Politics

Topic   Healthcare and Tax policy

Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
26-Jul(#1)
Employers must offer health insurance that is affordable and provides minimum value to 95% of their full-time
employees and their children up to age 26, or be subject to penalties. This is known as the employer mandate.
It applies to employers with 50* or more full-time employees, and/or full-time equivalents (FTEs). Employees
who work 30 or more hours per week are considered full-time.

https://www.cigna.com/assets/docs/about-cigna/info...

Anybody think that repealing this provision of the ACA is a good step? It's under discussion today,

Tax stuff to follow
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
26-Jul(#2)
In NYC because of how they're required to pay into the plans the way they get around it is instead of hiring 3 full time employees to work three 30 hour work weeks they hire 9 people to work nine 10 hour work weeks. I always liked the coverage Obama care gave people but this was always a deal breaker for me cause it stunts the economy this way. Before I found my job driving a cab I struggled to find a full time schedule anywhere because even if you' already have medical coverage once you work X hours they have to kick into that fund. So basically they just don't hire anyone to do anything full time anymore.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
* 26-Jul(#3)
Employees are a pain in the ass, they get sick, have bad days, families, etc. So if a company would rather have 3 times the employees to avoid health insurance contributions that's up to them.

Pick your poison as an employer, there are advantages to having less employees working more hours - loyalty, scheduling relief, expertise, accounting, less employee problems to deal with...
All depends on the business, companies employing staff who need more training and investment prefer full timers even with deductible health costs. (Tax deductions of employer and employee health insurance costs are also under review, good luck with that.)
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
1-Aug(#4)
Looks like healthcare compromise is being handled quietly, biggest thing is changing employer mandate from 50 to 500 employees. I have mixed feelings on that, unless the buy in to public option is offered to small company employees.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
1-Aug(#5)
Tax stuff now up front, you guys in your 30's with young families willing to give up mortgage interest and property tax deductions and the child care credit for promised lower rates? Singles won't matter much, if you are in the 10/15% bracket now.

The propaganda seems to be to simplify the tax process, but I am concerned that the rate reductions proposed won't make up for the mainstream tax deductions most people use. Plus there's good reason for those tax incentives.

What you think?
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
1-Aug(#6)
As far as the employer mandate goes, I share the same mixed feelings. 500 is large number and I hate to see an employer curbing his employee base and company growth at around 475 as I imagine that an employer that employs at least 200 does quite well. Employees are a pain in the ass but they are the people that make the company work the should be able to afford health insurance.

As far as taxes go. Yeah thats crap. But unless you're living in lala land you knew this was coming. This is conservative tax legislation. Healthcare under them would have also been a tax bill.

image
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
2-Aug(#7)
anybody got thoughts on specific aspects of tax reform, like employer and employee contributions to health insurance being fully taxable supposedly offset by lower tax rates?
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#8)
Osiris wrote:
> anybody got thoughts on specific aspects of tax reform, like employer and employee
> contributions to health insurance being fully taxable supposedly offset by lower
> tax rates?

I'm not familiar with some of the nomenclature but is this like if we stopped taxing things like property and such and moved to higher taxes on the goods we consume?
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
* 2-Aug(#9)
I am also ignorant on many aspects of taxes as my income in the military has not been greatly affected during the last administration but I would love to be more educated on it. Osiris what are you're own thoughts?

image
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
* 2-Aug(#10)
OK, right now employees are not taxed on the portion of their health insurance paid by the employer, it is not considered income. Many employees also don't pay taxes on their OWN payments for health insurance, these are paid pretax and are excluded from income without having to do it on a separate 1040 Schedule.

What prime is talking about is a sales tax possibly national. The problem is local schools and services are funded by property taxes in the community. The more local government is, the more efficient.

There has been talk about INCLUDING employer paid share of health care costs as taxable income to the employee, and removing options for pretax status on employee payments as well, in exchange for a supposed reduction in income tax rates.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#11)
Prime wrote:
> Osiris wrote:
>> anybody got thoughts on specific aspects of tax reform, like employer and employee
>> contributions to health insurance being fully taxable supposedly offset by lower
>> tax rates?
>
> I'm not familiar with some of the nomenclature but is this like if we stopped taxing
> things like property and such and moved to higher taxes on the goods we consume?
>

We should totally do that by the way. In PA, there's a bill on the house that keeps getting brought up but won't pass. It does just that. Right now the burden is entirely on the homeowners to foot the bill for schools and such. If they moved the tax to consumables and removed the property tax, it would spread it out so that everyone contributes, and greatly help many homeowners. I can't really see a downside to it though so I don't know why it won't go through.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#12)
They can't count on it like they can property tax. They have an idea of the revenues they'd collect month to month and yearly. Abandoning that means creating new infrastructure and that costs money. They'd rather bleed us dry with a bandaid then preform surgery.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
2-Aug(#13)
Dustin wrote:
> Prime wrote:
we stopped
> taxing
>> things like property and such and moved to higher taxes on the goods we consume?
>>
>
> We should totally do that by the way. In PA, there's a bill on the house that keeps
> getting brought up but won't pass. It does just that. Right now the burden is entirely
> on the homeowners to foot the bill for schools and such. If they moved the tax to
> consumables and removed the property tax, it would spread it out so that everyone
> contributes, and greatly help many homeowners. I can't really see a downside to it
> though so I don't know why it won't go through.

-OK, first of all pretty much everybody in the community pays RE taxes, renter or owner.
-Next, expecting a sales tax to fund all the activities of local government, that's a pretty big fudging number on the local level and an accounting nightmare.
-If the state levies and collects the sales tax, then distributes it to the cities and towns, think twice, everybody competes for that pot and removes local control of revenues. That local control is done thru elected reps, town meeting, etc. We set property tax rates based on spending, which is pretty much controlled by the town and city citizens. I don't want to give that to the state legislature.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
2-Aug(#14)
Local government is more efficient, if RE taxes are too high, start making serious noise about expenditures. It works.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#15)
Osiris wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> Prime wrote:
> we stopped
>> taxing
> |>> things like property and such and moved to higher taxes on the goods we consume?
> |>>
>>
>> We should totally do that by the way. In PA, there's a bill on the house that
> keeps
>> getting brought up but won't pass. It does just that. Right now the burden is
> entirely
>> on the homeowners to foot the bill for schools and such. If they moved the tax
> to
>> consumables and removed the property tax, it would spread it out so that everyone
>> contributes, and greatly help many homeowners. I can't really see a downside to
> it
>> though so I don't know why it won't go through.
>
> -OK, first of all pretty much everybody in the community pays RE taxes, renter or
> owner.
> -Next, expecting a sales tax to fund all the activities of local government, that's
> a pretty big fudging number on the local level and an accounting nightmare.
> -If the state levies and collects the sales tax, then distributes it to the cities
> and towns, think twice, everybody competes for that pot and removes local control
> of revenues. That local control is done thru elected reps, town meeting, etc. We
> set property tax rates based on spending, which is pretty much controlled by the
> town and city citizens. I don't want to give that to the state legislature.

Are you a homeowner? If you are, are you okay footing the entire bill vs spreading it out evenly to all residents of your state?

I didn't crunch the numbers. I don't know how much gas, milk, bread, etc is sold. I don't have access to all that information. However, certain people do, and you can easily figure out how much needs to be raised in order to match the income from property taxes. Property taxes themselves are ridiculous and borderline unconstitutional.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#16)
It just doesn't make any sense. The only service they provide me that I actually use is garbage/recycling. I pay for my own water, heat, oil, gas, electricity. I don't have children in schools and there isn't a fire department anywhere near me in case the place went up in flames. Why the fudge am I paying 5-6 grand a year for garbage pick up? It would make much more sense for them to tax the items I purchase. One of the issues we have in this country is that we'd rather spend money on band-aids because the band-aids only cost pennies per day. And surgery or an overhaul cost millions up front. We do this nonsensical dance where we end up spending more on band-aids then the surgery would cost. And after it's all said and done the patient is still bleeding out and the same issues that never got fixed keep cropping up. Maybe if our politicians were real G's they'd take all that under the table lobby money that awards special interests and instead plugged it into the country instead of buying yachts and caviar things wouldn't be so murky.

i don't have a specific tax solution but I can tell you that this band-aid crap will never be a solution. Incremental change. What a fudging joke.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#17)
Prime wrote:
> It just doesn't make any sense. The only service they provide me that I actually
> use is garbage/recycling. I pay for my own water, heat, oil, gas, electricity. I
> don't have children in schools and there isn't a fire department anywhere near me
> in case the place went up in flames. Why the fudge am I paying 5-6 grand a year for
> garbage pick up? It would make much more sense for them to tax the items I purchase.
> One of the issues we have in this country is that we'd rather spend money on band-aids
> because the band-aids only cost pennies per day. And surgery or an overhaul cost
> millions up front. We do this nonsensical dance where we end up spending more on
> band-aids then the surgery would cost. And after it's all said and done the patient
> is still bleeding out and the same issues that never got fixed keep cropping up.
> Maybe if our politicians were real G's they'd take all that under the table lobby
> money that awards special interests and instead plugged it into the country instead
> of buying yachts and caviar things wouldn't be so murky.
>
> i don't have a specific tax solution but I can tell you that this band-aid crap will
> never be a solution. Incremental change. What a fudging joke.

Hey look at the bright side, at least you get garbage service for free. I have to pay for that too. I literally get nothing other than the ability to live there.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#18)
Property taxes are a fudging disgrace. So when I pay off my mortgage I'm still getting strong armed by the government to pay them for the right to live on my own property that I've paid in full. They've contributed nothing. They didn't replace my main line, my roof, my boiler. They didn't pay for the solar panels, they aren't offering me any services that I actually require and yet if I live here for the next 20 years they stand to make $120,000 for what exactly? Garbage pick up? It's a fudging joke. They've basically made it so I never own my land I'm just leasing the land they stole from the Native Americans. Talk about a fudging racket.
Grenadier
GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
Double Gold Good Trader Has Written 3 Reviews
* 2-Aug(#19)
Dustin wrote:
> Are you a homeowner? If you are, are you okay footing the entire bill vs spreading
> it out evenly to all residents of your state?

Which residents exactly do you think AREN'T paying property taxes? Even if you don't own your home, someone is paying the taxes on that property (landlord), and passing that on to you in terms of what you pay in rent.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#20)
Grenadier wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> Are you a homeowner? If you are, are you okay footing the entire bill vs spreading
>> it out evenly to all residents of your state?
>
> Which residents exactly do you think AREN'T paying property taxes? Even if you don't
> own your home, someone is paying the taxes on that (landlord), and passing that on
> to you in terms of what you pay in rent.

So the person who owns the property is paying taxes, while the person living there isn't. One person footing the bill for two people, when that burden could be spread out amongst all parties. The market dictates the rent rate, not the mortgage plus tax payment. I'm aware of how it works. I'd prefer to spread out the tax burden vs putting it all on the homeowner. Do you realize what it would do to buying power when it comes to real estate?
Grenadier
GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
Double Gold Good Trader Has Written 3 Reviews
2-Aug(#21)
Property taxes vs. higher sales tax.

Seems like six of one, half dozen of the other here. They're going to get that money out of you either way. Would you rather it come as one big bill, or thousands of a little cuts every time you buy something? It's not like paying for it as a sales tax will lessen the overall tax burden, and the overhead of collecting all of it that way might actually raise the overall costs, as there are now a lot more middle men and a lot more accounting to be done.

I don't get garbage service either. Or any utilities. The main service from the town is probably snow plowing, and leaf/branch/tree collection. But the property taxes aren't meant to cover that stuff in the first place. They're mainly for the schools. (At least in New York....I assume similar elsewhere?)
Grenadier
GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
Double Gold Good Trader Has Written 3 Reviews
* 2-Aug(#22)
Dustin wrote:
> Grenadier wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
> |>> Are you a homeowner? If you are, are you okay footing the entire bill vs spreading it out evenly to all residents of your state?
>> Which residents exactly do you think AREN'T paying property taxes? Even if you don't
>> own your home, someone is paying the taxes on that (landlord), and passing that on
>> to you in terms of what you pay in rent.
>
> So the person who owns the property is paying taxes, while the person living there
> isn't. One person footing the bill for two people, when that burden could be spread
> out amongst all parties.

