Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Romney paid 312% more in taxes than I did. Poor guy.

bbundy

Mormon Church a charity? Complete BS, that money went to politics. Kind of like his draft deferment for being "A minister of Religion" while taking a two year vacation in France for the Mormon Church.

I don't consider any religious group a legitimate Charity. They are all cults and they are gaining way too much sway in politics.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Okay, King George...

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I say the same thing about liberalism, socialism, altrusim, communism, nazism, and facism...so he can have it.

bbundy

So you come back with somebody who merged religion and government to oppress other religions. People can worship the the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care but don’t mix religion and government and further use it to violate civil rights or impose values. Religion does not own the rights to morality or humanity and many of the religious I find void of scruples.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Remember when Obama donated to Trinity United Church of Christ?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Just to clarify, Brainy.

Are you trying to imply that donations towards a (as per U.S. Tax code) charitable organization means they are going to put through legislation based on that organization's beliefs, as per your King George and now this comment?

I'll concede your point on Romney. But I'm slightly baffled as to the religious legislation that Obama has tried to put through, although I do not doubt he has tried to put some through - anyone have some sources on that?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

No, I dont believe it at all. I was just saying, our Savior has donated to cults as well.

If I ignore passing obamacare, I'd think this Congress is one of the best we'v eever had in a long time.

bbundy

Apparently the most people in history disagree with you there. They’ve avoided any signs of sanity in governing at most every turn.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

They think they disagree, but they also have a skewed idea of what government should be doing.

The least laws passed the better, imho. If they would only start repealing 5 laws for every one they add, I might orgasim.

They don't wage war, they dont pass budget, they dont pass laws; best congress ever.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'd be seriously on board with a Congress who would have the ***** to go up and say they are either modifying or repealing old legislation on a case by case basis - although not on a specific ratio. Anything that has politicians giving numbers that specific scares the **** out of me now.

Professionally, quite awhile ago I ran into a major headache with a law from the...1800s* I want to say. It made no goddamn sense for modern times, none. There was no reason to have it anymore. The best I could figure out is it was a morality-based law intended for telegraphs due to politicians inspiring massive paranoia (Yes, this existed in the 1800s too - the US has always had politicians doing what ours do today once our first few generations after the founding fathers died off), but the way it was written made it apply towards all forms of electronic communication. When you are talking potential jail time or at least a lot of lawyer fees, it really does kill business - not taxes mind you, the court system.

With all of that said, is your serious beef with Obama just the ACA/Obamacare Brainy? I mean, I'm not a big fan of the ACA myself for various reasons, but the ACA is a rewritten Romneycare to be more right-friendly, so I'd think you'd hate both candidates based on that criteria. I know Romney is swearing he'll repeal the ACA, but I believe that about as much as Obama saying he'll give everyone a pony.

*: If memory serves, but my memory is terrible fallible.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Obamaccare is a huge tax and expansion of the irs. Romney care is simply bill. Huge difference in what a state can force you to do vs feds.

Hell I can't use a radar detector, va thinkis its illegal for me to monitor the signals in the atmosphere.

Huge difference between a law enacted to fix a problem with a federal law that bankrupt states vs tax code with irs agents with guns and access to ur bank accounts.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Could you link me to sources elaborating on this please? Or further elaborate on this statement?

Based on your first statement, am I right to understand you feel that the federal government cannot give you a tax deduction/penalty (Or whichever other language you prefer to use is okay with me) for behavior that they do not want you to engage in?

Those laws are completely retarded imo. The constitutional legality of radar detector laws completely baffle me, and the judicial logic from the appeal courts just blow my mind.

Could you elaborate more on this? Or alternatively link to sources? I was completely unaware that the ACA had the potential to bankrupt states, and to the best of my knowledge the ACA was enacted to fix quite a few problems with our healthcare systems. I mean, I'm not a big fan of it (I strongly dislike the tax-if-you-dont-have-insurance part but at least it's not the we-can-fine-you-if-you-havent-committed-a-crime ridiculousness), but it does fix a lot of problems that have been identified in our health system.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Seriously. We've sent men to congress to pass new laws, that for the most part restrict the freedoms of men, for 200 years. Why don't we just restrain them from passing any new laws for a few years. How many more need to pass for our little world to be "just perfect"?

