kallend 2,146 #401 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #402 July 3, 2012 Attached.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #403 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Actually, no... it shows that YOU didn't have one.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #404 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Actually, no... it shows that YOU didn't have one. So you are another one that thinks state taxes aren't taxes. OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #405 July 3, 2012 Quote If anyone should be impeached, it should be Thomas for his decisions and reasoning (or lack of) behind them And Thomas would reply with typical Eddie Murphy wit..."Have a coke and a smoke and STFU" Seriously, no one is going to be impeached over this.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #406 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Actually, no... it shows that YOU didn't have one. So you are another one that thinks state taxes aren't taxes. OK. Neither he nor I said that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #407 July 3, 2012 QuoteQuote The impeachment of a Supreme Court justice takes the same process as impeaching a president...... Hey Bill keep this in mind when next year he rules against something....right now "He took a stand" next year he will a shit bird conservative who doesn't know anything...... And the left will want him impeached. Thomas and Scalia have been out in deep right field for decades and seem to be the champions of the 2-7 loss, yet there has been no remotely serious discussion of impeachment. Roberts, unlike the teeth knashers, actually understands the Constitution along with the politics around the judiciary. And I think it's early to see him as the next Earl Warren or Scalia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #408 July 3, 2012 Both of you - enough with the one liners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #409 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Yes I did and everyone gets it except you. Thanks for agreeing there are differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #410 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Yes I did and everyone gets it except you. Thanks for agreeing there are differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. Either they both involve penalties, or both involve taxes. Whether state or federal doesn't change that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #411 July 3, 2012 Quote>Most taxes are on your actions: purchases, income, transport, etc. You can avoid >them by doing nothing. You are taxed more if you don't have children or a mortgage. Those are penalty taxes as well; you have to do something to get out of them. >Like I pointed out earlier, it would make perfect sense to tax people now for failing >to show up to the government fitness training We've had those taxes for 50 years now (you get taxed if you don't buy a house.) Why the big worry now? If it didn't happen in 50 years, why will it happen in the next 4? It's a completely different concept. You get a deduction for having children or paying a mortgage, but the tax avoidance doesn't equal the cost by a long shot. You would be better off financially without the children, and sometimes without the house. Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. I'm toying with this analogy. Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in public school. Are we ok with that?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #412 July 3, 2012 QuoteQuote I'm toying with this analogy. Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in public school. Are we ok with that? School attendance is MANDATED already. There is a penalty for not sending your kids to school, and it's nastier than having to pay a tax to the government (because you do that already). The only reason it *seems* different is that the "insurance" premium is paid for by taxation already.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #413 July 3, 2012 >Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. ?? You have healthcare. >Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your >children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, >we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in >public school. If you do not enroll them in public school AND you do not put them in a private school AND you do not home school them, then yes, I am ok with a penalty (i.e. truancy charges.) Society pays a price for an uneducated electorate. You can call it an additional state tax if you like. However, if you provide them with private education or home schooling, I would not be OK with it. Likewise, I would not be OK with a "healthcare tax" that penalizes you for not using government healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #414 July 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm toying with this analogy. Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in public school. Are we ok with that? School attendance is MANDATED already. There is a penalty for not sending your kids to school, and it's nastier than having to pay a tax to the government (because you do that already). Kallend, you know math and you know physics, but your continued insistence that -1(-1) = 1 means dick about our social policies shows your shortcomings on the politics side. School attendance is NOT mandatory. Education for them is. And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Go back a few decades and the typical model was that property taxes paid for the nearby schools. However that resulted in rich neighborhoods having rich schools and poor neighborhoods having poor schools. Ironically, in a place like Chicago, everyone that can sends their kids to Catholic schools, irrespective of their actual religion, because the public schools are pretty awful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 334 #415 July 3, 2012 Quote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #416 July 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Yes I did and everyone gets it except you. Thanks for agreeing there are differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. Either they both involve penalties, or both involve taxes. Whether state or federal doesn't change that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGc3ib49Iag Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #417 July 4, 2012 I'm absolutely convinced that you do not read my posts before arguing wtih them. School attendance is not mandatory if you home school. It was in the first line that you ignored.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #418 July 4, 2012 Quote>Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. ?? You have healthcare. >Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your >children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, >we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in >public school. If you do not enroll them in public school AND you do not put them in a private school AND you do not home school them, then yes, I am ok with a penalty (i.e. truancy charges.) Society pays a price for an uneducated electorate. You can call it an additional state tax if you like. However, if you provide them with private education or home schooling, I would not be OK with it. Likewise, I would not be OK with a "healthcare tax" that penalizes you for not using government healthcare. But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? And I predicated the analogy on home schooling. I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed for doing something different. Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #419 July 4, 2012 Quote But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). +1 Quote You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? If one pays the tax and they have medical expenses, they have to pay those solely out of pocket. Think of it as uninsured motorist coverage. You pay for it but it provides no coverage. Only now you don't even have to have a car. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #420 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. Mello-Roos? That applies to a remodel as well? The reasoning behind these is sound, though it's a bit odd how that one falls on the buyer, whereas the other infrastructure buildout is part of the construction cost. If you build a new town, or a new county like the way Riverside was created in the 80s, obviously you're going to need local schools...can't have them commuting in the same awful 91 corridor as all the workers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 334 #421 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. That applies to a remodel as well? My friend did a $600k remodel in Fremont, and did the write-a-check-to-the-school thing. I'm doing about $300k in San Jose, and hoping that I don't have to do that. Nothing I can do but pay up, if they do come calling. At least my permits were only $6k or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #422 July 4, 2012 >But you don't have healthcare You do. Part of that tax/penalty money goes into a pool which is then used to cover the uninsured when they need healthcare. (Again modeled on Romneycare.) >I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Agreed, we haven't - we've just made sure people have healthcare _coverage._ Healthcare has not changed, and we're not forcing anyone to have surgery. We're just ensuring everyone has access to it. >You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing >you can do about it. Well, sure there is. You can get insurance and not pay the tax - just as you can avoid the no-mortgage tax penalty by getting a mortgage if you choose. >I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed >for doing something different. Again, that's been true for the past 50 years. Want to rent instead of own? You'll be taxed because you're not living the "american dream" of home ownership. >Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices. Sure you can. You just won't get free healthcare by showing up at an ER when you get sick any more. A little more personal responsibility will be required - which in my mind is not that bad a thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #423 July 4, 2012 Quote Sure you can. You just won't get free healthcare by showing up at an ER when you get sick any more. Unless they repeal EMTALA, that's not gonna happen.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #424 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?" ------------------------------------------------------------- Mitt disagrees with your proposition. And so do I. “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others,” Mitt Romney, in a 2009 USA Today op-ed. Let him. I'm not voting for him. But again, we're talking about different questions. You and Mitt are talking about keeping a system with a structure that begets free riding, but suggests making some cosmetic changes to make freeloading more difficult. In a sense, there's an old warehouse with a squatter problem. Mitt proposes charging rent or Making a maze to the entrance. Sure, some of the squatters will pony up or decline to negotiate the maze, but plenty will figure out how to get in and stay for free. My suggestion is: "seal the sucker off." Or, "tear it down and rebuild a more secure structure." Make it so that freeloading there is a tough call. "People keep squatting in the basement." "Fill the basement." You and Mitt are about maintaining the same system but putting up some roadblocks. Kind of a Ligne Maginot. Hailed as genius in its ability to discourage certain conduct. But, hot dang, who'd have thought anyone would actually go around it? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #425 July 4, 2012 Except you fail to account for who is using the healthcare system now and not paying for it isn't going to care that there is a penalty, because they make no income and pay no taxes. Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab. The change we saw this week is simply an enlargement of the welfare system in this country.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Page 17 of 20 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,111 #413 July 3, 2012 >Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. ?? You have healthcare. >Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your >children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, >we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in >public school. If you do not enroll them in public school AND you do not put them in a private school AND you do not home school them, then yes, I am ok with a penalty (i.e. truancy charges.) Society pays a price for an uneducated electorate. You can call it an additional state tax if you like. However, if you provide them with private education or home schooling, I would not be OK with it. Likewise, I would not be OK with a "healthcare tax" that penalizes you for not using government healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #414 July 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm toying with this analogy. Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in public school. Are we ok with that? School attendance is MANDATED already. There is a penalty for not sending your kids to school, and it's nastier than having to pay a tax to the government (because you do that already). Kallend, you know math and you know physics, but your continued insistence that -1(-1) = 1 means dick about our social policies shows your shortcomings on the politics side. School attendance is NOT mandatory. Education for them is. And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Go back a few decades and the typical model was that property taxes paid for the nearby schools. However that resulted in rich neighborhoods having rich schools and poor neighborhoods having poor schools. Ironically, in a place like Chicago, everyone that can sends their kids to Catholic schools, irrespective of their actual religion, because the public schools are pretty awful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 334 #415 July 3, 2012 Quote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #416 July 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Yes I did and everyone gets it except you. Thanks for agreeing there are differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. Either they both involve penalties, or both involve taxes. Whether state or federal doesn't change that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGc3ib49Iag Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #417 July 4, 2012 I'm absolutely convinced that you do not read my posts before arguing wtih them. School attendance is not mandatory if you home school. It was in the first line that you ignored.