Nelson says he'll support healthcare bill

Kal'Stang · Dec 26, 2009

Boo Radley said:
No, you have not show that. I have no idea why you think you have. I understand definitions, and don't dispute those definitions, but the fact remains, what is proposed is a 2.5% tax on those who don't comply. So, you "reasoning" aside, the fact is still the fact.

And I see nothing that can't be complied with, and you have not presented anything real that is proposed that can't be.

Fact is that the politicians are calling it a tax. That is a lie. As we have been trying to show you. It is a fine. You can call a duck a swan but that doesn't mean that the duck IS a swan.

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 26, 2009

Boo Radley said:
No, you have not show that. I have no idea why you think you have. I understand definitions, and don't dispute those definitions, but the fact remains, what is proposed is a 2.5% tax on those who don't comply. So, you "reasoning" aside, the fact is still the fact.

Which is a fine and not a tax.

This resembles the usage of the term racism where people use it in incorrect context.
Just because the people, who compiled the bill, call it a tax does not make it so.

Boo Radley said:
And I see nothing that can't be complied with, and you have not presented anything real that is proposed that can't be.

I never said it was impossible to comply with, If I did it would make your statement that "it is both a fine and a tax" true.

That is of course if we throw out the idea that fines are punitive and taxes are for general revenue purposes.

Boo Radley · Dec 26, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
Which is a fine and not a tax.

This resembles the usage of the term racism where people use it in incorrect context.
Just because the people, who compiled the bill, call it a tax does not make it so.

If it is paid with your taxes, it's a tax. Again, I understand your definition, but method of payment is also part of this and not just how you look at it.

I never said it was impossible to comply with, If I did it would make your statement that "it is both a fine and a tax" true.

That is of course if we throw out the idea that fines are punitive and taxes are for general revenue purposes.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 26, 2009

Boo Radley said:
If it is paid with your taxes, it's a tax. Again, I understand your definition, but method of payment is also part of this and not just how you look at it.

I can pay my tax preparation fees with my tax bill, does that make it a tax?

Are penalties and interest, imposed on delinquent tax payments, also taxes?

Boo Radley · Dec 26, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
I can pay my tax preparation fees with my tax bill, does that make it a tax?

Are penalties and interest, imposed on delinquent tax payments, also taxes?

No, but if my house is penalized for not having green paint on the roof, and I'm charged a non green roof tax, paid when paying my taxes, it is also a tax.

Harry Guerrilla · Dec 26, 2009

Boo Radley said:
No, but if my house is penalized for not having green paint on the roof, and I'm charged a non green roof tax, paid when paying my taxes, it is also a tax.

That is also a fine for non compliance, it's simply relabeled a tax because the word "fine" carries negative connotations with it.

Boo Radley · Dec 26, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
That is also a fine for non compliance, it's simply relabeled a tax because the word "fine" carries negative connotations with it.

Still, it is what it is. It is also a tax.

Seems like a small point we're wasting so much time on. But, if you insist, continue.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
Still, it is what it is. It is also a tax.

Seems like a small point we're wasting so much time on. But, if you insist, continue.

How high, and how many aspects of life must the federal government be able to reach into my wallet, and steal my earnings before you say enough is enough?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
How high, and how many aspects of life must the federal government be able to reach into my wallet, and steal my earnings before you say enough is enough?

j-mac

That's another question, but if it can do so and reduce other costs for me, it can be a net gain. Don't think we're there yet, but we could get there with real reform.

Remember, we are the government and we decide what we will and won't pay for.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
That's another question, but if it can do so and reduce other costs for me, it can be a net gain. Don't think we're there yet, but we could get there with real reform.

Remember, we are the government and we decide what we will and won't pay for.

Not an answer, let me rephrase. How much tax do you think an individual making say $50K per year should pay on a federal level?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
Not an answer, let me rephrase. How much tax do you think an individual making say $50K per year should pay on a federal level?

j-mac

I don't have a number. I make about that. Doing alright. And would be willing to pay a little more to tackle this problem.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
I don't have a number. I make about that. Doing alright. And would be willing to pay a little more to tackle this problem.

