I never said you were at fault. Last year, I couldn't claim any of her medical expenses, as she was still working then and was covered by her employer's health plan.
This year is a whole other story. It really sucks having your earning potential limited (by way of number of workable hours) because you have to take someone, who can't drive herself, to the hospital and after 3 years of constant visits, appointments and tests, they still haven't the faintest idea what is wrong with her. Probably because doing the tests required to diagnose her properly would cost more than my gross yearly income. Guess she loses out, right?
Like I said, both systems are screwed. Guess what... We're powerless to fix it until every one of us agrees it needs to be fixed and standardizes on a (forceful) way of fixing it.
Until then, I'll give a government that's way out of control one fifth of my income to fund wars I don't support (oil? really? for oil?), feed people who refuse to work (while they refused to help me when I was working full time and still couldn't afford food for 2 years), pay for prisons to house my harmless friends who were caught with a bag of pot while rapists, murderers and thieves roam the streets and victimize those who I care about.
That sounds just wonderful, does it not? I'll pay, yes, because it is my civic duty to support the government fiscally. In return, I expect to be represented by that government; amongst the people I know, of all classes, I am the majority. I don't feel my money is being used appropriately.
To bring this crazy train of a thread back on topic, perhaps that's why zappers are so damn popular? We don't mind paying for things we want. We don't want this war. We don't want to feed lazy people (legitimately poor people, sure, if you're working and not making it, can't work, or are at least looking for a job -- e.g. applying at McDonalds and Burger King, too -- you deserve a chance). We don't want people in prison who have committed no real crime; people whose offenses hurt only themselves. If people wish to injure themselves, they have that right, it is only when they make the choice to injure others that they are committing a crime.
And there we go, back off topic again. Please continue.:)
I've had this conversation with a Canadian friend of mine and we've come to the conclusion that it's pretty much a wash when you figure in health care.
An American with health insurance (or without, but with health problems they're being treated for), we sat and figured one night, pays about the same rate when you figure in insurance or medical bills, along with taxes, as a Canadian citizen.
Of course, we were both drinking and abusing Google that night, so we could be way off base.
Either way, both systems, we've concluded, suck. What's your take on the subject?
I forgot to add in my other reply, you chose to have children. you're lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance, imagine what people who can't afford it may when they get sick. You chose to accrue that debt. You probably pay less for your mortgage than most renters do for their rent; it's statistical fact that the average mortgage payment is lower than the average rent payment.
Thing is, while many could afford house payments, as they could find houses cheap enough that their payments would be much lower than their rent payments, they don't make enough to save to put up a down payment and, even forgiving that, the banks will say they don't make enough to pay the loan (which, I'll state again, comes complete with payments lower than the rent they are currently paying). Many of us can't even make the choice of having a mortgage, which is deductible, versus paying rent, which, typically, is not.
Nobody chooses to need food to survive. We don't chose to require shelter and medical care. We don't chose to take on the very real expenses in life.
Any choice you make, you should reap the consequences of, good or bad. All I'm saying.
I won't even get into the cost of the doctor visits or the multitude of tens-of-dollars-per-pill prescriptions I have to pay for for her, out of pocket, since I can not afford insurance for her.
That's fine, though. I expect to pay no taxes this year, since she'll have no income and I'll be claiming her as a dependent.
Is that cool with you?
I mean, I don't need food. Rent is free. No reason to bother with a vehicle to get to and from work. I don't need anything.
Nothing at all.
Wake up, we all have very real shit we need out money for and those of use who have less of it need it just as much. If that's the reason you get most of it back, where's mine? Where's everyone else's?
Get your head out of your ass and realize, if it's hard for you, it sure in the fuck ain't easy for someone making 1/3 what you make and supporting a disabled loved one with no chance for government assistance.
As I never called the rich lazy or greedy, I'll acknowledge that you weren't calling me an idiot.
It is very fair for the rich to pay on a percentage basis if that is the system in place.
It is. So, to be fair, the rich should pay the same percentage as the poor.
Just how much of my daily life is subsidized by others when, earlier in this same thread, someone is claiming to earn more than 3x my income while I'm paying 3x the taxes, at a rate of nearly 18% while he is paying 1.8%?
I don't collect welfare, I've never been in need of fire response, I've never needed police assistance, my parents are fairly well off and, I'm sure, paid more than my fair share for schooling (not to mention lottery subsidy of schooling, and my mother bought a ton of tickets), nor do I rely on medicare. On top of this, I drive a total of 88 miles a month and the only road pavement I ever see that is not pothole ridden is the parking lot for my apartments. My rent paid for the same portion of that lot, which is being resurfaced as I type this, as everyone else who lives here.
I'll say it again, if I pay 3x the taxes of someone who earns 3x what I earn, yet use statistically fewer of the services those dollars fund than the very real person in my example, whose life is being subsidized?
