Billion Dollars. Enough money to run 6 federal agencies. Or the Federal Gov could adopt a new Health Care Strategy. (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09212007a.shtml)



The war in Iraq would end due to a severe lack of funds.


Silly City- Even Hillary won't pull the troops out of Iraq once she's in office nor will she cut the defense spending Budget. Why? Because she's a wealthy person and investing in Defense and technology funds is always a good investment. Think man. What is the one factor that has driven every major advance modern man has enjoyed? WAR.




Yes they would. Everyone likes to feel good about where their money goes, and I think you must be sheltered, because the majority of the people I have met would rather see a hungry child eat than to see a well-paid "above law" mercenary shoot a hungry child overseas.

That's because I hang out in bars where men drink beer and whiskey- not Mojitos and fruity drinks with frilly umbrellas.

[ValentineJessi]

Totally correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told once that Canada has a similar health care system, and they had a 6 month waiting period, and it was first come, first serve. Too bad if you have cancer, you have to wait 6 months while the nose bleeds, and vomit is cleaned up.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The only way to make it truly fair is to take the Federal and State budgets allocated to each state and divide by the number of residents over the age of 18.

Everyone pays the exact same amount from the White House to the Outhouse and from Beverly Hills to West Ridge Hills.

OMG. It's too late for you.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The waiting periods are mostly myth. Those myths are top make the uninformed public very, very afraid of Universal Healthcare. Those myths, usually based on very manipulated data, are put out there by, guess who?

That's right, the one's with the most to lose.

There's more money to be made in Healthcare in the US than anywhere else in the world. Period. Universal Healthcare threatens the ridiculous profitability of the US healthcare system. It's great that our system is so profitable, until you think about where those profits are really coming from - our wallets.

But here's a fear-generator that trumps that:

Totally correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told once that The US has a capitalism-based health care system, and they have a "pay before you see the doctor" rule, and it was first pay, first served, or no pay, no serve. Too bad if you have cancer, you have to DIE if you don't have the money.

[Kensey]

Totally correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told once that Canada has a similar health care system, and they had a 6 month waiting period, and it was first come, first serve. Too bad if you have cancer, you have to wait 6 months while the nose bleeds, and vomit is cleaned up.

What I'm told by people who live in Canada is, for elective procedures the wait can be quite lengthy, but medically necessary or emergency care is not significantly better or worse than the US. So you still get your cancer treatments on time, but the lady wanting a boob job may have to wait. The gray area comes where one doctor may classify a procedure as necessary preventative care while another says it's not necessary at all unless the condition worsens.

We have the same thing here in the US, really, if you belong to an HMO. And how much better is it to get a procedure that you can't and your insurance won't pay for, assuming the doctor will even do an unreimbursed procedure for you?

[JiveTurkey]

How about "The doctors office told her that the only way she will be seen is if full payment is tendered BEFORE services are rendered"

Nope, medicaid totally covers office visits.

[JiveTurkey]

The waiting periods are mostly myth. Those myths are top make the uninformed public very, very afraid of Universal Healthcare. Those myths, usually based on very manipulated data, are put out there by, guess who?

That's right, the one's with the most to lose.




I am going to say it again, this time with feeling.
I have actually taken care of patients, real people, who came to this country to have surgery or other medical procedures that their socialist government healthcare system would not allow them to have for at least one year, if ever. What on earth would I have to gain for lying about that? Trust me, I am not getting any kickbacks. I don't even get a dang lunch break during my 13 hour shift. But enough about me...

[Chutney Daftcraft]

But there's that HUGE gray area where one can't qualify for medicaid, yet cannot afford a real health plan.

And Kensey is right. People need to read their policies sometime. The reason they are so thick is not because they are listing what they cover - they're thick because of all the exclusions.

HMO = Socialist Healthcare - except that a profit-driven corporation is the one deciding what it will and will not pay for. How does an insurance company increase profits? By reducing expenses. And we are *all* their "expenses", when we're at the doctor's office or hospital...

[Starbuck]

That cancer patient has to qualify for medicaid first. It's not as easy as you think.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

They probably came here because they wanted their surgery to be better or more improved than what is available to them in their respective country. For example, if I injured my knee, I would seek out a sports medicine doctor in NC before I would go to a Kaiser Hospital down the street.

I assume that you're "saying it with feeling" was your use of the word "Socialist". It's not your fault, it's been programmed into us since the 50's. Re: healthcare, if a corporation isn't profiting from it - it's "socialist". What Socialist countries do they come here from?

Remember, Universal Health Coverage is not geared towards people that can afford international flights.

[JiveTurkey]

That cancer patient has to qualify for medicaid first. It's not as easy as you think.

It wasn't a cancer patient. It was a kid who vomited. Whose mother called EMS because she didn't want to sit in the waiting room for 30 minutes. These people are the reason why cancer patients and others who have real needs, are not getting their needs met. The system is manipulated.

