I wasn't talking about non-medical care. I was disagreeing with:
They are out of pocket for medical expenses above $3,000/y either way.
In fact, the link you quote above lists the cost cap for inpatient hospital care as $200,000/year. It also lists coverage of up to 6 months of hospice care, in addition to covering several other types of long-term care not included in direct medical coverage caps.
This is what people just don't seem to grok. The jurisdiction is absolutely crystal clear. States that have a physical presence can tax in-state transactions. States that do not, cannot, unless and until Congress explicitly gives them the authority to do so.
Each taxing authority has different requirements for payments and different systems set up to accept them, so no, in hundreds or thousands of different taxation districts you cannot "just transfer money."
If giving away the lofty amount of $13,000... You forgot to read past the first sentence in that paragraph, apparently.
The rates for moving money now are not the same as the estate tax rates. For trusts with property that appreciates, you pay a current rate of about 2.4%. That's ONE example, and I'm not going to dig out references just so you can deflect again. Each case is unique, and I'm not interested in writing a textbook on estate planning to satisfy you.
I never said all the super-rich avoid all estate taxes. I said they can avoid them through planning, and many do. Two very different things, one of which is made out of straw.
It costs money to eliminate estate taxes. You don't eliminate the total cost, you eliminate a specific point and circumstance of payment, and in so doing reduce overall costs to the estate. I'm not interested in more meaningless semantics and deflections. You can lower or eliminate estate taxes if you are wealthy. You can eliminate payment of the estate tax by planning early and paying other, lesser taxes and costs.
Anyone who says "Nobody pays anyway" is ignorant, at best. Lots of people pay. The fact that lots of people pay has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written.
I've played with a couple tablets, and the only thing I really, really like that is far superior to other devices is for reference material.
Having a handheld device I can pull up schematics, diagnostic references, manuals, or what-have-you is awesome. The navigation mechanisms for PDFs, at least on the Kindle Fire, is a joy to use for this task. A 7" tablet is small enough to be easily portable and large enough to be easily usable.
Medicaid's mandatory benefits under Federal law don't have a cost cap. Inpatient hospital care is the very first item listed under mandatory services provided, with outpatient hospital care being #2.
Something must be really screwed up in Texas (assumption based on your sig) if that's what they're advertising there. Either they're not complying with Federal law or they're misrepresenting their obligations.
Not impossible at all. I didn't say it'll avoid ALL taxation or cost, but you can certainly avoid estate taxes with planning. Unless the estate tax is no higher (having a high political profile, it could be 40% or 0% at a given time, so I'm not going to delve into specific numbers) than the taxes to transfer that wealth now, it can always be avoided with a net savings. Depending on the amount of money involved and the current tax rates for the huge quantity of trusts and limited liability fictions available, that savings can amount to a very large percentage of what would otherwise be an estate.
The *only* way to avoid estate taxes is to give away your money and it's absurd to claim that that is somehow avoiding the tax. The logic used to construct this is so fundamentally flawed I'm not sure how to begin addressing it. It seems... absurd... to even have to consider it might need to be addressed. It's absurd to think giving money to who you want while you're alive is avoiding giving a percentage of that money to someone you don't want after you die? Even if it does, in fact, accomplish that?
Scenario A: You have a $6M estate at the time of your death. The government takes $350K of that in taxes (35% of estates in excess of $5M). Your heirs get $5.65M. Scenario B: You give $13,000 per year to each of your 2 children and 6 grandchildren for 10 years, and your estate ends up totaling $5M. Your heirs receive $6M. But it's absurd to call scenario B an avoidance of the estate tax, apparently.
The above is, of course, a simplification to illustrate my point. There are innumerable other scenarios, some of which can save not millions but billions of dollars in taxes. If more money goes to your heirs and assigns, you've been successful.
While estate planning is complicated, it's complicated to the attorneys and planners you pay (you have the money to do so, if this is an issue that could possibly affect you, after all), not so much to the person paying.