It seems like they keep making it worse instead of better.

Sparetire

[QUOTE=blaen99;919367]

Could you link me to sources elaborating on this please? Or further elaborate on this statement?

-I'll try on this one speaking only from my POV and not for anyone else. Depends on defining 'huge' and its context. For the pretty decent sized chunk of this country that does not make less than 133% of poverty line and does not have health insurance through work, the tax penalties for not having insurance will represent a pretty nasty hit. I dont think a lot of people in here look at this because frankly most people in here are fairly successful. I am more or less a fuckup. For example, I make 22k-23k a year. I get health insurance through my job thankfully. Most jobs paying that level dont provide insurance. Most people making that sort of pay dont have it. The new law says that the tax penalty cannot exceed the cost of insurance (whatever the hell that means), and the tax penalty will ramp up slowly. But frankly a lot of people in my pay range dont have insurance becuase they...can't afford it, or a equivalent tax penalty for that matter.
And I'm a tad skeptical that the government has the wherewithal to regulate an industry that has tons of sway over the government to the point of actually lowering insurance costs in any meaningful way. We can't do significant financial reform after the worst crisis in nearly a century but somehow the gov is going to regulate health insurance well? Maybe some other gov some other place, but not this one right here right now.

So yeah, thats going to be 'huge' for some people. I kinda laugh at the fools who are making under 30K per year, dont have insurance, and think they are about to magically get free health care.

Based on your first statement, am I right to understand you feel that the federal government cannot give you a tax deduction/penalty (Or whichever other language you prefer to use is okay with me) for behavior that they do not want you to engage in?

-Oh they certanly can. The SC said so. Now if its good or bad is a much more complex question. In the end its government controlling behavior through financial penalties, call them wahtever you want. You'll just get busted for tax evasion if you dont pay up instead of being busted for not having insurance. Sort of like Al Capone but not nearly as charismatic.

[QUOTE]

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm going to do something I don't like doing before responding, Sparetire. You bring up some great points, and at least one point I have not heard or thought of before.

What I hate doing is cross-linking forums I post on. But Sactoking's ACA Q&A Thread - AnandTech Forums is an excellent resource and reference without any of the political BS you hear about the ACA/Obamacare. You have several misunderstandings of core features of the ACA, Sparetire, and I'd recommend you read that thread thoroughly. I'm probably going to respond again to this part of the post tomorrow when I have more energy and time to respond to it in the depth it deserves, however. Right now I'm just tired and wanting to go to bed.

I pay a tax penalty for not being married, or get a tax deduction for getting married (Use whichever language you prefer, or whichever alternate language, I really don't want to argue with people over which wording to use to express that sentiment when the wording doesn't have a goddamn thing to do what I'm saying. I think only Scrappy is qualified on this board to state what is accurate wording so if you want what is technically correct in each case, please ask him. I categorically defer to his calls on what is the proper wording for anything in this post.). How is this any different? I can get a tax deduction/evade a penalty/whatever for not getting a mortgage, I can get a tax deduct/evade penalty/whatever for going to school if I make between 0k-80k or 0k-60k depending on benefit.

Is it an issue with the government being able to give deductions/penalties/whatever for people engaging in certain behavior? Or is it that the government is giving penalties/deductions/whatever for a certain behavior you do not like? I do not like the government giving deductions for religious purposes, so we should obviously be able to remove that from the tax code, right? (Note: This is hyperbole.)

Sparetire

Thanks for the info, I am digesting that and its very good/detailed/non-hysterical.

Married people pay lower taxes. Uninsured people pay a tax penalty. Its not the same.

See, I can stay single forever (and probably will) and not see my taxes increased because of that (not yet at least). If I got married I guess theoretically they would go down. Fine. If I follow the maze right I get an extra peice of cheese. I dont get penalizded if I dont. I just get the cheese if I do.