How much?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
How much?

j-mac

Don't tell me we're going to be silly here. I don't have a number, period. You can ask a thousand times, and I still won't have a number. When they want to tax me for a reason I don't support, I'll tell you.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
Don't tell me we're going to be silly here. I don't have a number, period. You can ask a thousand times, and I still won't have a number. When they want to tax me for a reason I don't support, I'll tell you.

My guess is when a repub is in office. :roll: But listen, you're in luck, because since you have no problem sending in a little extra, then I can assure you the the IRS will accept it gladly. Just mark on the check remit to deficit. Will you do that?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
My guess is when a repub is in office. :roll: But listen, you're in luck, because since you have no problem sending in a little extra, then I can assure you the the IRS will accept it gladly. Just mark on the check remit to deficit. Will you do that?

j-mac

Nope. Regardless of who's in office, I don't mind my taxes tackling real problems.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
Nope. Regardless of who's in office, I don't mind my taxes tackling real problems.

So let's see if I can get at the heart here, you want federally subsidized health insurance for all right? You say that is a right?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
So let's see if I can get at the heart here, you want federally subsidized health insurance for all right? You say that is a right?

j-mac

I'll give you half of that. I don't say it is a right. But I would prefer a universal insurer for a few reasons:

1. it would take it away from business, a benefit which hinders their ability to compete.

2. With a large pool, there would be less reason to deny people or make insurance too expensive to have.

3. Taxes would likely be less than than the premiums we pay now, especially if you include the company's portion.

But I never said it was a right. Just a way to tackle a serious problem.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
I'll give you half of that. I don't say it is a right. But I would prefer a universal insurer for a few reasons:

1. it would take it away from business, a benefit which hinders their ability to compete.

2. With a large pool, there would be less reason to deny people or make insurance too expensive to have.

3. Taxes would likely be less than than the premiums we pay now, especially if you include the company's portion.

But I never said it was a right. Just a way to tackle a serious problem.

But you want those that don't have insurance to get it through our subsidy right?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
But you want those that don't have insurance to get it through our subsidy right?

j-mac

Better than us paying the price willy nilly through provide cost hikes and increased insurance premiums designed to make up for those costs. Yes.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
Better than us paying the price willy nilly through provide cost hikes and increased insurance premiums designed to make up for those costs. Yes.

Ok, how about an apt? There are a lot of homeless out there, should we pay for homes for them too?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
Ok, how about an apt? There are a lot of homeless out there, should we pay for homes for them too?

j-mac

We should be concerned about their shelter, yes. If for non other reason than humanitarian reasons. But largely because there are problems there which effect all of us.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
We should be concerned about their shelter, yes. If for non other reason than humanitarian reasons. But largely because there are problems there which effect all of us.

Ok, how about daycare, can't work without daycare right?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
Ok, how about daycare, can't work without daycare right?

j-mac

We do that now in many cases. Don't we? I suppose it would be good for all of us if children stayed home alone, as I'm sure nothing that would happen in that environment would ever spill out and effect us.

I know where you're going, so cut to the chase. Is there a limit? probably, which is why we fight over these things. But if we can see a reason, and we can afford it, or like health care find a cheaper way to do what we're already doing (we're already paying for people outside of meidcare and medicaid), we should consider it.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2009

Boo Radley said:
We do that now in many cases. Don't we? I suppose it would be good for all of us if children stayed home alone, as I'm sure nothing that would happen in that environment would ever spill out and effect us.

I know where you're going, so cut to the chase. Is there a limit? probably, which is why we fight over these things. But if we can see a reason, and we can afford it, or like health care find a cheaper way to do what we're already doing (we're already paying for people outside of meidcare and medicaid), we should consider it.

I'll consider that a yes.

Ok, you believe that I through my ability, should subsidize some one elses need right?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 27, 2009

j-mac said:
I'll consider that a yes.

Ok, you believe that I through my ability, should subsidize some one elses need right?

j-mac

Not sure that is what I said. Take buying insurance, premiums are to be paid. It isn't free. But as you are paying for them right now. If we do nothing at all, you are paying for them right now. Not just people in medicare or medicaid, but people, working people often, who are on in any government program, who are uninsured, and who receive medical care. You're paying for them right now, in the most expensive way. Seems to me that some intelligent spending might be better.