FWIW, the doctor would more than likely admit a kid who vomited after the parents called EMS, which would cost you even more money. Because if kid isn't admitted, parents will just bring them back to the emergency room, again and again.

[JiveTurkey]

They probably came here because they wanted their surgery to be better or more improved than what is available to them in their respective country. For example, if I injured my knee, I would seek out a sports medicine doctor in NC before I would go to a Kaiser Hospital down the street.

Remember, Universal Health Coverage is not geared towards people that can afford international flights.

Except for the actual real person patient told me the reason why he came to VA for ACL repair was because he could not get it in England, where he lived for 1-3 years.

[JiveTurkey]

For example, if I injured my knee, I would seek out a sports medicine doctor in NC before I would go to a Kaiser Hospital down the street.


But wouldn't you expect to pay for that doctor? Since you want "the very best"? Not just some orthopedic surgeon who is also completely qualified to do the job? Because that is what they do?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Oh, he could get it, he would just get the type of ACL surgery that everyone else gets.

See, my brother in law, and the former CEO of my company both tore their ACL's in VERY similar circumstances. In fact, I would bet money that their injuries were incredibly similar, probably identical.

My brother in law had to use crutches for 3 months, had a limp for another 3 months, and pain for another 3 months, meaning a 9 month healing period. It was about a year before he could say that he was completely healed.

The former CEO, flew down to NC to a sports specialist, and was walking 2 days later, strolling the following week, and back in full force the week after that.

That's why I used that knee analogy. That was when I learned that healthcare is like everything else - you get what you can pay for.

[JiveTurkey]

And no, I am saying it with feeling, because I do it for a living and therefore know a little about it.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

But wouldn't you expect to pay for that doctor? Since you want "the very best"? Not just some orthopedic surgeon who is also completely qualified to do the job? Because that is what they do?

Of course I would pay for that doctor!

Just like the people that are flying here! For that same reason!

[JiveTurkey]

Of course I would pay for that doctor!

Just like the people that are flying here! For that same reason!

So, flying here to have surgery because a healthcare system says you can't have it, is the same as going to NC to have surgery because you think the surgeon is better?

BTW, there are so many variables in the rehab of a torn ACL. Not just "who did the surgery".

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Do you *really* think that it was unavailable in his country?

So, everyone there that tears an ACL is just screwed?

I don't think so. I think he lied to you a little.

[JiveTurkey]

Do you *really* think that it was unavailable in his country?

So, everyone there that tears an ACL is just screwed?

I don't think so. I think he lied to you a little.

I don't think he lied. I really don't. He actually explained it very well, this was a few years ago, before there was much talk about this kind of thing. I supposed he could have lied, but since I am not supposed to judge what my patients tell me...

I would imagine how screwed you are depends on how screwed your knee is. Can you walk? Then you can wait. Would depend on the acuity of the injury.

You know, this healthcare issue is so interesting to me. I really would be interested in getting a good cross section of veterans' opinions about it. It seems to me the system would be very similar to the type of healthcare benefits they are receiving. I am not sure it is the answer. It IS scary.

[JiveTurkey]

But there's that HUGE gray area where one can't qualify for medicaid, yet cannot afford a real health plan.



This is true. I totally hear you.

[Nanuk]

That was when I learned that healthcare is like everything else - you get what you can pay for.

And why is thhat wrong?

Some people do better work than others because they trained more and purchased better equipment. are you suggesting (and we know that you are) that just because someone has developed better skills and abilities than the guys that you can afford, that you're somehow being gypped and the guy who does the best work should be forced to abandon any profit reward for his extra dedication and treat you for what you want to pay? And do you apply that in other areas of your life as well? I mean, do you go into the Land Rover dealership and demand a top-of-the-line SUV even though you can only afford a used Acura (or a Kia) and justify it by pointing out that others can afford one so it's not fair to deny you one? And if you don't, how can you do it with doctors?

BTW, under the system that you propose, doctors wouldn't have an incentive to excel. Why work at being the best in your field if all you're going to get is the same bottom-line universal health care reimbursement?

If you want the best health care, get a good job that pays enough to allow you to buy it. Otherwise, just like anything else, you need to be content with what you can afford.

[Nanuk]

It wasn't a cancer patient. It was a kid who vomited. Whose mother called EMS because she didn't want to sit in the waiting room for 30 minutes. These people are the reason why cancer patients and others who have real needs, are not getting their needs met. The system is manipulated.



Amen!

When I used to work for a particular fire department back in the day as a paramedic, as many as 70% of our calls came from non-emergency patients who just wanted a free ride to the hospital ("Cabs cost money...y'all's FREE!") or who figured that they'd get seen faster if the ambulance brought them in. ("I called EMS because y'all takes us right to the back and we don't have to wait in the lobby...")

This happens everywhere. Our area wasn't unique. And while EMS is playing very expensive ghetto taxi (taxpayers eat the bills), people who have real emergencies call 911 and get put on a waiting list for the next available unit.)

We fought for years to get a system put into play where people who called 911 for non-emergencies would get turned over to collection and lose a portion of their welfare checks for a few months if on state aid, but that eventually went nowhere.

