Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
Quote>Hypothetically - I can be a packer for a DZ making cash money - not
>paying any taxes because on paper I don't work. In the process of
>packing I get hurt. I go to the doctor and get a bill for 10000. I have
>contributed nothing in the way of taxes. BUT you are now stuck with
> my bill and it is now everyone else's duty and responsibility to pay
>for my injury.
You're right - this is both unfair and the way it works now. What's your proposal to change this?
Congress has spoken - we're all going to pay for him to get a policy that he won't be able to pay the deductibles on, either.
So...net change for him? Zero.
Net change for us? Less money in our paychecks.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
And if you had spent 5 seconds searching instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you would have found the corroborating info. There were plenty of examples given and google is only a click away.
Probably some of you guys need a disclaimer at the top of each post, which would state something like "unless claimed otherwise, everything written by me in this post is my opinion". Why is it so hard to get?
(and with reference to gun thread - people tend to vote according to their opinions - not your or Ron's - so it indeed matters in such cases)
Quote
Did you even READ the part you snipped out?
Did you? That part required meeting all following criteria, and the first of them was "had coverage for at least 18 months".
billvon 3,118
More money taken out of our paychecks and less money taken our of healthcare fees. Instead of paying for his healthcare through lawyer's fees, we'll be paying for him via taxes. All in all, an improvement IMO; at least we only have to pay once.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
And if you had spent 5 seconds searching instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you would have found the corroborating info. There were plenty of examples given and google is only a click away.
Probably some of you guys need a disclaimer at the top of each post, which would state something like "unless claimed otherwise, everything written by me in this post is my opinion". Why is it so hard to get?
The point is that what we were writing WASN'T just our opinions, which you would have found out had you done the most rudimentary of searches.
QuoteQuote
Did you even READ the part you snipped out?
Did you? That part required meeting all following criteria, and the first of them was "had coverage for at least 18 months".
Sure did - what's your point? Did the hypothetical packer exist in a vacuum before suddenly materializing at the DZ or something?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteAll in all, an improvement IMO; at least we only have to pay once.
Uh huh - so what makes you think that hypothetical man is going to pay the deductibles and copays, if he couldn't/wouldn't make payment arrangements on the original scenario?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
The point is that what we were writing WASN'T just our opinions, which you would have found out had you done the most rudimentary of searches.
So what is you writing, my opinion? SC opinion? Truth in the last instance?
Quote
Sure did - what's your point? Did the hypothetical packer exist in a vacuum before suddenly materializing at the DZ or something?
No, a guy I was referring to was young and apparently thought he wouldn't need insurance.
mnealtx 0
Quote
Sure did - what's your point? Did the hypothetical packer exist in a vacuum before suddenly materializing at the DZ or something?
No, a guy I was referring to was young and apparently thought he wouldn't need insurance.
Depending on HOW young, he would have been covered on parent's insurance, and it's still possible for Mr. Invincible to get individual insurance.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
turtlespeed 226
I would LOVE to be able to do that - and watch all the companies around my area have to do things legally for once.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Quote
condensed version - Fix = Make the business owners liable for the taxes and there will be less fraud and more tax income to the country.
A business owner, like everyone else, is liable for THEIR taxes. What you were offering a post ago was making a business owner liable for the taxes paid by the OTHERS, who they paid to, or (like in case of packers) who they didn't even pay. Just to make it clear, is that what you are offering as a realistic solution?
And why you conveniently excluded yourself out of picture, as the plumber or pizza delivery guy serving you may also cheat on taxes, so using the same logic you should be liable for their taxes?
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuote>Red herring - there is no special "non-homeowner tax".
I'm afraid there is. Here's the link to the IRS page:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204671,00.html
What you linked to is a tax credit towards your owed taxes.
"Homebuyer Credit Expanded and Extended"
"The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established a tax credit"
"The credit is claimed using"
What you are implying is that the government is passing bills requiring us to buy homes and penalizing us if we don't. One could suppose from your argument that the taxes you pay should go to buy me a home instead.
-(-1) = +1
-(-tax) = +tax
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So far his proposal is that DZ should be fined for the packer who did not pay taxes.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites