# Papa Johns puts a price on Obamacare



## tacotiklah (Aug 10, 2012)

Papa John&#8217;s Founder To Raise Price Of Pizza Due To &#8216;Obamacare&#8217; « CBS DC


Doing a bit of digging shows this is probably a political move to rattle sabers in support of Romney. Tell you what Schnatter, I'll gladly pay the extra 14 cents on a pizza if it means people get better health benefits. In fact I have 14 cents sitting right here under this couch. 
Oh did I mention that company profits were UP 7.2% from last year? No? Yeah they are. So what the hell is this guy complaining for? He is making more money than he did last year even with "obamacare" in effect.

Like I said, rattling sabers in support of Rmoney.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 10, 2012)

What is the big deal about Obamacare? Why are people so militantly against it? It seems like such a logical thing to have healthcare more freely available.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm not an Obamacare supporter, but this whole "OMG PIZZA WILL GO UP 14 CENTS IN 2 YEARS" is fucking ridiculous 

He completely fails to mention how much his pizza would cost in 2014 WITHOUT Obamacare...wanna bet it would have gone up 14 cents anyways?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 10, 2012)

Because to many people, anything Obama does is "bad."


----------



## Blind Theory (Aug 10, 2012)

I couldn't give two shits less about Obama or anything he has ever done. That being said, I work for Papa John's....I hope this means less people order because I hate Papa John's. 

More on topic, I think this is a trend right here. Major corporations doing something in the way of their business to support a political affiliation. I think it needs to stop.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 10, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> I couldn't give two shits less about Obama or anything he has ever done. That being said, I work for Papa John's....I hope this means less people order because I hate Papa John's.
> 
> More on topic, I think this is a trend right here. Major corporations doing something in the way of their business to support a political affiliation. I think it needs to stop.



I think its fine, businesses have been lobbying forever so if they want to make themselves look really stupid then why not!


----------



## renzoip (Aug 10, 2012)

It's time to get big government out and take back our pizza (and some cheese sticks too)!


----------



## flint757 (Aug 10, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> I couldn't give two shits less about Obama or anything he has ever done. That being said, I work for Papa John's....I hope this means less people order because I hate Papa John's.
> 
> More on topic, I think this is a trend right here. Major corporations doing something in the way of their business to support a political affiliation. I think it needs to stop.



This is not news. I've worked places that try and get you to vote a certain way, who change their policies and blame them on political policies to get people to vote in the corporations favor, etc. I've heard about companies dropping their healthcare policies because of obamacare (not because it will no longer be affordable as it never was, the idea is to attract a certain class of workers) so that people will vote against him in the coming election. They try their best to make customers and employee's vote in their favor. If you think about it that is genius, but it isn't remotely new and it sucks BALLS. 

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Companies work with the retaliation effect, threaten their employee's with things like no bonus, no raise, lay offs, healthcare cuts, etc. until people are so scared they won't make it financially that they vote in favor of their employer's.

This example is stupid though who gives a shit about Papa John's...albeit it is hilarious.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Aug 10, 2012)

I've had personal experience with business executives being cheap assholes just to save however many cents it costs per person to cover their healthcare. My dad was telling me about a client's company that he's trying to get on board, and how they want him to cut all of his current staff and put them all on part-time instead of full-time so that they wouldn't have to pay for healthcare, in a health services company no less. They specifically cited Obamacare as the cause of all of this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. People are greedy, and it's very frustrating to see people in a position of power and influence, hinder the progress of mankind just to horde all the wealth they can before they die.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Aug 11, 2012)

Well thanks to Obamacare my family isn't paying outrages prices for our healthcare.

