King vs Burwell

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 03-12-2015, 08:32 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
...and we care because...?
Because that was the question that was asked. And WHAT are you talking about??????????????????
  #47  
Old 03-12-2015, 08:42 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
You ARE definitely LIBERAL, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And I do believe you're happy to vote in favor of tax increases, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T AFFECT YOU.

That's liberal thinking... pass the buck to the other guy.
You're an idiot.
  #48  
Old 03-12-2015, 10:58 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

GOP governors scramble for answers on ObamaCare | TheHill


"Republicans potentially have a PR nightmare on their hands, because what happens when eight million people lose their subsidies" says this article.

If the SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, this ruling will mostly only effect the states whose governors refused to set up exchanges for ideological reasons and just as the 2016 election gets into full swing. It will be interesting to see how those governors, some of whom might be running for president, explain themselves.
  #49  
Old 03-12-2015, 11:06 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
GOP governors scramble for answers on ObamaCare | TheHill


"Republicans potentially have a PR nightmare on their hands, because what happens when eight million people lose their subsidies" says this article.

If the SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, this ruling will mostly only effect the states whose governors refused to set up exchanges for ideological reasons and just as the 2016 election gets into full swing. It will be interesting to see how those governors, some of whom might be running for president, explain themselves.

And no one has more at stake than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.


More evidence Republicans will probably do nothing if Supreme Court guts subsidies - The Washington Post
  #50  
Old 03-12-2015, 08:35 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
You're an idiot.


You liberals are so easy to spot. You come on this and other forums and say,"Hey guys, I'm a republican and super conservative and all... but I really like Hillary."




Then you say weird liberal junk like, "Hey it's not fair that the CEO makes more than the janitor. We're all the same you know...on the same team and everything. And we ought to tax those rich guys and those evil big corporations more."




The liberal mantra is always the same. Vote for tax increases on OTHER people! It's just not fair they have more....
  #51  
Old 03-13-2015, 06:30 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
...and we care because...?
Nasty liberal not to mention rude. I thought your big heart bled for the little guy??
  #52  
Old 03-13-2015, 08:56 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post


You liberals are so easy to spot. You come on this and other forums and say,"Hey guys, I'm a republican and super conservative and all... but I really like Hillary."




Then you say weird liberal junk like, "Hey it's not fair that the CEO makes more than the janitor. We're all the same you know...on the same team and everything. And we ought to tax those rich guys and those evil big corporations more."




The liberal mantra is always the same. Vote for tax increases on OTHER people! It's just not fair they have more....
I've never said any of those things. You seem to think that because I've said that a progressive tax system is more "fair", somehow I'm a screaming liberal with mental problems wanting to confiscate people's earnings.

I believe in fiscal conservatism. I believe in a strong defense. I believe in a progressive tax system. I don't like Hillary. I've only voted for a Democrat once in my life.

But according to you, it's easy to spot me as a liberal. Talk about arrogance. Not to mention stupidity.

By the way, the first U.S. income tax was instituted during the Civil War. By an overwhelmingly Republican congress. It was progressive.
  #53  
Old 03-13-2015, 10:05 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I've never said any of those things. You seem to think that because I've said that a progressive tax system is more "fair", somehow I'm a screaming liberal with mental problems wanting to confiscate people's earnings.

I believe in fiscal conservatism. I believe in a strong defense. I believe in a progressive tax system. I don't like Hillary. I've only voted for a Democrat once in my life.

But according to you, it's easy to spot me as a liberal. Talk about arrogance. Not to mention stupidity.

By the way, the first U.S. income tax was instituted during the Civil War. By an overwhelmingly Republican congress. It was progressive.
My CENTRAL premise is correct. YOU have no issue with passing confiscatory tax rates, and all sorts of special "soak the rich" additional taxes, on others because YOU will never be subject to them! You can spout your philosophy all day, but in the end, that's why you maintain your support of "progressive tax rates". At least be honest.