This is a misconception. Don't you think the landlord is figuring in the property taxes when computing what the rent would be? I know I sure would be. Sure, they look at what the market will bear, but that market is full of other landlords who are also paying the taxes on their property. All seems like it comes out as a wash in the end.

Hey @John, do you factor in what the property taxes do to your profit margin when calculating what you charge in rent?
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#23)
Grenadier wrote:
> Property taxes vs. higher sales tax.
>
> Seems like six of one, half dozen of the other here. They're going to get that money
> out of you either way. Would you rather it come as one big bill, or thousands of
> a little cuts every time you buy something? It's not like paying for it as a sales
> tax will lessen the overall tax burden, and the overhead of collecting all of it
> that way might actually raise the overall costs, as there are now a lot more middle
> men and a lot more accounting to be done.
>

So let's say the tax bill is $1,000,000 and there are 1,000 people to pay it, half of which own homes. Right now those 500 people pay $2,000 each instead of $1,000 that it could be if all were responsible. So no, they're not going to get it out of me either way. They're going to get some, but not near as much as they would have. It's a really simple concept.
Grenadier
GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
Double Gold Good Trader Has Written 3 Reviews
2-Aug(#24)
Dustin wrote:
> So let's say the tax bill is $1,000,000 and there are 1,000 people to pay it, half
> of which own homes. Right now those 500 people pay $2,000 each instead of $1,000
> that it could be if all were responsible. So no, they're not going to get it out
> of me either way. They're going to get some, but not near as much as they would have.
> It's a really simple concept.

Yes, it is a simple concept.

You're not paying double while someone else pays $0. The apartment dwellers are paying their share, but it's hidden in rent and goes through the landlord first as a middle man. It's not like there is no tax burden on those properties.

Ultimately, yes, the landlord is the one finally paying the taxes. But it's not like that money fell out of the sky.....he collected it from tenants.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#25)
Grenadier wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> Grenadier wrote:
> |>> Dustin wrote:
>> |>> Are you a homeowner? If you are, are you okay footing the entire bill vs spreading
> it out evenly to all residents of your state?
> |>> Which residents exactly do you think AREN'T paying property taxes? Even if you
> don't
> |>> own your home, someone is paying the taxes on that (landlord), and passing that
> on
> |>> to you in terms of what you pay in rent.
>>
>> So the person who owns the property is paying taxes, while the person living there
>> isn't. One person footing the bill for two people, when that burden could be spread
>> out amongst all parties.
>
> This is a misconception. Don't you think the landlord is figuring in the property
> taxes when computing what the rent would be? I know I sure would be. Sure, they
> look at what the market will bear, but that market is full of other landlords who
> are also paying the taxes on their property. All seems like it comes out as a wash
> in the end.
>
> Hey @John, do you factor in what the property taxes do to your profit margin when
> calculating what you charge in rent?

Wrong again. You're twisting things to try and make a point. If you bought 10 years ago at the height of the market, maybe your payment is $1,000. However then the market crashes and now there are similar rentals all around for $700. You still going to ask $1,000 to try and cover your bill? You could sure try, but likely wouldn't be successful. Like I said, market dictates your rent rate, not your cost. Sure you'd like to be able to cover your costs, but that isn't always the case.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#26)
Grenadier wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> So let's say the tax bill is $1,000,000 and there are 1,000 people to pay it,
> half
>> of which own homes. Right now those 500 people pay $2,000 each instead of $1,000
>> that it could be if all were responsible. So no, they're not going to get it out
>> of me either way. They're going to get some, but not near as much as they would
> have.
>> It's a really simple concept.
>
> Yes, it is a simple concept.
>
> You're not paying double while someone else pays $0. The apartment dwellers are
> paying their share, but it's hidden in rent and goes through the landlord first as
> a middle man. It's not like there is no tax burden on those properties.
>
> Ultimately, yes, the landlord is the one finally paying the taxes. But it's not
> like that money fell out of the sky.....he collected it from tenants.

Please explain how my analogy is wrong.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#27)
Also to be clear, the increase in buying power would only be temporary until the market catches up and housing prices rise.
Grenadier
GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
Double Gold Good Trader Has Written 3 Reviews
2-Aug(#28)
Dustin wrote:
> Grenadier wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
> |>> So let's say the tax bill is $1,000,000 and there are 1,000 people to pay it,
>> half
> |>> of which own homes. Right now those 500 people pay $2,000 each instead of $1,000
> |>> that it could be if all were responsible. So no, they're not going to get it
> out
> |>> of me either way. They're going to get some, but not near as much as they would
>> have.
> |>> It's a really simple concept.
>>
>> Yes, it is a simple concept.
>>
>> You're not paying double while someone else pays $0. The apartment dwellers are
>> paying their share, but it's hidden in rent and goes through the landlord first
> as
>> a middle man. It's not like there is no tax burden on those properties.
>>
>> Ultimately, yes, the landlord is the one finally paying the taxes. But it's not
>> like that money fell out of the sky.....he collected it from tenants.
>
> Please explain how my analogy is wrong.

I just did.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#29)
Grenadier wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> Grenadier wrote:
> |>> Dustin wrote:
>> |>> So let's say the tax bill is $1,000,000 and there are 1,000 people to pay
> it,
> |>> half
>> |>> of which own homes. Right now those 500 people pay $2,000 each instead of
> $1,000
>> |>> that it could be if all were responsible. So no, they're not going to get
> it
>> out
>> |>> of me either way. They're going to get some, but not near as much as they
> would
> |>> have.
>> |>> It's a really simple concept.
> |>>
> |>> Yes, it is a simple concept.
> |>>
> |>> You're not paying double while someone else pays $0. The apartment dwellers
> are
> |>> paying their share, but it's hidden in rent and goes through the landlord first
>> as
> |>> a middle man. It's not like there is no tax burden on those properties.
> |>>
> |>> Ultimately, yes, the landlord is the one finally paying the taxes. But it's
> not
> |>> like that money fell out of the sky.....he collected it from tenants.
>>
>> Please explain how my analogy is wrong.
>
> I just did.