So paying 14 extra cents every time we buy from a restaurant that already gives half off every time the Wizards win doesn't seem so bad to me.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 11, 2012)

Private insurance just needs to go away, it is not in their best interest to protect everybody. Financially they have to let the outliers die or they don't make money. This is not okay and why we needed adjustment, but leaving healthcare in the private sector still (not entirely Obama's fault either) will make them flop in the long run or raise prices. While that sounds like incentive to vote the other way it shouldn't because that system is flawed. While the government is not perfect they are better equipped to handle healthcare IMO as it is not their job to make money, but spend it on making this country a better place for EVERYONE, albeit within their means.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 11, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> I couldn't give two shits less about Obama or anything he has ever done. That being said, I work for Papa John's....I hope this means less people order because I hate Papa John's.
> 
> More on topic, I think this is a trend right here. Major corporations doing something in the way of their business to support a political affiliation. I think it needs to stop.



Better they do it in public than behind closed doors.


----------



## lurgar (Aug 11, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Private insurance just needs to go away, it is not in their best interest to protect everybody. Financially they have to let the outliers die or they don't make money. This is not okay and why we needed adjustment, but leaving healthcare in the private sector still (not entirely Obama's fault either) will make them flop in the long run or raise prices. While that sounds like incentive to vote the other way it shouldn't because that system is flawed. While the government is not perfect they are better equipped to handle healthcare IMO as it is not their job to make money, but spend it on making this country a better place for EVERYONE, albeit within their means.




You live in the Houston area as well so I'm sure you've heard the arguments before like I have. People literally do not want to give any money to taxes and if they do, do not want to accidentally help people they don't like. Since having medical care available for everybody would mean those people they don't like, they approach it from the tax angle and say that it would never work because of freeloaders and illegals and such. If you have any doubt, try to read the tripe on chron.com today.


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 11, 2012)

My issue with additional social programs is that we are already carrying close to 20,000,000 undocumented immigrants. We school their children, we provide them healthcare. 

How about we address this issue and then the additional tax dollars could go towards giving our own citizens healthcare. 

I have no faith in the U.S. government to operate Healthcare efficiently and with quality service. The government doesn't know how to do anything without waste and bloat. So what may start as an initially good idea will degrade into costing taxpayers 10 times the initial estimates and people will get sub-standard healthcare in the process. 

The problem being that the government is not required to operate like a business. Things that our government gets away with would cause most businesses to go bankrupt and fail. While the government just prints more money or raises spending and taxes.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Aug 11, 2012)

Ever notice how the only people who oppose "Obamacare" are rich white men who don't know what its like to not be rich today?


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 11, 2012)

I am white - but not rich. I oppose it. 

To every American that says they can't afford health insurance. Can they honestly say. 

They don't have a cell phone.
They don't have a smart phone. 
They don't have a car loan or a car that is way beyond what they should try to afford.
They don't eat out
They don't visit high end hair, nail salons.
They don't have large Plasma TV's in their homes. 
etc. etc. 

Many Americans say they can't afford healthcare but then they can afford many luxury items in their life. 
If Americans are legitimately struggling I'm all for helping them. If they can't afford healthcare because having the latest Ipad is a priority I'm not interested in helping them. 

I watched after hurricane Ike people take free government food when there was a market open for business not four miles away. 
We saw Katrina victims take FEMA credit cards and go on vacations to Hawaii. 

Just wait this will be the future of Obamacare.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 11, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Ever notice how the only people who oppose "Obamacare" are rich white men who don't know what its like to not be rich today?



I'm white, but FAR from rich (as a matter of fact, I only worked one day this week because of layoffs...so I won't get a paycheck). 


...and I oppose Obamacare.

I'm able to budget my money, and spend wisely (along with my girlfriend). THATS why I have heathcare on my own, an expensive truck, a nice house, the kids are fed and clothed. I'm not the idiot in line at Walmart using their food stamps, while talking on a brand new iPhone.


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 11, 2012)

I think that it's a good thing that the debate about how to handle any public healthcare initiative is not over.