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #418 July 4, 2012 Quote>Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. ?? You have healthcare. >Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your >children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, >we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in >public school. If you do not enroll them in public school AND you do not put them in a private school AND you do not home school them, then yes, I am ok with a penalty (i.e. truancy charges.) Society pays a price for an uneducated electorate. You can call it an additional state tax if you like. However, if you provide them with private education or home schooling, I would not be OK with it. Likewise, I would not be OK with a "healthcare tax" that penalizes you for not using government healthcare. But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? And I predicated the analogy on home schooling. I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed for doing something different. Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #419 July 4, 2012 Quote But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). +1 Quote You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? If one pays the tax and they have medical expenses, they have to pay those solely out of pocket. Think of it as uninsured motorist coverage. You pay for it but it provides no coverage. Only now you don't even have to have a car. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #420 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. Mello-Roos? That applies to a remodel as well? The reasoning behind these is sound, though it's a bit odd how that one falls on the buyer, whereas the other infrastructure buildout is part of the construction cost. If you build a new town, or a new county like the way Riverside was created in the 80s, obviously you're going to need local schools...can't have them commuting in the same awful 91 corridor as all the workers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 334 #421 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. That applies to a remodel as well? My friend did a $600k remodel in Fremont, and did the write-a-check-to-the-school thing. I'm doing about $300k in San Jose, and hoping that I don't have to do that. Nothing I can do but pay up, if they do come calling. At least my permits were only $6k or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #422 July 4, 2012 >But you don't have healthcare You do. Part of that tax/penalty money goes into a pool which is then used to cover the uninsured when they need healthcare. (Again modeled on Romneycare.) >I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Agreed, we haven't - we've just made sure people have healthcare _coverage._ Healthcare has not changed, and we're not forcing anyone to have surgery. We're just ensuring everyone has access to it. >You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing >you can do about it. Well, sure there is. You can get insurance and not pay the tax - just as you can avoid the no-mortgage tax penalty by getting a mortgage if you choose. >I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed >for doing something different. Again, that's been true for the past 50 years. Want to rent instead of own? You'll be taxed because you're not living the "american dream" of home ownership. >Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices. Sure you can. You just won't get free healthcare by showing up at an ER when you get sick any more. A little more personal responsibility will be required - which in my mind is not that bad a thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #423 July 4, 2012 Quote Sure you can. You just won't get free healthcare by showing up at an ER when you get sick any more. Unless they repeal EMTALA, that's not gonna happen.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #424 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?" ------------------------------------------------------------- Mitt disagrees with your proposition. And so do I. “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others,” Mitt Romney, in a 2009 USA Today op-ed. Let him. I'm not voting for him. But again, we're talking about different questions. You and Mitt are talking about keeping a system with a structure that begets free riding, but suggests making some cosmetic changes to make freeloading more difficult. In a sense, there's an old warehouse with a squatter problem. Mitt proposes charging rent or Making a maze to the entrance. Sure, some of the squatters will pony up or decline to negotiate the maze, but plenty will figure out how to get in and stay for free. My suggestion is: "seal the sucker off." Or, "tear it down and rebuild a more secure structure." Make it so that freeloading there is a tough call. "People keep squatting in the basement." "Fill the basement." You and Mitt are about maintaining the same system but putting up some roadblocks. Kind of a Ligne Maginot. Hailed as genius in its ability to discourage certain conduct. But, hot dang, who'd have thought anyone would actually go around it? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #425 July 4, 2012 Except you fail to account for who is using the healthcare system now and not paying for it isn't going to care that there is a penalty, because they make no income and pay no taxes. Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab. The change we saw this week is simply an enlargement of the welfare system in this country.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Page 17 of 20 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
headoverheels 334 #415 July 3, 2012 Quote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #416 July 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where does it say the IRS will come after you? Doesn't have to. Where is it written that the ONLY taxing body in the USA is the IRS? I pay lots of taxes to the Great State of Illinois and to my county, township, city, school district... without any participation by the IRS. More non-sequitur babble. Will the IRS come after you for not paying your taxes to the State of illinois? What other collection authority does the IRS have other than collecting taxes and assessing penalties for non-payment of taxes? That duck is quacking pretty loud!! So according to you, state and local taxes are not taxes at all. Fascinating, but imbecilic. Not even close to what I said. Project much? Back to the beginning, what does the IRS have to do with Romneycare's penalties/taxes? Nothing. That was the whole point. So you didn't actually have a point. OK. Yes I did and everyone gets it except you. Thanks for agreeing there are differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. Either they both involve penalties, or both involve taxes. Whether state or federal doesn't change that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGc3ib49Iag Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #417 July 4, 2012 I'm absolutely convinced that you do not read my posts before arguing wtih them. School attendance is not mandatory if you home school. It was in the first line that you ignored.