The rich have more to lose from fire and crime than the poor, typically go to better schools, tend to have more vehicles and travel more. Just as insurance costs more when it covers more, taxes should be higher when the assets protected by the services they pay for are greater.
I make about $30k and pay about $5500 in taxes a year. That's about 18%, for those of you who don't know US tax law from your own ass (or who choose to ignore or work to evade such laws).
I pay more than 3x the taxes you do. You earn more than 3x the income I do.
Of course it is because when minimum wage increases, so do prices. When prices and minimum wage both increase, so does spending.
The ones hurt by an increased minimum wage (and the accompanying increase in prices) are those making significantly more than minimum wage who do not see any pay increase.
The top 5! of income earners also earn more than the bottom 90% combined.
So much so that, even at their reduced tax rate, they pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% earns.
Let's say there is an economy composed of 10 people and $10,000. One of those people earns $9,900, leaving $100 in the hands of the other nine. Should that one person, controlling 99% of the economy not bear 99% of the tax burden, as well?
The rich control 99% of our wealth, yet they pay ONLY 80% of our taxes. Please account for this remaining 19%.
If it means I'd be paying something like 5% of what I'm paying now, by any and all means I want a level playing field here. We're talking a 19% increase for them and a 95% decrease for everyone else.
That's a tad bit lopsided, no?
I'm running late for work, I'll provide references later or you can use google and wiki yourself to find them, they're everywhere.
The drug would actually have to work in order to sell it.
I could threaten to give your mother in law an immortality drug if you don't pay me, with the true intent of giving her an aspirin. You're not likely to sue if she dies and I doubt she'd be up to the task, either.
Really, if you can get a mailing list containing only the emails of married men, you could make a killing from such a plan.
Spammer sends out billions of spam, watches the pot grow, offs himself and knows that his wife and kids are set for life.
What we really need to do is make it "school districts only, one claim per district" and watch as the number of underfunded school districts drops asa drastically as the number of spammers.
Slashdot Mirror
But, but, but; if you make everyone unable to replicate, the human race will cease to exist!
</humor>
Well, in this case, it is beta.
I never said you were at fault. Last year, I couldn't claim any of her medical expenses, as she was still working then and was covered by her employer's health plan.
This year is a whole other story. It really sucks having your earning potential limited (by way of number of workable hours) because you have to take someone, who can't drive herself, to the hospital and after 3 years of constant visits, appointments and tests, they still haven't the faintest idea what is wrong with her. Probably because doing the tests required to diagnose her properly would cost more than my gross yearly income. Guess she loses out, right?
Like I said, both systems are screwed. Guess what... We're powerless to fix it until every one of us agrees it needs to be fixed and standardizes on a (forceful) way of fixing it.
Until then, I'll give a government that's way out of control one fifth of my income to fund wars I don't support (oil? really? for oil?), feed people who refuse to work (while they refused to help me when I was working full time and still couldn't afford food for 2 years), pay for prisons to house my harmless friends who were caught with a bag of pot while rapists, murderers and thieves roam the streets and victimize those who I care about.
That sounds just wonderful, does it not? I'll pay, yes, because it is my civic duty to support the government fiscally. In return, I expect to be represented by that government; amongst the people I know, of all classes, I am the majority. I don't feel my money is being used appropriately.
To bring this crazy train of a thread back on topic, perhaps that's why zappers are so damn popular? We don't mind paying for things we want. We don't want this war. We don't want to feed lazy people (legitimately poor people, sure, if you're working and not making it, can't work, or are at least looking for a job -- e.g. applying at McDonalds and Burger King, too -- you deserve a chance). We don't want people in prison who have committed no real crime; people whose offenses hurt only themselves. If people wish to injure themselves, they have that right, it is only when they make the choice to injure others that they are committing a crime.
And there we go, back off topic again. Please continue. :)
I've had this conversation with a Canadian friend of mine and we've come to the conclusion that it's pretty much a wash when you figure in health care.
An American with health insurance (or without, but with health problems they're being treated for), we sat and figured one night, pays about the same rate when you figure in insurance or medical bills, along with taxes, as a Canadian citizen.
Of course, we were both drinking and abusing Google that night, so we could be way off base.
Either way, both systems, we've concluded, suck. What's your take on the subject?
I forgot to add in my other reply, you chose to have children. you're lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance, imagine what people who can't afford it may when they get sick. You chose to accrue that debt. You probably pay less for your mortgage than most renters do for their rent; it's statistical fact that the average mortgage payment is lower than the average rent payment.
Thing is, while many could afford house payments, as they could find houses cheap enough that their payments would be much lower than their rent payments, they don't make enough to save to put up a down payment and, even forgiving that, the banks will say they don't make enough to pay the loan (which, I'll state again, comes complete with payments lower than the rent they are currently paying). Many of us can't even make the choice of having a mortgage, which is deductible, versus paying rent, which, typically, is not.
Nobody chooses to need food to survive. We don't chose to require shelter and medical care. We don't chose to take on the very real expenses in life.