[JiveTurkey]

I say, if you call 911 and it is clearly not an emergency, you should have to pay a fine. Or go to jail. Somebody could seriously die.

[Kensey]

I say, if you call 911 and it is clearly not an emergency, you should have to pay a fine. Or go to jail.

I thought there was already such a law just about everyplace.

There's a site called the Student Doctor Network whose forums have a long-running (as in years) thread called "Things I learn from my patients". There are many, many stories of frivolous ambulance rides/911 calls (and about as many tales of people who should have called 911 but waited till they were on the edge of death to go to the ER, all the while protesting "I'm OK...")

[PhoenixOrion]

Those people who choose not to have insurance also chose to use the Emergenct Room as their primary care physicians.

How about those who have no choice because they can't afford health insurance?


HUGE gray area where one can't qualify for medicaid, yet cannot afford a real health plan.

This is my biggest complaint because it's the middle-class families who work their asses off and suffer the most because they 'fall between the cracks', not qualifying for state assistance but not being able to afford adequate health coverage either. And these are the same people paying for those high taxes so other people may take advantage of it. Ugh, don't get me started. It truly pisses me off.

[JiveTurkey]

How about those who have no choice because they can't afford health insurance?



The answer is not the emergency room for primary care. That is not what an emergency room is for. There are other choices. I agree, not many...

[SeanEpperson]

In regards to The VA system, I personally have seen both good and bad from it. Certain areas have great care, others not any care. I do not use them unless it is directly related to my service connected problems, and even then I allow them, if needed to bill my insurance. I figure that if I can afford the insurance, maybe they can help someone else that needs the help and is not truly in the "system". As far as the transport and ER issues, I was a volunteer certified EMT in Texas and I have seen numerous occasions that the person calling 911 was in no real emergency rather needing a free ride and a better way in the door for care. If there is a university hospital available for health care my opinion is stay as far away from it as possible, the people working there really care but the patients are another story.

[derricksonb]

How about those who have no choice because they can't afford health insurance?


But that's the beauty of our current system... You choose the level of coverage that YOU CAN afford.


If the Dems want the taxpayers to cover a Universal Healthcare system I'd be willing to support it so long as it starts with every High School student enrolling in an ROTC program, mandatory PT before classes (since they're doing away with gym and recess in elem) and mandatory 4 year enlistments in the branch of their choosing or whichever one will take them (Let's just admit that not everyones Air Force caliber) with training in a specialized field. Of course this would require those individuals to use military doctors and military health care facilities keeping the best and brightest availlable to the men and women who defend(ed) this great country..... Then I'd be all for it.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

And why is thhat wrong?

Some people do better work than others because they trained more and purchased better equipment.


Of course...


are you suggesting (and we know that you are) (no, "we" don't) that just because someone has developed better skills and abilities than the guys that you can afford, that you're somehow being gypped and the guy who does the best work should be forced to abandon any profit reward for his extra dedication and treat you for what you want to pay?

No, not at all. I'm saying that a richer person can afford the above referenced "better" doctor. You are not a translator, therefore, try reading my words, as opposed to reading into my words.


And do you apply that in other areas of your life as well?


No, I do not apply your ridiculous assertion into my life. That's not mione, it's yours. You're really starting to make me wonder about your smarts, because if you read up, LIKE I SAID, I would fly down to NC, and pay the money for a knee injury, so I don't pay later on in life.


I mean, do you go into the Land Rover dealership and demand a top-of-the-line SUV even though you can only afford a used Acura (or a Kia) and justify it by pointing out that others can afford one so it's not fair to deny you one? And if you don't, how can you do it with doctors?


Again, No. Also, how the F do you think you know what I can and cannot afford? There is a difference between unwilling to pay, and unable to pay.

I don't go shopping for things I cannot afford. But when I went to the Mercedes dealer, I did learn that you are better off to buy a 2 year old mercedes than you are to buy a new one. See, Mercedes has a 3 year, 36K mile warranty on their new vehicles, but their certified used vehicles are covered to 100K miles.


BTW, under the system that you propose, doctors wouldn't have an incentive to excel. Why work at being the best in your field if all you're going to get is the same bottom-line universal health care reimbursement?

Probably for the same reason that bad doctors want to be protected from being sued for malpractice.


If you want the best health care, get a good job that pays enough to allow you to buy it. Otherwise, just like anything else, you need to be content with what you can afford.

Oh, I have a decent health plan, and with the streamlining this year, I will have an even better plan next year. See, as far as that goes, I am set. I HAVE good health insurance. But you'll notice that just because I have good insurance, that I don't use that as a tool to elevate myself above the people that don't. I realize that not everyone has the accesses and priveleges that I have worked for. And yes, those people actually don't deserve certain luxuries that I have. The problem is that I don't view healthcare as a luxury. To me, luxury healthcare is what I was describing re: knee injury, or cosmetic surgery. This is America, and just because a Universal Healthcare system could exist, does not mean that there will not still be a market for the best doctors available.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The answer is not the emergency room for primary care. That is not what an emergency room is for. There are other choices. I agree, not many...