Yup. This gets lost in the debate usually. The legal reforms undertaken in the US aren't about providing health care, at least not directly. They are about requiring the purchase of health insurance, which leaves those people in the same boat as those who already purchase health insurance.
It's easier to get health care if you have nothing than it is to get health care if you have insurance with a scummy company. These reforms do nothing to prevent companies from operating business as usual. Having insurance in the US is no guarantee that the insurer will actually, in practice, cover what they should.
In many other countries, people don't have good reason to be scared of their government. In the US, the bi-party system is something to be scared of. It's not even really a bi-party system. All the politicians pull the same crap. The only difference is the rhetoric they spout in order to get elected.
You require a supermajority to break things. In the US, it requires a supermajority to fix things.
Note: this isn't a defense of the US medical system. It's simply to point out that direct comparison is not usually workable.
The US has more than twice the landmass of the EU and a population density of less than 1/4 of the EU. That leads to some very significant differences in how coverage for anything works in the US versus any single EU country (or even all of them combined).
What insurance you have does not affect wait times. Wait times are determined by the amount of demand versus that amount of resources. That tends to be higher, on average, in countries with public medical systems, but is by no means the case across the board. The wait times you experience are unusual on average for the US, but likely not in the particular area you lived. Where I live, the only wait times are for seeing primary care physicians, because there is a growing shortage of them nationwide. I can see any specialist I need to within a week's time if it's necessary. If it's urgent, there are few that I couldn't see within a couple days. For most, if it's urgent I can find one available within the next 12 hours. You have your anecdotes; I have mine.
Your mileage will vary though, because it's an enormous country with many incredibly diverse regional economies. It's sort of like the EU, except with twice as many countries and twice the area.
Unless there's some obscure eligibility criteria I'm not aware of (entirely possible), I think you meant Medicaid, not Medicare. The age requirements for Medicare put it well outside the typical age-range for childbearing.
Not to mention that you only pay taxes on "wealth" if you die unexpectedly or are a complete moron. It's relatively easy to avoid estate taxes with proper planning, which most people in the 1% do. The only way to realistically prevent someone from planning their way around "wealth" taxes is to levy a tax on individual net worth every year. Then you create the most massive, open-to-abuse convoluted system ever in order to actually try and keep track of the value of everything that every person in the country owns.
As you said, income taxes are about income. It's not enough for some people though. They want the money people other than themselves earn to be taxed not just when it's earned or spent, but at all times that it is held in private hands.
Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. Most cities in the US were incapable of adapting significantly by the time the automobile arrived. We don't even have enough money to maintain the national infrastructure we have, let alone the political will to make even an attempt at doing so. Retrofitting cities of millions? To say that's a pipe dream is as much of an understatement as calling the Andes a bit of a hilly area.
Certain states have been doing random roadblock checks for years. It's to check for drunk driving, but since that's allowed they can certainly extend the purpose to pretty much anything else deemed "in the public interest."
The Republic hasn't existed in years. It's only now that many people are finally starting to figure out that's the case.
There are many occasions where it is perfectly reasonable to blame the victim. Knowingly doing something that entails risk makes one at least partially responsible for the outcome.
If you walk into a biker bar and start making rude gestures, you bear responsibility for getting the crap kicked out of you. It doesn't excuse the bikers from culpability for assault, but ignoring a likely outcome is just plain stupid.
There are times where blaming the victim is unreasonable. That doesn't negate the fact there are times when objecting to blaming the victim is absolutely moronic.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't talking about non-medical care. I was disagreeing with:
They are out of pocket for medical expenses above $3,000/y either way.
In fact, the link you quote above lists the cost cap for inpatient hospital care as $200,000/year. It also lists coverage of up to 6 months of hospice care, in addition to covering several other types of long-term care not included in direct medical coverage caps.
This is what people just don't seem to grok. The jurisdiction is absolutely crystal clear. States that have a physical presence can tax in-state transactions. States that do not, cannot, unless and until Congress explicitly gives them the authority to do so.