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #418 July 4, 2012 Quote>Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. ?? You have healthcare. >Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your >children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, >we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in >public school. If you do not enroll them in public school AND you do not put them in a private school AND you do not home school them, then yes, I am ok with a penalty (i.e. truancy charges.) Society pays a price for an uneducated electorate. You can call it an additional state tax if you like. However, if you provide them with private education or home schooling, I would not be OK with it. Likewise, I would not be OK with a "healthcare tax" that penalizes you for not using government healthcare. But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? And I predicated the analogy on home schooling. I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed for doing something different. Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #419 July 4, 2012 Quote But you don't have healthcare (by the way, we've been discussing health insurance this whole time. I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Part of my issue with the media twisting words). +1 Quote You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing you can do about it. Even if you did not require any medical attention during the year, you pay the tax...right? If one pays the tax and they have medical expenses, they have to pay those solely out of pocket. Think of it as uninsured motorist coverage. You pay for it but it provides no coverage. Only now you don't even have to have a car. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #420 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. Mello-Roos? That applies to a remodel as well? The reasoning behind these is sound, though it's a bit odd how that one falls on the buyer, whereas the other infrastructure buildout is part of the construction cost. If you build a new town, or a new county like the way Riverside was created in the 80s, obviously you're going to need local schools...can't have them commuting in the same awful 91 corridor as all the workers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #421 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote And you do not pay school taxes, you pay state + local (not federal) taxes that includes the maintenance of the public education framework. Try doing an extensive remodel or new construction in Los Altos, or Fremont, and probably where you live. You get to go right to the school district and write them a check for thousands of dollars. This is in addition to $10k-$100k for building permits. That applies to a remodel as well? My friend did a $600k remodel in Fremont, and did the write-a-check-to-the-school thing. I'm doing about $300k in San Jose, and hoping that I don't have to do that. Nothing I can do but pay up, if they do come calling. At least my permits were only $6k or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #422 July 4, 2012 >But you don't have healthcare You do. Part of that tax/penalty money goes into a pool which is then used to cover the uninsured when they need healthcare. (Again modeled on Romneycare.) >I take issue with everyone pretending we have done anything with healthcare. Agreed, we haven't - we've just made sure people have healthcare _coverage._ Healthcare has not changed, and we're not forcing anyone to have surgery. We're just ensuring everyone has access to it. >You just have a new tax because you did not purchase insurance. And there's nothing >you can do about it. Well, sure there is. You can get insurance and not pay the tax - just as you can avoid the no-mortgage tax penalty by getting a mortgage if you choose. >I'm not convinced it is a perfect analogy, but it makes a point. You can now be taxed >for doing something different. Again, that's been true for the past 50 years. Want to rent instead of own? You'll be taxed because you're not living the "american dream" of home ownership. >Apparently different is bad. You can't be trusted with your own choices. Sure you can. You just won't get free healthcare by showing up at an ER when you get sick any more. A little more personal responsibility will be required - which in my mind is not that bad a thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #423 July 4, 2012 Quote Sure you can. You just won't get free healthcare by showing up at an ER when you get sick any more. Unless they repeal EMTALA, that's not gonna happen.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #424 July 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?" ------------------------------------------------------------- Mitt disagrees with your proposition. And so do I. “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others,” Mitt Romney, in a 2009 USA Today op-ed. Let him. I'm not voting for him. But again, we're talking about different questions. You and Mitt are talking about keeping a system with a structure that begets free riding, but suggests making some cosmetic changes to make freeloading more difficult. In a sense, there's an old warehouse with a squatter problem. Mitt proposes charging rent or Making a maze to the entrance. Sure, some of the squatters will pony up or decline to negotiate the maze, but plenty will figure out how to get in and stay for free. My suggestion is: "seal the sucker off." Or, "tear it down and rebuild a more secure structure." Make it so that freeloading there is a tough call. "People keep squatting in the basement." "Fill the basement." You and Mitt are about maintaining the same system but putting up some roadblocks. Kind of a Ligne Maginot. Hailed as genius in its ability to discourage certain conduct. But, hot dang, who'd have thought anyone would actually go around it? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #425 July 4, 2012 Except you fail to account for who is using the healthcare system now and not paying for it isn't going to care that there is a penalty, because they make no income and pay no taxes. Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab. The change we saw this week is simply an enlargement of the welfare system in this country.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Page 17 of 20 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
airdvr 210 #425 July 4, 2012 Except you fail to account for who is using the healthcare system now and not paying for it isn't going to care that there is a penalty, because they make no income and pay no taxes. Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab. The change we saw this week is simply an enlargement of the welfare system in this country.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