The ER cannot turn you away due to lack of ability to pay.

Everyone else can, and they do. I've actually been on that side of the aisle before, and it's almost disgusting. The doctors offices that turned me away TOLD me to go to the ER. So I did.

[derricksonb]

The ER cannot turn you away due to lack of ability to pay.

Because of the way the system has been set up to pander to low income individuals who refuse to get insurance. Sorry City, but it's BS that taxpayers have to foot the bill for someone elses issue.


Everyone else can, and they do.

Because they are professionals and expect to be paid. A contractor wouldn't come over and work on your house and pass the bill off to the american taxpayer just because you feel you deserve the best you can get.



I've actually been on that side of the aisle before, and it's almost disgusting. The doctors offices that turned me away TOLD me to go to the ER. So I did.

Thats the disgusting part... That they actually told you to go sponge off of the rest of us instead of going to the pharmacy and buying a bottle of Robitussin.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Because of the way the system has been set up to pander to low income individuals who refuse to get insurance. Sorry City, but it's BS that taxpayers have to foot the bill for someone elses issue.

It is. However, I think it's also BS that someone should have to die because they can't afford to get to a doctor. You'll never understand until you're in their shoes. You must not know what it is like to think that you have something wrong with you that may kill you, and have people tell you to please leave their office. It's like 10 times worse than that beverly hills shopping scene in that movie "Pretty Woman." Subtract the humiliation, and replace that with sharp shooting pains and shock that you're being told to die somewhere else.



Because they are professionals and expect to be paid.


Of course, but you know something? I thought my appendix was fixing to burst. I had no idea that I had a simple blockage. I just knew that I had the appendix symptoms, and it hurt oh so badly. Therefore, if the laws were set up a tad differently, that could have been a 125 dollar office visit. Instead, it was a 4300 dollar ER bill. FWIW, I paid the bill off when I sold the townhouse, so no, you and Nanuk didn't pay for my blockage.


A contractor wouldn't come over and work on your house and pass the bill off to the american taxpayer just because you feel you deserve the best you can get.

That is the most ridiculous analogy yet. Comparing healthcare to home improvement in this conversation isn't close. Home improvement is not a life-or-death situation. I can understand being assed out for a toilet bill, but being assed-out because you're poor and dying - is absolutely immoral to me. At the very least, it is un-christian.

In a related home improvement/health note, when I had to re-route my sewage pipes, I did notice an unhealthy amount of craplesterol in the pipes. Does RID-X make a Lipitor for crap?


Thats the disgusting part... That they actually told you to go sponge off of the rest of us instead of going to the pharmacy and buying a bottle of Robitussin.

I know. For fun's sake, let's say that the taxpayers did foot my bill. They could have footed 125 bucks, as opposed to 4300 bucks. This is the main reason for the Universal Coverage, because believe you me, they will just go to the ER, which is sooooooooo much more expensive.

[derricksonb]

I know. For fun's sake, let's say that the taxpayers did foot my bill. They could have footed 125 bucks, as opposed to 4300 bucks. This is the main reason for the Universal Coverage, because believe you me, they will just go to the ER, which is sooooooooo much more expensive.

Ok, but just to keep it on an even keel, let's also say that you had insurance which would have guaranteed payment to the primary physician, kept insurance premiums down and still not cost tax payer a single dollar.

I know that you're a glass half empty kind of guy where as I'm a glass half full, but you have to see that people have it in them to make the right decisions and support themselves. At some point we have to stop providing for people and enable them with the ability to rise above and support themselves.

Also- Where is this $120 Billion dollars supposed to come from without raising taxes on the middle class? Do you actualy think Hillary's going to raise taxes on herself to support this????

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I can't do this. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Except for the brick wall is questioning healthcare spending, and never questions war spending. Because who the F is gonna pay these billions?

[JiveTurkey]

I know. The big glass bowl would have been a lot cheaper in the long run.

[derricksonb]

Except for the brick wall is questioning healthcare spending, and never questions war spending. Because who the F is gonna pay these billions?


City, The Federal Government is still the largest employer in the US. If it weren't for the Government and all of its dedicated professional employees and contractors who would pay for the majority of your beloved social programs??? Of course I don't question the war spending because it goes back in to the economy on many different tax levels. Don't get me wrong, social programs also go back into the ecomony, but usually in the form of fried chicken, 40ounces, Philly Blunts and KOOLS.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

You are a racist pig. Oink, Oink, bay-bee. (FWIW, I think stereotypes are hysterical, so good for you! I especially love the "all welfare people are black" one, myself. It paves the way for all kinds of fun. I could joke about that all day long, for example: Get yo clamps off my stamps, B**ch!) (you have to picture me bobbing my head like every "welfare recipient" does)

The problem I have is that they are paying like 150 an hour for someone who is being paid 40 an hour. It really is the fleecing of America, and it's outrageous to me that the same people who promote this massive rip-off overspending, want to take the health lollypop from the sick baby's mouth, and call it "fiscal responsibility" as baby dies.