Each taxing authority has different requirements for payments and different systems set up to accept them, so no, in hundreds or thousands of different taxation districts you cannot "just transfer money."
If giving away the lofty amount of $13,000...
You forgot to read past the first sentence in that paragraph, apparently.
The rates for moving money now are not the same as the estate tax rates. For trusts with property that appreciates, you pay a current rate of about 2.4%. That's ONE example, and I'm not going to dig out references just so you can deflect again. Each case is unique, and I'm not interested in writing a textbook on estate planning to satisfy you.
I never said all the super-rich avoid all estate taxes. I said they can avoid them through planning, and many do. Two very different things, one of which is made out of straw.
It costs money to eliminate estate taxes. You don't eliminate the total cost, you eliminate a specific point and circumstance of payment, and in so doing reduce overall costs to the estate. I'm not interested in more meaningless semantics and deflections. You can lower or eliminate estate taxes if you are wealthy. You can eliminate payment of the estate tax by planning early and paying other, lesser taxes and costs.
Anyone who says "Nobody pays anyway" is ignorant, at best. Lots of people pay. The fact that lots of people pay has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written.
I've played with a couple tablets, and the only thing I really, really like that is far superior to other devices is for reference material.
Having a handheld device I can pull up schematics, diagnostic references, manuals, or what-have-you is awesome. The navigation mechanisms for PDFs, at least on the Kindle Fire, is a joy to use for this task. A 7" tablet is small enough to be easily portable and large enough to be easily usable.
Medicaid's mandatory benefits under Federal law don't have a cost cap. Inpatient hospital care is the very first item listed under mandatory services provided, with outpatient hospital care being #2.
Something must be really screwed up in Texas (assumption based on your sig) if that's what they're advertising there. Either they're not complying with Federal law or they're misrepresenting their obligations.
It's not necessarily always "less" regulation that's required. In many cases it's simply smarter regulation.
However, that would require smarter regulators. I believe they're an extinct species in the US.
I wish I had mod points.
Excuse me while I go find something with which to wipe my monitor off...
Not impossible at all. I didn't say it'll avoid ALL taxation or cost, but you can certainly avoid estate taxes with planning. Unless the estate tax is no higher (having a high political profile, it could be 40% or 0% at a given time, so I'm not going to delve into specific numbers) than the taxes to transfer that wealth now, it can always be avoided with a net savings. Depending on the amount of money involved and the current tax rates for the huge quantity of trusts and limited liability fictions available, that savings can amount to a very large percentage of what would otherwise be an estate.
The *only* way to avoid estate taxes is to give away your money and it's absurd to claim that that is somehow avoiding the tax. ... absurd ... to even have to consider it might need to be addressed. It's absurd to think giving money to who you want while you're alive is avoiding giving a percentage of that money to someone you don't want after you die? Even if it does, in fact, accomplish that?
The logic used to construct this is so fundamentally flawed I'm not sure how to begin addressing it. It seems
Scenario A: You have a $6M estate at the time of your death. The government takes $350K of that in taxes (35% of estates in excess of $5M).
Your heirs get $5.65M.
Scenario B: You give $13,000 per year to each of your 2 children and 6 grandchildren for 10 years, and your estate ends up totaling $5M.
Your heirs receive $6M.
But it's absurd to call scenario B an avoidance of the estate tax, apparently.
The above is, of course, a simplification to illustrate my point. There are innumerable other scenarios, some of which can save not millions but billions of dollars in taxes. If more money goes to your heirs and assigns, you've been successful.
While estate planning is complicated, it's complicated to the attorneys and planners you pay (you have the money to do so, if this is an issue that could possibly affect you, after all), not so much to the person paying.
I want the hard drives he's using. Infinite recoverability means infinite drive space!
It also depends on which state the person lives in. Each one is administered separately.
Medicaid's going to pay far more than that for a person with a debilitating condition.