No you actually didn't. At all.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
* 2-Aug(#30)
All of that crap isn't even important. The biggest issue is what Prime said earlier. So I pay on my house for 30 years until it's finally paid off. I now own my house and the land it's on. Except I don't. I still have a $400/month payment to make, and for what exactly? I get absolutely nothing for that money other than the right to live in my house, that I spent the last 30 years paying for. And if for some reason I can't make that payment, they can come and take my fudging house from me. They one I fully bought and paid for. It's absurd that people don't seem to see an issue with that. So yeah, I'd gladly pay more for some milk, bread and other items than have to deal with a bullcrap system like that.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#31)
Dustin you know that rent in NYC didn't go down when the housing market crashed 10 years ago. Didn't move a single penny. Property values took a huge hit and people were still paying the same price on rentals.

I don't know whose side of the argument that lends itself to but it's a straight up fact. Now I can't imagine most markets would sustain themselves like this one but it's worth noting.

Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#32)
The NYC market is not anywhere near an indicator of the actual housing market. It's its own beast
Grenadier
GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
Double Gold Good Trader Has Written 3 Reviews
2-Aug(#33)
Dustin wrote:
> Please explain how my analogy is wrong.

Here:

> So let's say the tax bill is $1,000,000 and there are 1,000 people to pay it, half
> of which own homes. Right now those 500 people pay $2,000 each instead of $1,000
> that it could be if all were responsible. So no, they're not going to get it out
> of me either way. They're going to get some, but not near as much as they would have.
> It's a really simple concept.

The bolded part is where you go wrong. To hear you tell it, those people make zero contribution to the tax rolls for this hypothetical community.

For the sake of argument, assume the other 500 people are in apartments, all with the same landlord.
Also, for the sake of argument, assume every unit has the same tax assessment. (Yes, this is bogus, but I'm trying to keep the math simple.)

The 500 homeowners each pay their thousand.
The landlord is on the hook for the other $500K, $1000 per renter.

Now, is the landlord paying that out of his pocket? When the tax bill comes due, sure. But ultimately, that money is coming from the renters. Counting that as "his" money is inaccurate. It's a cost of doing business that he's going to have to pay the taxes on those units. The renters are paying, indirectly, through rent. The landlord has to cover expenses out of that money. It's not 100% profit. Expenses include utilities, maintenance, and yes, TAXES.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#34)
Seems like bullcrap to me. He owns the property so the gains and depreciation just the same. If he wants to sell lemonade to subsidize his taxes and he used his rent money that he collects as total gains that's all his money he can appropriate how he sees fit and it all operates under the same umbrella. No?
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#35)
So you're saying it's exactly the same amount of money paid by all? Come on now. You can't honestly believe that lol.

What about the other example? You think it's okay to charge people money after their house is paid off? You think it's okay to be able to take someone's house after they own it if you stop paying money for nothing? If the answer is yes to either of those questions then I'm pretty sure we're done here.

Also you're example is once again assuming the landlord is making enough off the rent to cover his expenses. What if he's not? Does the local municipality just forgive him of that bill because of it? Again, market dictates rent prices. It's independent of tax bills and mortgages.

Do you own a home? I don't understand how you'd be okay with it if you do.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
* 2-Aug(#36)
you guys are having too much fun!

Prime - police, fire, emergency, library, SCHOOLS, maintenance of roads, new construction, rehab and maintenance of public
buildings, social services, animal control, zoning and permit administration, personnel costs and administration, trash dump facility, senior and child services and programs, etc, etc, etc

people want there to be a VAT (value added tax) on foodstuffs/groceries and local gas taxes? Pretty regressive tax policy.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#37)
We understand what the tax money goes too, and recognize the necessity of those taxes. However the burden should be shared across all individuals, not just those who own homes. Progressives are all about sharing things equally right? Or is that only true when it comes to the benefits, not the responsibilities?
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
* 2-Aug(#38)
To answer your question, yes progressive tax is about sharing things equally. Sales tax, income tax, property tax, are not equal if a person in a lower tax bracket is paying out more of thier own income to pay taxes opposed to a wealth person.

I think we live in a society in which we discuss taxes but the average citizen, including myself admittedly so, is tax illiterate. Even our politicians are. I actually enrolled into higher level economics courses the semester to get a better grasp on it.

We take a stance in democracy in that "whats mine is mine and what I've earned should not be taken" that is a huge leap for anyone in any class rung to overcome.

I think we all understand that taxes are here for a reason. I understand the beef with conservatives about those taxes and where that money taken by the government go and how it is spent. But if you're actively paying taxes we are sharing the responsibilities don't you agree?

image
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
2-Aug(#39)
i think we all would benefit by considering the issues around using a local sales\VAT tax to mostly fund services in cities and towns.
Everybody who isnt homeless, on a housing stipend, or living on tax exempt land pays RE taxes, directly or indirectly, that's not in dispute.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
2-Aug(#40)
progressive isn't about equality, in this example it refers to a graduated tax system based on income or value
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#41)
My beef is very specifically with property taxes. They should honestly be illegal. It's absurd that this sort of thievery is even allowed.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#42)
Dustin wrote:
> My beef is very specifically with property taxes. They should honestly be illegal.
> It's absurd that this sort of thievery is even allowed.

I'm with you on this. Even if they cleverly masked the nominclature so read as if it were a municipal tax I'd have less of an issue of it. I.E.: Municipal taxes go to: Police, Roads, Firehouses, Trash removal.

But even then I'd still have a fundamental issue with being told that I paid off $500,000 for a house and now that I've paid the house off in its entirety and I've implemented all the repairs I'll need for the next 15-20 years that I need to come up with 120-150K to hand over to the government or else they will take my $500,000 home and auction it off just so they can recover 3 years worth of unpaid taxes totaling 18k?

This is what George Carlin was talking about when he talked about the "owners" of this country. I never own my own land. I own the house I live in. The land is on lease from the government in perpetuity. And it's a shakedown because I entered into no contract agreeing. I agreed to purchase a piece of land and build a structure to house myself and my family. Why the fudge do I need to keep paying Uncle Sam for the right to live on my property that I've already paid for in full? It's a fudging disgrace.