Any choice you make, you should reap the consequences of, good or bad. All I'm saying.
If you are barely making it on 100k, imagine how I'm doing on 30k, supporting my fiancé who can't work and should be collecting social security disability benefits but can't because someone fraudulently collected in her name in the past.
I won't even get into the cost of the doctor visits or the multitude of tens-of-dollars-per-pill prescriptions I have to pay for for her, out of pocket, since I can not afford insurance for her.
That's fine, though. I expect to pay no taxes this year, since she'll have no income and I'll be claiming her as a dependent.
Is that cool with you?
I mean, I don't need food. Rent is free. No reason to bother with a vehicle to get to and from work. I don't need anything.
Nothing at all.
Wake up, we all have very real shit we need out money for and those of use who have less of it need it just as much. If that's the reason you get most of it back, where's mine? Where's everyone else's?
Get your head out of your ass and realize, if it's hard for you, it sure in the fuck ain't easy for someone making 1/3 what you make and supporting a disabled loved one with no chance for government assistance.
As I never called the rich lazy or greedy, I'll acknowledge that you weren't calling me an idiot.
It is very fair for the rich to pay on a percentage basis if that is the system in place.
It is. So, to be fair, the rich should pay the same percentage as the poor.
Just how much of my daily life is subsidized by others when, earlier in this same thread, someone is claiming to earn more than 3x my income while I'm paying 3x the taxes, at a rate of nearly 18% while he is paying 1.8%?
I don't collect welfare, I've never been in need of fire response, I've never needed police assistance, my parents are fairly well off and, I'm sure, paid more than my fair share for schooling (not to mention lottery subsidy of schooling, and my mother bought a ton of tickets), nor do I rely on medicare. On top of this, I drive a total of 88 miles a month and the only road pavement I ever see that is not pothole ridden is the parking lot for my apartments. My rent paid for the same portion of that lot, which is being resurfaced as I type this, as everyone else who lives here.
I'll say it again, if I pay 3x the taxes of someone who earns 3x what I earn, yet use statistically fewer of the services those dollars fund than the very real person in my example, whose life is being subsidized?
The rich have more to lose from fire and crime than the poor, typically go to better schools, tend to have more vehicles and travel more. Just as insurance costs more when it covers more, taxes should be higher when the assets protected by the services they pay for are greater.
That just seems fair to me.
You took the words right out of my keyboard. I love you.
I make about $30k and pay about $5500 in taxes a year. That's about 18%, for those of you who don't know US tax law from your own ass (or who choose to ignore or work to evade such laws).
I pay more than 3x the taxes you do. You earn more than 3x the income I do.
That is the problem here.
Of course it is because when minimum wage increases, so do prices. When prices and minimum wage both increase, so does spending.
The ones hurt by an increased minimum wage (and the accompanying increase in prices) are those making significantly more than minimum wage who do not see any pay increase.
err... "1%", not "5!"
The top 5! of income earners also earn more than the bottom 90% combined.
So much so that, even at their reduced tax rate, they pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% earns.
Let's say there is an economy composed of 10 people and $10,000. One of those people earns $9,900, leaving $100 in the hands of the other nine. Should that one person, controlling 99% of the economy not bear 99% of the tax burden, as well?
Bingo.
The rich control 99% of our wealth, yet they pay ONLY 80% of our taxes. Please account for this remaining 19%.
If it means I'd be paying something like 5% of what I'm paying now, by any and all means I want a level playing field here. We're talking a 19% increase for them and a 95% decrease for everyone else.
That's a tad bit lopsided, no?
I'm running late for work, I'll provide references later or you can use google and wiki yourself to find them, they're everywhere.
Or a loser. Do you really think he has any experience to compare it to?
Idiocracy?
The drug would actually have to work in order to sell it.
I could threaten to give your mother in law an immortality drug if you don't pay me, with the true intent of giving her an aspirin. You're not likely to sue if she dies and I doubt she'd be up to the task, either.
Really, if you can get a mailing list containing only the emails of married men, you could make a killing from such a plan.
I wish I could reply and mod parent insightful, funny, informative or all of the above.
I presume that when they do catch him, he'll look like that within a week.
Just goes to show, everything, no matter how obscure, how grotesque or how offensive, is relevant somehow.
Spammer sends out billions of spam, watches the pot grow, offs himself and knows that his wife and kids are set for life.
What we really need to do is make it "school districts only, one claim per district" and watch as the number of underfunded school districts drops asa drastically as the number of spammers.
Can't beat a double-positive.
Woooooooooooosh!
Or, Windows, plus all the other software that gomes preinstalled, which requires Windows.
And brain rot everywhere else.
I'm sorry. I was going for funny.
Didn't know Dubya read /., let alone that he knew how to read.
Dimented mind?
(Forgive the spelling, the pun dies without it)
He;s afraid to tell you, but it's
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500