Y'all don't make any sense.

[derricksonb]

You are a racist pig. Oink, Oink, bay-bee. (FWIW, I think stereotypes are hysterical, so good for you! I especially love the "all welfare people are black" one, myself. It paves the way for all kinds of fun. I could joke about that all day long, for example: Get yo clamps off my stamps, B**ch!) (you have to picture me bobbing my head like every "welfare recipient" does)

I swear to the baby Jesus dude that lately whenever I read any of your posts YOU have theme music- Either the theme song to Good Times, Sanford and Son or The Jeffersons. "Fish don fry in the keeeechon. Beans don burn on da greeel. Tooka ho lotta who I is, justa get up dat heeel."

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I do not understand what that means. Is it funny or is it rude?

BTW, swearing to the *baby* Jesus makes me giggle. I used to use that one all the time, like "you're making the baby jesus cry!"

[TokyoHits]

I'm all for a flat tax. Whatever the percentage is. A simple -- take out 25% of my earnings. That's it. No tax forms, no deductions, nothing. No need for the IRS. No need for H&R Block. Take a percentage for the Federal Government and the State. The rest I keep.

I'm sure there is some detailed explanation why that wouldn't work.

In my opinion our current tax system only benefits those that can afford to hire an accountant to find the loopholes in it.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I'm sure there is some detailed explanation why that wouldn't work.


Actually, it's really simple - the wealthy would not be able to avoid taxes like they do now. They simply would not put up with paying the "common" tax rate.

It's really that simple. That's why tax laws and tax cuts are written in their favor.

[Starbuck]

I'm all for a flat tax. Whatever the percentage is. A simple -- take out 25% of my earnings. That's it. No tax forms, no deductions, nothing. No need for the IRS. No need for H&R Block. Take a percentage for the Federal Government and the State. The rest I keep.

I'm sure there is some detailed explanation why that wouldn't work.

In my opinion our current tax system only benefits those that can afford to hire an accountant to find the loopholes in it.

AMEN Tokyo! How did this digress to a health care fight anyway???

[JiveTurkey]

I'm all for a flat tax. Whatever the percentage is. A simple -- take out 25% of my earnings. That's it. No tax forms, no deductions, nothing. No need for the IRS. No need for H&R Block. Take a percentage for the Federal Government and the State. The rest I keep.

I'm sure there is some detailed explanation why that wouldn't work.

In my opinion our current tax system only benefits those that can afford to hire an accountant to find the loopholes in it.

I am digging it, Tokyo. You're a genius, it's kinda creepy. :thumbsup:

[JiveTurkey]

AMEN Tokyo! How did this digress to a health care fight anyway???

DB, post #6. :)

[Nanuk]

There is no reason why one person should pay more than another for the same access to government services just because one worked harder or is smarter and earns more than the other. Anyone who argues that they should is talking from jealousy and nothing more.

[PhoenixOrion]

But that's the beauty of our current system... You choose the level of coverage that YOU CAN afford.

If this isn't sarcasm, I may have to laugh at you.

[Kensey]

There is no reason why one person should pay more than another for the same access to government services just because one worked harder or is smarter and earns more than the other. Anyone who argues that they should is talking from jealousy and nothing more.

Are you arguing that the tax burden should be distributed evenly not in percentage but in DOLLAR terms? Take the total federal budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and everybody pays that number?

That's patently not fair, and here's why: Some peoples' and corporations' higher wealth is based on higher access to government-granted advantages. A prime example is copyright. I believe in copyright, but at the same time it's a government-granted privilege. The natural state of intellectual property is that anyone can copy your work; only government intervention makes it possible to earn any kind of living from intellectual property. Anybody making passive income from intellectual property or government-financed ventures like bonds should have that income taxed proportional to its size. And not everybody can make passive income; an economy of nothing but novelists collapses. Somebody has to go out and earn dollars to spend on books before writers can make money writing them.

And of course, the whole basis of corporate income is that government-granted privilege of the "corporate veil".

Those who have great wealth as a result of government largesse should pay more (in dollar terms, and sometimes percentage-wise as well) than those of lesser means who make lesser demands of the government. (This means you, phone companies, rail companies, oil companies... the list of companies and their executives goes on.)

[derricksonb]

Are you arguing that the tax burden should be distributed evenly not in percentage but in DOLLAR terms? Take the total federal budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and everybody pays that number?


Actually, Yes. I believe I have made that statement within this discussion as well and it should be divided up equally along the federal lines and for residents of each state? Again I ask, What is wrong with everyone paying their fair and equal share?

What is fair about someone who makes 10million paying 1.7million in taxes while using less government resources whe one who uses more gets away with paying $9,000 or gets a 100% refund? It's lunacy.... It's outrageous.... It's B-A-N-A-N-A-S.