I know it's kind of a terrible analogy but imagine if I financed a car from Ford. I make all my payments. Pay off all the interest and at the end when there's nothing left to pay...Ford demands I pay them a flat royality for the continued privilege to continue using my own bought and paid for property. Its just another one of those things that continues to enslave our citizens.

It all comes back to pilfering the American Public. It's so much easier to take our money then to actually be capitalists and sell crap to the rest of the world to finance our governmental endeavors.

They poison the medicine. They poison the food supply. They've perverted capitalism to be what they'd like it to be.

But what do you call it when the government strongarms me into paying into services and programs I don't use? Forget that I don't want to pay for certain programs that's a whole other issue. But I'm being strong armed to pay for services they deem necessary that I have no use for. Huh, paying money into things that serve me no purpose that I personally don't benifit from. I think there's a word for that...

Socialism
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
* 2-Aug(#43)
so,everybody up for having both your and your employers share of health insurance premiums show up in your W-2 as income, in return for promised lower tax rates?

btw, RE taxes dont go to uncle sam, they go to you and your neighbors to fund local services. Whether you own your house outright or not, you still use and pay for those services. If you think the tax rate is too high because of frivolous spending, speak out. Local govt is not only the most efficient form, its the most responsive to citizens

capital gains and inheiritance taxes are the next topic on deck.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#44)
Osiris wrote:
> so,everybody up for having both your and your employers share of health insurance
> premiums show up in your W-2 as income, in return for promised lower tax rates?

Depends on the specifics. Is it a break even in the end or am I out more money? Hard to say.
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
2-Aug(#45)
Grenadier wrote:
> This is a misconception. Don't you think the landlord is figuring in the property
> taxes when computing what the rent would be? I know I sure would be. Sure, they
> look at what the market will bear, but that market is full of other landlords who
> are also paying the taxes on their property. All seems like it comes out as a wash
> in the end.
>
> Hey @John, do you factor in what the property taxes do to your profit margin when
> calculating what you charge in rent?

Yes. Or, more accurately, when considering buying a property, I figure in all of those costs to determine if the market rent can cover it all and still have some sort of cash flow.

So, as Dustin said, if the market tanks, then the market rent changes while property taxes might not. But, his example was a bit extreme. If the market changes so much that I was getting $1000/month for rent, but can now get only $700/month -- then it would ALSO mean that the property value must have went down. In which case, I would have it re-assessed which would, in turn, lower the property taxes paid too.

So, I tend to agree that it comes out as a wash in the end.

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
2-Aug(#46)
Also, just to note it, remember that LOTS of people get exempted from a bunch of property taxes (in my state) because of the Homestead Exemption. Basically, if you live in a place yourself, then you get exempted from a bunch of property tax. This is my state's method of sticking it to "vacation home" people -- people that own 2nd homes and such. But it also catches landlords and investment property owners in that. The kicker is, of course, that landlords just pass that on to their tenants -- so they don't really get the Homestead Exemption.

All that being said, in my opinion, the Homestead Exemption is a bunch of crap. It does the OPPOSITE of what it should do. It means that people that LIVE in an area do not pay the school taxes. They expect the people that don't live there to pay it all. It's crazy to me. Why the heck do we make a special rule so that people that own homes in a school district are personally exempted from paying taxes to support that school??

The state actually REQUIRES this of local municipalities or they will lose their state funding for schools. The state actually says "Hey, you better screw over the landlords and make them pay for the local schools or we'll revoke your state funding too!" So, again, those that live here in houses don't have to pay it. But renters do because landlords, of course, have to pass those costs along. Sheesh.

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
2-Aug(#47)
Dustin wrote:
> All of that crap isn't even important. The biggest issue is what Prime said earlier.
> So I pay on my house for 30 years until it's finally paid off. I now own my house
> and the land it's on. Except I don't. I still have a $400/month payment to make,
> and for what exactly? I get absolutely nothing for that money other than the right
> to live in my house, that I spent the last 30 years paying for.

Are you still talking about property taxes? (I missed some of this.) Are you saying that you get nothing out of $400/month property taxes?

Property taxes go to support municipal drains, sewer, water, police, roads, public transportation. All things that you benefit from. Seems weird to say that you get nothing from property taxes?

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
2-Aug(#48)
Dustin wrote:
> We understand what the tax money goes too, and recognize the necessity of those taxes.
> However the burden should be shared across all individuals, not just those who own
> homes.

It's funny that you say this because, as I said above, those who own their homes actually pay much LESS of that than everyone else.

In a VACATION area, then most of the 2nd-home people pay it in my state. But in a normal area, like I am in, basically the landlords pay it -- which means that the renters pay it.

Those who own houses, like you, actually get a huge property tax exemption in my state.

- John...
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#49)
The problem is twofold. My example was after the mortgage was completed. That's the first issue. The second issue is the burden falling solely on homeowners.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#50)
John wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> We understand what the tax money goes too, and recognize the necessity of those
> taxes.
>> However the burden should be shared across all individuals, not just those who
> own
>> homes.
>
> It's funny that you say this because, as I said above, those who own their homes
> actually pay much LESS of that than everyone else.
>
> In a VACATION area, then most of the 2nd-home people pay it in my state. But in
> a normal area, like I am in, basically the landlords pay it -- which means that the
> renters pay it.
>
> Those who own houses, like you, actually get a huge property tax exemption in my
> state.
>

Yeah we can deduct property taxes too. That's not the issue. The issue is that there's no reason not to do away the property tax and add it to consumables. There's no reason to put it all on homeowners.


Regardless, this is all my opinion and it's not going to change. I think the current system is bullcrap and that's that.
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
2-Aug(#51)
Dustin wrote:
> Osiris wrote:
>> so,everybody up for having both your and your employers share of health insurance
>> premiums show up in your W-2 as income, in return for promised lower tax rates?
>
> Depends on the specifics. Is it a break even in the end or am I out more money? Hard
> to say.

THIS is the problem with taxes. WAY too many people just going "If it means less taxes FOR ME, then I'm FOR IT! And if it means MORE taxes FOR ME, then I'm AGAINST IT!" THAT attitude is a huge issue. You don't seem to care AT ALL if it is better for people or the community. You don't seem to care at all if there might be a good reason to tax things one way or another. All you care about -- and you just flat out said it right there -- is "Will this mean that I'm out more money?"