It's ridiculous on its face that 20% of the citizens carry the huge bulk of the tax load. The tax base must be broadened. Regardless of its origin, a progressive tax system is a liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many. It is opposite of everyone paying their "fair share". It is the epitome of liberalism.

A flat tax or national sales tax is "fair" to all. No one is treated differently. The "wealthy" will OBVIOUSLY still pay FAR MORE due to the larger dollar amount of their income or purchases. It will still be strongly bifurcated with the relatively few carrying the load, but all citizens will pay SOMETHING!

Now, try not to blow a gasket (AGAIN) like a teenage girl sighting a spider!
  #54  
Old 03-13-2015, 11:42 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
My CENTRAL premise is correct. YOU have no issue with passing confiscatory tax rates, and all sorts of special "soak the rich" additional taxes, on others because YOU will never be subject to them! You can spout your philosophy all day, but in the end, that's why you maintain your support of "progressive tax rates". At least be honest.

It's ridiculous on its face that 20% of the citizens carry the huge bulk of the tax load. The tax base must be broadened. Regardless of its origin, a progressive tax system is a liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many. It is opposite of everyone paying their "fair share". It is the epitome of liberalism.

A flat tax or national sales tax is "fair" to all. No one is treated differently. The "wealthy" will OBVIOUSLY still pay FAR MORE due to the larger dollar amount of their income or purchases. It will still be strongly bifurcated with the relatively few carrying the load, but all citizens will pay SOMETHING!

Now, try not to blow a gasket (AGAIN) like a teenage girl sighting a spider!
Your CENTRAL premise is incorrect. As are most of your statements that flow from that mistaken view. I have NEVER indicated that I support confiscatory tax rates. EVER. Nor have I have ever advocated "all sorts of special "soak the rich" additional taxes". Those are just fantasies that you've manufactured in your head. At least be honest.

I've never argued that the tax base shouldn't be broadened. And your statement that a progressive tax rate is a "liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many" is a cockamamie delusion.

As a percentage of earnings a flat or sales tax places a much greater burden on those at the low end of the income scale. That is indisputable. A 15% flat tax on $30,000 is much more confiscatory than a 15% tax on $100,000. It just changes who is getting confiscated from.
  #55  
Old 03-13-2015, 12:32 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post

And your statement that a progressive tax rate is a "liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many" is a cockamamie delusion.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?

I'll try to simplify this as much as I possibly can and I'll just hope you then understand. If not, I give up.

Let's reduce the entire US population to 5. 1 of those 5 pays nearly the entire tax bill and the top two pay it all combined. The bottom three, in varying degrees, receive money from the top two (via welfare, housing & energy assistance, tuition grants, food stamps, free cell phones, etc...)

Do you now understand how that "tax money" taken from the top two is "redistributed" or are you already lost? Is this simplified version what you call a "cockamamie delusion"?
  #56  
Old 03-16-2015, 09:26 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Seriously, what's wrong with you?

I'll try to simplify this as much as I possibly can and I'll just hope you then understand. If not, I give up.

Let's reduce the entire US population to 5. 1 of those 5 pays nearly the entire tax bill and the top two pay it all combined. The bottom three, in varying degrees, receive money from the top two (via welfare, housing & energy assistance, tuition grants, food stamps, free cell phones, etc...)

Do you now understand how that "tax money" taken from the top two is "redistributed" or are you already lost? Is this simplified version what you call a "cockamamie delusion"?
Just because our current tax code is screwed up doesn't mean that a progressive tax code is, by definition a stupid, unfair liberal conspiracy to separate hard working job creators from their money. A progressive tax code that broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates would be great.

See - I've never argued that our current tax code is fair, balanced, optimal, etc. All I've ever said is that a progressive tax system is better from a fairness standpoint, then a flat tax. Somehow you got it in your head that I am in favor of our current tax situation, and that if we could take even more from rich people, it would be better. But I never said that. Then you got all mean and kept trying to tell me what I thought. So I got mean and sarcastic back.