Those who have great wealth as a result of government largesse should pay more (in dollar terms, and sometimes percentage-wise as well) than those of lesser means who make lesser demands of the government. (This means you, phone companies, rail companies, oil companies... the list of companies and their executives goes on.)

The problem being that those of lesser incomes don't contribute to campaign funds like those of wealthier means. The republicans know that. The Dems know that and even Comrade Clinton knows that which is why she can tout her proposals all she wants because the middle class will once again take it in the @ss.

And this skewed off on healthcare and social programs because of the need for increased taxes should Hillary get her healthcare scam passed and the need for less federal funds should it be privatized and social programs eliminated.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Are you arguing that the tax burden should be distributed evenly not in percentage but in DOLLAR terms? Take the total federal budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and everybody pays that number?

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. He says this every time taxes come up, he believes that you take the entire federal budget, divide that among the over-18 population, and make them pay the same amount each.

And he's not joking.

So I say, he needs to put his money where his mouth is, since he thinks that different amounted tax bills are so unfair. So, Nanuk, find out the dollar amount that Warren Buffet paid in taxes, and send the IRS that amount of your money. After all, it's sooo unfair that 2 people pay different amounts, isn't it? Or are you just talking out of your chocolate starfish?

[Nanuk]

So I say, he needs to put his money where his mouth is, since he thinks that different amounted tax bills are so unfair. So, Nanuk, find out the dollar amount that Warren Buffet paid in taxes, and send the IRS that amount of your money. After all, it's sooo unfair that 2 people pay different amounts, isn't it? Or are you just talking out of your chocolate starfish?


1. The amount that Buffet currently pays has no correlation to the actual amount that each person would owe under a fair system where the federal budget is divided by the number of citizens. Stick to the actual issue, please.

2. If you want to break it down by specific people, I think that you and I should pay the exact same amount. Do you have a problem with that?

3. Finally, please refrain from using those vulgar anatomical references which you and you alone seem to think are appropriate for use in public discussions.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

1. The amount that Buffet currently pays has no correlation to the actual amount that each person would owe under a fair system where the federal budget is divided by the number of citizens. Stick to the actual issue, please.

Oh, but it does, my friend. You said that 2 people paying different amounts is unfair. So I suggested a person that you could pay the same amount as, so you won't feel so violated by this unfair system. Go on, pay the same amount that the greatest earners pay. I think you should get a large check, and take a picture with it before you send it to the IRS.


2. If you want to break it down by specific people, I think that you and I should pay the exact same amount. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because I take all the eligible write-off's against just my income. Meaning that I actually pay much less in taxes, and I get pretty large refunds at the end of each year! Isn't that exciting?!? BLING!


3. Finally, please refrain from using those vulgar anatomical references which you and you alone seem to think are appropriate for use in public discussions.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you? For the political positions you posess, you sure have thin skin.

[TokyoHits]

It shouldn't matter how much you make. If you make $100,000.00, 25% would be taken out of that. If you make $1,000,000.00, 25% would be taken out of that.

We have a sales tax. Do people pay more or less of a sales tax based on how much they make? No

We have a gas tax. Do people pay more or less of a gas tax based on how much they make? No

We have an income tax. Do people pay more or less of an income tax based on how much they make? Yes

That's almost like saying that I shouldn't have to pay a 5% sales tax on a $100,000.00 car because I'm paying more than the person who is buying a $10,000.00 car. We're both buying new cars. Why should I pay more taxes just because I make more money and I'm spending more money.

Not sure if that came out right.

[derricksonb]

Not sure if that came out right.

Crystal clear Tokyo.

Sales tax on a 1.99 loaf of bread = $.12 no matter who buys it.
Tax on a Gallon of gas is the same no matter who buys it.

So if we are talking about a flat rate system then why not charge everyone the same amount based off of their fair percentage of the State and Federal budgets?

[Nanuk]

But Tokyo, why should some people pay more when they aren't getting more for the money? If we arguably all get the same benefit from the government or have access to the same services, why should some pay more than others? Should successful people pay more for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas too?

We need to just apportion the budget fairly among everyone, cutting out all the deductions so that everyone from millionaires down to City can actually pay their fair share, and be done with it.

And if it's done that way, I predict a massive outcry in favor of reduced taxes through better spending and fewer stupid pork programs and entitlements.

[KatherineA]

I don't see how one can argue that some people get more or less services from the government. We all receive the benefits of military protection, education, food safety, drug safety - or by saying some people "get more" bang for the buck so to speak - you are only considering social programs, which are a minor part of the overall Fed. budget as compared to military spending.

[Starbuck]

OK...Problem #1 with the illogical tax equation proposed: Who is going to be responsible for an adequate head count of people in the US? What about immigrants, legal and illegal -- do they factor in? Emigrants? College kids? Who is going to be responsible for collecting the taxes from the hobos on K street? And what will this do to the US' already inflated budget?

Flat tax eliminates the need for all of this. The sales tax is always the same amount, but it's a percentage -- 5%. There is no weird equation where they take the number of bread loaves and divide the cost evenly among them everywhere. That's just stoopid.