Yup. This gets lost in the debate usually. The legal reforms undertaken in the US aren't about providing health care, at least not directly. They are about requiring the purchase of health insurance, which leaves those people in the same boat as those who already purchase health insurance.
It's easier to get health care if you have nothing than it is to get health care if you have insurance with a scummy company. These reforms do nothing to prevent companies from operating business as usual. Having insurance in the US is no guarantee that the insurer will actually, in practice, cover what they should.
In many other countries, people don't have good reason to be scared of their government. In the US, the bi-party system is something to be scared of. It's not even really a bi-party system. All the politicians pull the same crap. The only difference is the rhetoric they spout in order to get elected.
You require a supermajority to break things. In the US, it requires a supermajority to fix things.
Note: this isn't a defense of the US medical system. It's simply to point out that direct comparison is not usually workable.
The US has more than twice the landmass of the EU and a population density of less than 1/4 of the EU. That leads to some very significant differences in how coverage for anything works in the US versus any single EU country (or even all of them combined).
What insurance you have does not affect wait times. Wait times are determined by the amount of demand versus that amount of resources. That tends to be higher, on average, in countries with public medical systems, but is by no means the case across the board. The wait times you experience are unusual on average for the US, but likely not in the particular area you lived. Where I live, the only wait times are for seeing primary care physicians, because there is a growing shortage of them nationwide. I can see any specialist I need to within a week's time if it's necessary. If it's urgent, there are few that I couldn't see within a couple days. For most, if it's urgent I can find one available within the next 12 hours. You have your anecdotes; I have mine.
Your mileage will vary though, because it's an enormous country with many incredibly diverse regional economies. It's sort of like the EU, except with twice as many countries and twice the area.
Unless there's some obscure eligibility criteria I'm not aware of (entirely possible), I think you meant Medicaid, not Medicare. The age requirements for Medicare put it well outside the typical age-range for childbearing.
Not to mention that you only pay taxes on "wealth" if you die unexpectedly or are a complete moron. It's relatively easy to avoid estate taxes with proper planning, which most people in the 1% do. The only way to realistically prevent someone from planning their way around "wealth" taxes is to levy a tax on individual net worth every year. Then you create the most massive, open-to-abuse convoluted system ever in order to actually try and keep track of the value of everything that every person in the country owns.
As you said, income taxes are about income. It's not enough for some people though. They want the money people other than themselves earn to be taxed not just when it's earned or spent, but at all times that it is held in private hands.
The existence of caveats does nothing to invalidate my statement.
...we'd waste it on something else shiny.
Giving money to Congress is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. (To completely mangle a quote whose source I don't immediately recall.)
Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. Most cities in the US were incapable of adapting significantly by the time the automobile arrived. We don't even have enough money to maintain the national infrastructure we have, let alone the political will to make even an attempt at doing so. Retrofitting cities of millions? To say that's a pipe dream is as much of an understatement as calling the Andes a bit of a hilly area.
Certain states have been doing random roadblock checks for years. It's to check for drunk driving, but since that's allowed they can certainly extend the purpose to pretty much anything else deemed "in the public interest."
The Republic hasn't existed in years. It's only now that many people are finally starting to figure out that's the case.
Yes, the same thing can be said of many things.
Lots of things aren't clear when it comes to rights. That's one of the functions of the court system.
Many things exist only in theory. That doesn't (or shouldn't) stop people from trying to make the real-world implementation of those ideas better.
There are many occasions where it is perfectly reasonable to blame the victim. Knowingly doing something that entails risk makes one at least partially responsible for the outcome.
If you walk into a biker bar and start making rude gestures, you bear responsibility for getting the crap kicked out of you. It doesn't excuse the bikers from culpability for assault, but ignoring a likely outcome is just plain stupid.
There are times where blaming the victim is unreasonable. That doesn't negate the fact there are times when objecting to blaming the victim is absolutely moronic.
But ONLY to those transactions. Any transaction without a party in California is not enforceable under California State law.