If people thought more about the big picture instead of just "Will I pay more??", then we'd probably all be better off.

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
2-Aug(#52)
Dustin wrote:
> Yeah we can deduct property taxes too. That's not the issue.

I'm not at all talking about deducting property taxes. In my state, homeowners literally get exempted from paying a bunch of them in the first place.

> There's no reason to put it all on homeowners.

I guess I'm with Gren then. I disagree that it is "all on homeowners." Everyone that lives anywhere pretty much pays it. If you rent, you're still paying that because the landlord has to pay it.

And, in my state, those people are paying MORE than home OWNERS because of the stupid Homestead Exemption.

> Regardless, this is all my opinion and it's not going to change. I think the current
> system is bullcrap and that's that.

Then why do you even try to discuss anything here. This attitude of "I'm not going to change and that's that" is pretty lame. At least consider the thoughts of others.

Again, this goes back to your "I don't care what is best -- I just care if I get to pay less taxes or not" attitude. frown

- John...
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#53)
John wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> Osiris wrote:
> |>> so,everybody up for having both your and your employers share of health insurance
> |>> premiums show up in your W-2 as income, in return for promised lower tax rates?
>>
>> Depends on the specifics. Is it a break even in the end or am I out more money?
> Hard
>> to say.
>
> THIS is the problem with taxes. WAY too many people just going "If it means less
> taxes FOR ME, then I'm FOR IT! And if it means MORE taxes FOR ME, then I'm AGAINST
> IT!" THAT attitude is a huge issue. You don't seem to care AT ALL if it is better
> for people or the community. You don't seem to care at all if there might be a good
> reason to tax things one way or another. All you care about -- and you just flat
> out said it right there -- is "Will this mean that I'm out more money?"
>
> If people thought more about the big picture instead of just "Will I pay more??",
> then we'd probably all be better off.
>

Nah, I'm a fan of keeping as much of the money that I work for as possible. Not really trying to hide that. What a terrible person I must be! See I think the problem is the people who don't have a problem paying for other people's crap. Guess we just disagree. Shocker!
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
* 2-Aug(#54)
Dustin wrote:
> Nah, I'm a fan of keeping as much of the money that I work for as possible.

Everyone is a FAN of keeping as much as possible. But most people can see that that isn't always the best option for the world as a whole. Sometimes, I donate something to charity to try to help others. I'm still a fan of keeping my money -- but I also have compassion for others, for example. It isn't always just a simple question of "How can I keep the most money regardless of what that means for the other guy."

> Not really
> trying to hide that. What a terrible person I must be! See I think the problem is
> the people who don't have a problem paying for other people's crap.

I still don't get how you are paying for other people's stuff. Again, you're mainly paying for local infrastructure and other things a community needs to survive and thrive.

Now, if you think YOUR community is overspending somewhere, then you should step up and take part to try to reduce that, sure. But, it can't ALL be overspending. You do need roads and water and sewer and police and education and so on. That is what those go for. It isn't ALL for bad things and it certainly isn't all for "other people's crap."

- John...
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#55)
John wrote:
> Then why do you even try to discuss anything here. This attitude of "I'm not going
> to change and that's that" is pretty lame. At least consider the thoughts of others.
>

So since I don't agree with you, I'm the stubborn one who shouldn't bother discussing things. Oooookay. I don't see you or anyone else changing their opinions?
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#56)
John wrote:
> I still don't get how you are paying for other people's stuff. Again, you're mainly
> paying for local infrastructure and other things a community needs to survive and
> thrive.
>

Sorry my reply wasn't specific to this discussion. Your response was in general about my selfish attitude so my reply was in general too.


Also giving to charity is a choice not a mandate. It's different.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#57)
It's all a big jerk off. They have all these things in place so someone can make a buck off of it. If they can't find a way to juice at least a few points off of the transaction they just make sure you can't do it.

Wonder why with today's technology and advances in modern science that the murder clearance rates are the lowest they've been in decades? Because murder investigations cost money, not generate it. The drug wars and civil asset forfeiture are huge boons to the government's pocket book. Traffic tickets, and other revenue based police models are in place to annex money from the citizens. If they could make money solving murder cases you can bet they'd solve more. Sadly that's not how it works. If the men with fingers in every pie haven't figured out how to make a buck off of the deal they simply funnel money through their lobbiests so that the actions are made illegal and impudent until they can figure out a way to Exploit it.

They'll never switch to taxes on goods and services. There would be too much to keep track of and far too many people going off book. Here they know where you live and if you don't pay them they can just take your house away. They literally couldn't have it any easier. Why switch to something that would benefit the citizens? They've resisted doing anything that benefits the citizens for the better part of 40 years. What would cause a change of heart now.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#58)
John wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>> All of that crap isn't even important. The biggest issue is what Prime said earlier.
>> So I pay on my house for 30 years until it's finally paid off. I now own my house
>> and the land it's on. Except I don't. I still have a $400/month payment to make,
>> and for what exactly? I get absolutely nothing for that money other than the right
>> to live in my house, that I spent the last 30 years paying for.
>
> Are you still talking about property taxes? (I missed some of this.) Are you saying
> that you get nothing out of $400/month property taxes?
>
> Property taxes go to support municipal drains, sewer, water, police, roads, public
> transportation. All things that you benefit from. Seems weird to say that you get
> nothing from property taxes?
>

So when I use composte toilets and reclaimed rain water why should I pay into an outdated system whose infrastructure hasn't been updated in a century? I use composts for my organic garbage matter and I can pay a private recycling organization to take my plastics, paper, metal and glass companies. I can install a septic tank privately. I can harness the suns power in the form of solar energy panels. I don't have any children and if I did I would home school then before I sent them off to sheep cloning centers that pass for schools today.