A Flat tax is regressive. It takes the same percentage of tax from everybody. Whether they can afford it or not. A flat tax takes money from the working poor. And in the end, we're just going to give that money, and more, back to them. Just because it's easy to understand doesn't make it automatically better.
  #57  
Old 03-16-2015, 09:42 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Just because our current tax code is screwed up doesn't mean that a progressive tax code is, by definition a stupid, unfair liberal conspiracy to separate hard working job creators from their money. A progressive tax code that broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates would be great.

See - I've never argued that our current tax code is fair, balanced, optimal, etc. All I've ever said is that a progressive tax system is better from a fairness standpoint, then a flat tax. Somehow you got it in your head that I am in favor of our current tax situation, and that if we could take even more from rich people, it would be better. But I never said that. Then you got all mean and kept trying to tell me what I thought. So I got mean and sarcastic back.

A Flat tax is regressive. It takes the same percentage of tax from everybody. Whether they can afford it or not. A flat tax takes money from the working poor. And in the end, we're just going to give that money, and more, back to them. Just because it's easy to understand doesn't make it automatically better.
Why is it assumed the poor cannot pay their share?
Where in the history of the USA was it stated the poor did not have to pay taxes if they could not afford it?
Some of us remember having to pay taxes when we were on a near bread and water budget!

The real issue of the current times is the amount of free loading thta is being funded by the few tax payers in the USA.

There are far too many people collecting from the current welfare programs who should not be.

The classics? Food stamps and unemployment compensation.
I personally know of too many unemployed who are perfectly content to stay home and collect unemployment. They are the first to protest if their "benefits" () are about to expire and demand an extension (again).

Food stamp abuse is a well know problem for years and all that has happened over the years is to multiply the problem.

Two excellent examples of those working having to pay for those who ELECT not to work.

Affordability has nothing to do with it anymore. It has become an expectation, just as the highlighted satement above implies.
  #58  
Old 03-16-2015, 05:53 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Supreme Court Case May Devastate Hospitals In 34 HealthCare.gov States - The National Memo


Hospitals in 34 healthcare.gov states would be devastated, if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in King vs Burwell. This, of course, is especially true in Florida.
  #59  
Old 03-16-2015, 06:28 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Supreme Court Case May Devastate Hospitals In 34 HealthCare.gov States - The National Memo


Hospitals in 34 healthcare.gov states would be devastated, if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in King vs Burwell. This, of course, is especially true in Florida.
All dependent upon subsidies. I think it is imperative that at some point supporters of ACA wake up and understand the only reason it is affordable is if the government picks up the tab (oh by the way that would be those of us in the minority that pay taxes).

I wonder how all these hospitals made out before the subsidy floodgates were opened?

I wonder how many are milking the system knwoing it comes from the government? How dare I make such an accusation? How about the other "freebie" medicare that is fraught with fraud by the medical industry/institutions?

There is nothing affordable about the Obama ACA in reality!
  #60  
Old 03-17-2015, 07:38 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Why is it assumed the poor cannot pay their share?
Where in the history of the USA was it stated the poor did not have to pay taxes if they could not afford it?
Some of us remember having to pay taxes when we were on a near bread and water budget!

The real issue of the current times is the amount of free loading thta is being funded by the few tax payers in the USA.

There are far too many people collecting from the current welfare programs who should not be.

The classics? Food stamps and unemployment compensation.
I personally know of too many unemployed who are perfectly content to stay home and collect unemployment. They are the first to protest if their "benefits" () are about to expire and demand an extension (again).

Food stamp abuse is a well know problem for years and all that has happened over the years is to multiply the problem.

Two excellent examples of those working having to pay for those who ELECT not to work.
Really? So everybody should pay 15% of their income (that's the most commonly stated flat tax amount) whether they can afford it, or not. If the choice is between them living in their car with their kids or paying 15% of their income to the government, you'd choose confiscating their income.

There is no doubt that there is abuse. There is abuse in any program, of any type, public or private. Can't be stopped because there are unscrupulous people out there. It would be great if it could be reduced. But does that mean that we condemn everybody that participates in those programs?
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.