And then they can take the revenues and spend it on equal socialized medicine/wellness services. That way, the millionaire and the sales clerk at Food Lion can enjoy time together in the same waiting room of the same doctor's office. :cool:

[Chutney Daftcraft]

That way, the millionaire and the sales clerk at Food Lion can enjoy time together in the same waiting room of the same doctor's office. :cool:

Now SB, you know that doesn't go with the inequality that they so desire. The millionaire deserves to be in that waiting room because he made good decisions, and the Food Lion cashier - well, she doesn't because she didn't.

At least each of their tumors won't be discriminating based on it's host's income or status in society, so there is equality in heathcare there... :rolleyes:

[JiveTurkey]

So if we are talking about a flat rate system then why not charge everyone the same amount based off of their fair percentage of the State and Federal budgets?

What would the payment look like? Would it look like more, or would it look like less, than I/you already pay?

[TokyoHits]

Sales tax on a 1.99 loaf of bread = $.12 no matter who buys it.
Tax on a Gallon of gas is the same no matter who buys it.

Income tax (25%) on a $1,000.00 = $250.00 no matter who earns it.

[TokyoHits]

But Tokyo, why should some people pay more when they aren't getting more for the money? If we arguably all get the same benefit from the government or have access to the same services, why should some pay more than others? Should successful people pay more for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas too?

You're looking at it as paying for services. I don't look at it that way. I look at it as more of an administrative fee on earned wages. The money collected is used to pay expenses.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Income tax (25%) on a $1,000.00 = $250.00 no matter who earns it.

Love is in the air :applause:

[Kensey]

We need to just apportion the budget fairly among everyone, cutting out all the deductions so that everyone from millionaires down to City can actually pay their fair share, and be done with it.

Well, let's sanity-check that idea. Number of adults in the US: about 220 million. Proposed federal budget for 2008: $2.9 trillion. So given those figures we get about $13,200 per adult in the US.

Minimum wage is currently $5.85 per hour. Working 60 hours a week for minimum wage, an adult makes about $18250 a year. So after deducting a flat dollar tax, a minimum-wage-earning adult has $5050 to spend on everything -- rent, food, transportation, etc. That's a hair over $420 a month. Last I checked, you couldn't rent a doghouse for $420 a month anywhere within a hundred miles of DC or any other large city.

So it seems like you have a choice to make: we can implement your scheme, all the minimum wage earners will die off, and the survivors' share of the tax burden will increase (and of course then some people who were just scraping by before will now be unable to afford the new price of living and will die, further raising that burden). Or a miracle might happen, and all the minimum-wage earners will get other higher-paying jobs, in which case no one will be around to clean restaurant bathrooms, work as line cooks, wait tables, etc. Or a different miracle might see them get higher pay in their existing jobs, in which case everything you buy will double, triple or quadruple in price and we're effectively back to scenario 1 again.

The bottom line is, our economy is based on the idea that a lot of people do a lot of essential jobs for not a lot of money. If you make it impossible for them to survive doing those jobs at that price, either everyone's cost of living goes up, or a lot of people die and a lot of essential jobs go undone.

Oh by the way, that $13,200 doesn't do anything more than pay the interest on the national debt.

[Nanuk]

Minimum wage is currently $5.85 per hour. Working 60 hours a week for minimum wage, an adult makes about $18250 a year.


OK, but very few adults make minimum wage. The people who do work for minimum wage are usually teens starting out in the work world, typically while still living at home, and seniors working part-time to add a little income to their retirements. You do not see heads of households working for minimum wage very often. Most jobs pay more and most workers earn more--much more. In this ecomony, even someone with no education beyond high school or special skills can make quite a bit more.

But if the fairly-apportioned tax burden is too high, then it makes the case for cutting spedning, eliminating programs, and bringing the budget back into line. Remember that our federal government is only supposed to provide those few services that state governments cannot, and in fact if we pared the federal government back to those few jobs specifically allotted to it by the founders of this country, the federal tax burden would be a non-issue for the average taxpayer.

[Starbuck]

Oh, right, I forget all the wait staff, bartenders, and floor attendants at the track are making $50/year. :rolleyes:

[Chutney Daftcraft]

OK, but very few adults make minimum wage. The people who do work for minimum wage are usually teens starting out in the work world, typically while still living at home,

Not in every region and every county in every sytate, nanuk.


and seniors working part-time to add a little income to their retirements.

Hmm. A senior is an adult. In this scenario, seniors will still be required to pay their 13,200, regardless if they are working or not. Working would not be an option, it would be a neccesity, as the 13,200 would envelop about 94% of their Social Security check. So go ahead and push grandma out into the workforce, just so you can complain about how old employees aren't serving you fast enough. :rolleyes:


You do not see heads of households working for minimum wage very often.

Some parts of rural Tennessee and rural Kentucky/Southern Ohio do. I've been to, and lived in places where people are competing for fast-food jobs. Yes, imagine not seeing a "now hiring" sign on a McDonalds.