Why should I have to pay into 100 municipalities when I might use 6. Forcing me to pay my hard earned money for the greater good of others is Socialism.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
2-Aug(#59)
Prime wrote:
> John wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
> |>> All of that crap isn't even important. The biggest issue is what Prime said earlier.
> |>> So I pay on my house for 30 years until it's finally paid off. I now own my house
> |>> and the land it's on. Except I don't. I still have a $400/month payment to make,
> |>> and for what exactly? I get absolutely nothing for that money other than the
> right
> |>> to live in my house, that I spent the last 30 years paying for.
>>
>> Are you still talking about property taxes? (I missed some of this.) Are you
> saying
>> that you get nothing out of $400/month property taxes?
>>
>> Property taxes go to support municipal drains, sewer, water, police, roads, public
>> transportation. All things that you benefit from. Seems weird to say that you
> get
>> nothing from property taxes?
>>
>
> So when I use composte toilets and reclaimed rain water why should I pay into an
> outdated system whose infrastructure hasn't been updated in a century? I use composts
> for my organic garbage matter and I can pay a private recycling organization to take
> my plastics, paper, metal and glass companies. I can install a septic tank privately.
> I can harness the suns power in the form of solar energy panels. I don't have any
> children and if I did I would home school then before I sent them off to sheep cloning
> centers that pass for schools today.
>
> Why should I have to pay into 100 municipalities when I might use 6. Forcing me to
> pay my hard earned money for the greater good of others is Socialism.

If you're against socialism then you're selfish and a bad person. Keep up man!
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#60)
I'm not even against socialistic parts of a society. Some things make sense for everyone to pay into. But don't piss on my hat and tell me it's raining. Don't tell me we live in a capitalist society when the government strong arms money out of me to pay for other people's things. And when industry fails like the banks, instead of letting them go belly up and starting over the way capitalism is supposed to work, survival of the financially fittest and all that, then turn around and let the same bunch of dicks be the people to turn it around. It's just so funny to be that people thought Bernie was this wild socialist but pay no credence to how socialist this country actually is.
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
2-Aug(#61)
So you're for more socialism? More capitalism?

image
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
2-Aug(#62)
I'm for free enterprise and I'm for a free market. I'm okay taking the scrupulous practices of capitalism and combining them with some common sense, greater good economics if those things are agreed upon. Roads, Bridges, some municipalities, health care. I'm hesitant to consider education in that group because too often the government has their hand in the pie. Too many schools are reliant on federal and state money that comes with strings. We'll finance you but only if you indoctrinate the children with our sheep inducing ciriculum. That personal point aside I guess I'm okay with education being included to some degree.

Here's how they sold the lottery to NYS back in the day. They were told that X% of the lottery revenues would go to schools. That was it. Used to be something like 40%. Now after decades of crooked politicians perverting the system they've widdled that number down to between 12-25%. In some cases less. So basically schools shouldn't be reliant on federal money. That's how they sold it. As a state entity that would perpetuate educational prosperity for years to come. Only that's not how it works anymore. Now the lottery money gets spread all around and less and less goes where it was intended. Thus these schools are reliant on federal monies and have to adjust there ciriculum in order to continue receiving money that should already be allocated to them without having to jump through hoops.

The sad thing is that these monies were supposed to go to the poorest school districts. The ones who were in the greatest need and whose students are generally starting from a position of being behind. We talk about how education sucks all the time but we never talk about how we got here.

The fed is happy to fund things because again it allows them to push a soulless, free from independent though agenda. And that's what they want. We can elect new fresh talent to take office. But once they get there the scumbags who work for the real owners of his country the big business entities show the new guy how it all works and he/plays ball.

The ease in which rights can be taken away and new and more restrictive rules can be put in place disgusts me. Doesn't matter if its taxation or health care. The deck is stacked against us. They know this. They know our votes don't really count. We're electing one person who they turn into another person the second they walk in the door. Why do you think they don't even try to cover things up anymore. Even with all the news coverage we have the the 24 hour cycle once you get to a certain level of power you can pretty much say "of course it's fudgeed up, but there's no one to stop me, stop us. So we'll keep right on doing it at our pleasure" and no one bats an eyelash because no one has any clue how to go about tearing down the walls of corruption and building a new structure
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
2-Aug(#63)
John wrote:
> Grenadier wrote:
>> This is a misconception. Don't you think the landlord is figuring in the property
>> taxes when computing what the rent would be? I know I sure would be. Sure, they
>> look at what the market will bear, but that market is full of other landlords
> who
>> are also paying the taxes on their property. All seems like it comes out as a
> wash
>> in the end.
>>
>> Hey @John, do you factor in what the property taxes do to your profit margin when
>> calculating what you charge in rent?
>
> Yes. Or, more accurately, when considering buying a property, I figure in all of
> those costs to determine if the market rent can cover it all and still have some
> sort of cash flow.
>
> So, as Dustin said, if the market tanks, then the market rent changes while property
> taxes might not. But, his example was a bit extreme. If the market changes so much
> that I was getting $1000/month for rent, but can now get only $700/month -- then
> it would ALSO mean that the property value must have went down. In which case, I
> would have it re-assessed which would, in turn, lower the property taxes paid too.
>
> So, I tend to agree that it comes out as a wash in the end.
>
Welcome to the party, (pal)John! Appreciate your experience and opinion.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
* 2-Aug(#64)
I love tax talk with folks in other states, cause here we have an state income tax, a state sales tax, a shared state and local meals tax, Local property taxes on some of the most expensive real estate in the US, a local excise/personal property tax on vehicles, and probably more.

We all complain but it is the price of prosperity, good education and services and infrastructure. And we even have a healthcare mandate with little doging!
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
3-Aug(#65)
Osiris wrote:
> I love tax talk with folks in other states, cause here we have an state income tax,
> a state sales tax, a shared state and local meals tax, Local property taxes on
> some of the most expensive real estate in the US, a local excise/personal property
> tax on vehicles, and probably more.
>
> We all complain but it is the price of prosperity, good education and services and
> infrastructure. And we even have a healthcare mandate with little doging!

Yep, and Mass had it before everyone courtesy of socialist former governor Mitt Romney (R). Also not just good education but perhaps the best in the country.


image
MikeyWhoa
Go Pack Go GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
* 3-Aug(#66)
LPD: The Libertarian Police Department is a fitting satire for this thread. Good read. Check it out. Here's the beginning.

I was shooting heroin and reading "The Fountainhead" in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

"Bad news, detective. We got a situation."

"What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?"

"Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars' worth of bitcoins."

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. "What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?"

"Not yet. But mark my words: we're going to figure out who did this and we're going to take them down ... provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so."

"Easy, chief," I said. "Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair."

He laughed. "That's why you're the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins."
"Don't worry," I said. "I'm on it."






Cheese
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
3-Aug(#67)
Dustin wrote:
> So since I don't agree with you, I'm the stubborn one who shouldn't bother discussing
> things. Oooookay. I don't see you or anyone else changing their opinions?

There is a difference between having an opinion, but being willing to acknowledge that you may change and are willing to listen to the other side of things.

You, on the other hand, simply stated from the start that you will NOT change and that is the end of it.

THAT is why you are "the stubborn one." I'm willing to listen. I admit that I could learn something and change my views. It is very, very different.

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
3-Aug(#68)
Dustin wrote:
> Also giving to charity is a choice not a mandate. It's different.

Absolutely. But the point was about recognizing that there may be moments where it is not just about "keeping all my money."

Be it mandate or choice. The point was still the same: sometimes, we need to make decisions that might not allow us to keep as much of our money for the benefit of the community (again, such as roads, police, sewer, water, and other infrastructure). Unfortunately, some people need a mandate for those things.

- John...
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
3-Aug(#69)
Ok cool. Good talk John.
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
3-Aug(#70)
Also for the record I've never once seen you change your stance on anything during my time on this site. But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself.
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
3-Aug(#71)
Prime wrote:
> So when I use composte toilets and reclaimed rain water why should I pay into an
> outdated system whose infrastructure hasn't been updated in a century?

Because it is beneficial to all to not have the local community flood with sewage. That money still goes to maintain those systems. That benefits you regardless of you using your composing toilet.

It benefits you to have a fire department and police department. It benefits all to have local education.

And, it isn't just for the benefit of the community as a whole. Even local education benefits YOU in the long term. If you want your property to maintain value -- if you want to live in a secure area safely -- then you need those things that property taxes pay for even if you are doing your job to reduce SOME of the load.

> Why should I have to pay into 100 municipalities when I might use 6. Forcing me to
> pay my hard earned money for the greater good of others is Socialism.

The problem is, as stated above, some people would just decide to keep all of their money -- period. They would say "I'm not going to pay for a fire department -- I'll take the gamble." They would say "I don't THINK the sewer is going to fail, so I'm not going to pay to help maintain them -- it seems to be working fine for me today!"

People aren't that smart. They sometimes need to be forced into paying for things that they don't envision needing because, again, it is best for all in the long run.

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
3-Aug(#72)
Dustin wrote:
> Also for the record I've never once seen you change your stance on anything during
> my time on this site. But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself.

Whatever. I often learn new things and change my views. I don't pretend to know everything already and go "I won't change" like you've announced.

If you want to get specific since you asked... I've changed my mind over the years on several things:

1. Universal healthcare. I used to be completely against being forced to pay into this. Over time, the more I saw other countries' systems and how it affects others that I've spoken with, I've changed my mind on this. I understand the value for the group as a whole. Am I tired of lazy people that abuse most systems like this? Absolutely! But I've still change my harsh "No way!" stance that I used to have.

2. Drugs. I used to think that marijuana was a lot worse than it appears to be. I used to think that anyone that smoked it was a loser. Now that I've talked (most HERE) with so many that do it casually and live otherwise normal lives, I've changed my view on that. Do I still think it can be a problem for some? Absolutely. But I certainly have changed my stance on this.

Those are just a couple of big things off the top of my head -- that I have literally changed my stance on during my time on this site -- and, in the case of marijuana, specifically BECAUSE of people on this site.

Being unwilling to change or at least consider the "other side" is one of the biggest problems in this country, I think.

- John...
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
3-Aug(#73)
Everyone knows you love to argue and posts giant walls of text about how you're right and anyone else is wrong. It's a known fact here John. The fact that you don't recognize that isn't surprising. I'm not interested in engaging in that at this time as frankly, I don't care. Have a good one sir.
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
* 3-Aug(#74)
Of course you aren't interested -- you've already stated that you have no intention at all of ever changing your mind. Then you accused me very specifically of never changing mine. Then I gave you very specific examples of where I did.

So, at this point, of COURSE you aren't interested in talking about it any more. You've got nothing left to say. You said you won't change then you called me out on something that I easily showed was absolutely wrong.

Now all you have left is to go "Everyone knows you think you're always right!!" when, again, I've just given you examples of me admitting I was wrong.

Project much? Sheesh.

- John...
John
"If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King." GameTZ Subscriber GameTZ Full Moderator
400 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Gold Global Trader (13)
* 3-Aug(#75)
Also, Hey @Grenadier! Thanks a bunch for summoning me with an @mention into this Hellhole! /s wink

I'm out! Back to the good times where I forgot there was a Politics forum here still! smile yes

- John...
Dustin
GameTZ Subscriber 600 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (25 seconds ago)
3-Aug(#76)
Cool. Have a good one!
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
3-Aug(#77)
Seems to be a lack of clarity on the

Definition of socialism

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
3-Aug(#78)
Dustin wrote:
> Also for the record I've never once seen you change your stance on anything during
> my time on this site. But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself.

This isn't true. Absolutely couldn't stand me when I first got here and now can tolerate me. Baby steps you know.

Plus sometimes it's not about winning or changing the other persons mind. Sometimes it's just about getting having someone see where you're coming from. In that you don't have to argue to win. You talk it out so even when you can't or don't agree on something the other side gets why you feel that way and there can be mutual respect even in the face of disagreements.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader
3-Aug(#79)
John, thanks for your input on RE taxes/rental relationship, appreciate the practical point of view from someone in the trenches.

John is a formidable force in discussion on a variety of topics, it's difficult for many of us to do the homework and manage the depth of thought needed to match his.
Gomez
GameTZ Subscriber Quadruple Gold Good Trader
Global Trader - willing to trade internationally
3-Aug(#80)
My little rants weren't directed at anyone in the thread. Just more of an overall frustration with the state of the country. I thought despite the turn things just took this had been one of the more open discussions with respectful discourse and a pretty good scene of expression.

Topic   Healthcare and Tax policy