I have to go out and get insurance somehow to avoid paying a penalty under the law. I have to buy a product in order to avoid a penalty. I have to run the maze correctly to avoid getting an electric shock to the *****.

The carrot does not equal the stick just because they are both designed to influence behavior. Thats a damned important distinction IMHO. It goes to the core of some of the most important concepts that influence this nation throughout history.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I raise everyone's taxes by $1k. I say "Hey, if you do X, you get a tax deduction of $1k". Then no one's taxes are raised. I say "Hey, if you don't do X, you get a tax penalty of $1k". Explain the difference.

I once thought a deduction was a deduction, and a penalty was a penalty. Then I got my *** handed to me in an argument, and I realized that wasn't the case. There's no meaningful difference between a penalty and a deduction if taxes were altered in any way in addition to the deduction being created.

As for the rest, well auto insurance. I'm certain I'm going to get someone in here screaming "B..b...b...b..but they are totally different!". They aren't. They are substantially the same legally. It is beyond ridiculous to argue that. Although I will admit having to buy auto insurance irritates me every bit as much as having to buy any other kind of insurance.

I take that back. It doesn't just irritate me. I hate having to buy a government-mandated product from a private corporation.

But I also realize that these mandates give more benefit to our society as a whole than otherwise. I have a good friend who was hit by an underinsured driver - if the driver was uninsured, it would have been very, very bad.

Sparetire

The diff is that....you raised everyones taxes by 1K first.

So instead of a basic individual punishment, you have now done a blanket one and then allowed a way out through a certain behavior. This is not the same as an incentive. It has a similar effect. But it is not the same.

I'm not saying that what you outline in this particular example is new. It is not. But that does not make it good. And it does not make it the same as every sort of tax deduction.

Lets say a group of people in a room can give me a high 5 and get a bag of chips. Now we mix it up. If I beat the crap out of everyone in a room save for the people who give me a high 5, its not the same as offering to trade bags of chips for high 5s. The beatings are left out of one and not the other. As are the chips. But both ways will likely result in high 5s.


And I have no doubt the internet and news networks are afire with debates about how auto-insurance and health-insurance are sooo different or exaaacly the same. I realize we are sort of debating here, but one of the most important things I have learned with my feeble little mind in 30 years of Forrest Gumping my way through life: The better debater is....the better debater. Not nessesarily right. Or influential in any way. I have gotten ripped apart in arguments where I was stone cold 100% right as borne out by facts later on. I have won arguments where I later realized I was full of crap. IMHO this also aplies to your experience with arguing about incentives and penalties.

One thing: The mandated min auto insurance legally is basically to protect other people from your screwups. Additionally, banks can demand full coverage insurance of the vehicle in order to protect their investment from harm. I have more or less the absolute minimum insurance. It's 95% to protect the person I hit, not me. Existing is not identical to existing....at 65 MPH 10 feet from other fragile people while in control of 2500LBs of glass and steel. Health insurance is covering me from life. I will deteriorate and die. I dont feel that you owe me that protection. I do feel you owe me compensation and indeed the ability to compensate me if you hit me with your car.

And I dont subscribe to the idea that because something is theoretically beneficial, it is therefore a moral requirement. And I dont subscribe to it being a legal requirement either.

I am not savy on the details, I feely admit that. But what really kills me about this country is our inability to just face up to what we do. From foreign policy to this legislation to our own personal actions, we label and conceal crap to a rediculus degree.

What we are in the process of doing is forcing people to buy a product by virtue of existing on the premise that the new system will be socially beneficial and that people who do not buy the product are harming society.

I do not 100% accept the premise and even if I did I would still have a problem with the method. It is that simple for me. Take comfort that I am dying breed. Maybe there is a reason for that. In any case I have but one vote and no super-PAC...and no candidate in any preidential election I was actually excited about. Ever.

So I am probably 100% wrong on pretty much all of this. And it doesnt matter if I am not.