Most jobs pay more and most workers earn more--much more. In this ecomony, even someone with no education beyond high school or special skills can make quite a bit more.

Yes, but like real estate, it really is all about location. Not everyone can live in one place, you know.


But if the fairly-apportioned tax burden is too high, then it makes the case for cutting spedning, eliminating programs, and bringing the budget back into line.

That will never happen, not when a-holes say they want to balance thee budget, then proverbally max out the credit cards.


Remember that our federal government is only supposed to provide those few services that state governments cannot, and in fact if we pared the federal government back to those few jobs specifically allotted to it by the founders of this country, the federal tax burden would be a non-issue for the average taxpayer..

Please. Then you know what? There goes all y'alls precious wars. Because we would *all* be protesting in the streets if our tax bills tripled overnight. The only reason people are so complacent about Iraq is that we are making no personal sacrifice, beyond oil prices and telephonic freedom. Are you sure you want your government's precious wars to become that personal for *every* american? Are you?

[JiveTurkey]

OK, but very few adults make minimum wage. The people who do work for minimum wage are usually teens starting out in the work world, typically while still living at home, and seniors working part-time to add a little income to their retirements. You do not see heads of households working for minimum wage very often. Most jobs pay more and most workers earn more--much more. In this ecomony, even someone with no education beyond high school or special skills can make quite a bit more.



Seriously, you are mistaken. When I was in college, as an adult (graduated at 26) I worked as a bartender making about $1000 a week. Then, in the November before I graduated (age 26) I started working as a nursing assistant, because i thought it would be helpful to my career. Maybe get a little nursing experience on my resume. I made $6.36 per hour, to clean dung off strangers and dump out their bodily fluids from various receptacles. I basically earned enough money to buy the gasoline and pay for the car to go to work. That was about it. And I lived with my parents.

[Nanuk]

Seriously, you are mistaken. When I was in college, as an adult (graduated at 26) I worked as a bartender making about $1000 a week. Then, in the Novemeber before I graduated (age 26) I started working as a nursing assistant, because i thought it would be helpful to my career. Maybe get a little nursing experience on my resume. I made $6.36 per hour, to clean dung off strangers and dump out their bodily fluids from various receptacles. I basically earned enough money to buy the gasoline and pay for the car to go to work. That was about it. And I lived with my parents.


Thanks for making my point. You weren't in a career position but only took on an entry-level job which you intended to be temporary. And you lived with your folks, like many other minimum wage earners in school or just out do.
I won't belabor the point that $6.35 was above the minimum wage at that time though. I'll just highlight the fact that neither you or that employer had intended on you staying there for 30 years as your permanent career.

Lots of people take jobs like that when they are starting out. I had many of them myself when I was younger. However almost all of us move beyond such positions in relatively short order as we gain experience or discover other better-paying jobs. That's how it's supposed to work. Bottom-line, entry-level jobs were never intended to allow a person to support a family or serve as the top of the career ladder for those who take them. This fallacy that anybody should be able to raise a family on any job that they take regardless of the skill-level required to perform the job is ludicrous. Many menial jobs just do not and never will rate that level of pay because the work performed doesn't deserve it. Jobs exist to provide a service for the employer, not as a social program meant to support any applicant at a decent standard of living indefinitely.

[Kensey]

Bottom-line, entry-level jobs were never intended to allow a person to support a family or serve as the top of the career ladder for those who take them.

I'm not even talking about long-term viability of a minimum wage job. I'm talking about just the ability to make it to the next paycheck. You can't "start out" in a job that you can't survive on at all. You're not removing a burden from the rich and making it go away, you're just shifting it from them to the family members of the people who now cannot afford not to stay home for years after high school.

The only reason those with great wealth are able to retain it is because the government goes to great lengths (raising a military, maintaining a legislative and judicial system) to provide a stable economic and legal environment. In fact I'd say that's the primary function of government -- to provide legal and economic stability and fairness. Those with greater income have a greater stake in making sure that status quo continues, so it's fair that they pay a share proportional to their stake in the pie. In simple terms, the government is protecting more income for them than for someone less well off, so it's fair that their cost is proportional to their interests.

Take away all government, and everybody with anything valuable is at the mercy of everyone stronger than they are.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The only reason those with great wealth are able to retain it is because the government goes to great lengths (raising a military, maintaining a legislative and judicial system) to provide a stable economic and legal environment. In fact I'd say that's the primary function of government -- to provide legal and economic stability and fairness. Those with greater income have a greater stake in making sure that status quo continues, so it's fair that they pay a share proportional to their stake in the pie. In simple terms, the government is protecting more income for them than for someone less well off, so it's fair that their cost is proportional to their interests.

Take away all government, and everybody with anything valuable is at the mercy of everyone stronger than they are.

I never even considered the orchestrating factor of government in economics. Nor did I copnsider the governments role in wealth protection (see: FDIC).

This is soooo true it isn't even funny.

Case closed.