However, I don't think that the owner of a pizza company that gives out fatty dipping sauces for the pizza crust should almost specifically be disqualified in kvetching over the cost of healthcare.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 11, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> I'm white, but FAR from rich (as a matter of fact, I only worked one day this week because of layoffs...so I won't get a paycheck).
> 
> 
> ...and I oppose Obamacare.
> ...



There is so much wrong with this post it's hard not to just post it all.

Do you realize your pre-Obamacare health insurance costs are very high because they have to cover the costs of ER care for uninsured people that cannot pay for their treatments? By increasing the number of people insured, Obamacare will address this by lowering these costs (that must be absorbed by hospitals) that drive up the price of care and insurance for the rest of us.

Do you realize that your girlfriend's health insurance is cheaper under Obamacare, since women no longer have to pay 25-33% more than men?

Do you realize that the vast majority of recipients of government aid are not "idiots" out to game the system, and in fact rely on it for day-to-day necessities?

Do you realize that, no matter how well you or anyone else budgets and spends their money, the way our system is currently set up it only takes one major unexpected expense to destroy all your hard-earned financial equilibrium?

Just because you're not currently benefitting from government aid doesn't mean that you will not need it in the future. I, myself, would rather have the safety net there if I need it (and pay a little extra tax for the insurance associated with it). 

Plus, the opportunity costs of having that safety net there are infinitesimal. Federal food stamps take something like 10 cents from a person who makes $50,000/year. Considering the vast amount of good that food stamps do (both in terms of driving business to local stores and in helping people feed themselves and their families), I'd consider that a worthwhile trade. 

(A person making $50,000 a year pays 10 cents a day in taxes for food stamps - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com)

Finally, our health care system ranks LAST in the civilized world. We pay TWICE as much as everyone else, for lower quality, lower efficiency, and lower equality than everyone else. 

(http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623)


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 11, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> There is so much wrong with this post it's hard not to just post it all.
> 
> *It's wrong for me to share my personal experience? It's wrong for me to be against Obamacare?*
> 
> ...




Responded.


----------



## octatonic (Aug 11, 2012)

For the people that oppose Obamacare- do you also want to go to a "user pays" system for the Police and the Fire Department?

You'd pay less tax and why should you be paying for a service you never use?

I've lived in the US twice (I'm Australian, living in London for the last 12 years) and it just astounded me how expensive health care was and I was a healthy man in his 30's at the time.


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 11, 2012)

There are areas of the U.S. with "user pay" Fire. I didn't find it that big of a deal because my local taxes were lower and I paid a yearly fee no different than an insurance. 

I'm not sure why liberals think that all conservatives want to see poor people stacked up outside hospitals dying or in the streets dying of starvation. 

I think we should be willing to offer a helping hand when people fall on hard times. But then we need to teach them to fish and not just keep giving them fish. 

The government has done nothing in my mind to prove that they can run anything successfully. I remember $600 coffee pots and $1200 toilet seats in the military. Congress getting their next raise while solders and sailors didn't even get cost of living raises. Congressmen on private jets. Separate medical and retirement plans for politicians. 

I'm just saying get ready to get f**cked when ObamaCare ends up costing 10X the estimates.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 11, 2012)

I'll go ahead and respond to this. Take the "quiz" so to speak. 



DslDwg said:


> I am white - but not rich. I oppose it.
> 
> To every American that says they can't afford health insurance. Can they honestly say:
> 
> They don't have a cell phone.


I do, however the service was turned off on it about a month ago. It is a prepaid boost mobile phone.



DslDwg said:


> They don't have a smart phone.


Mine is a galaxy prevail S phone. Thanks to school loans and grants I was able to get the $150 needed to buy it. 



DslDwg said:


> They don't have a car loan or a car that is way beyond what they should try to afford.


My car was a "craigslist special" that was paid for in cash. I'm again thankful for school loans and grants in helping me pay for it, even though I run through a majority of my money trying to fix it. Having it stolen and the interior gutted has set me WAY back financially since I'm going to be paying out my ass in an attempt to fix it. Shitty humans being the shitbags that they are, I am now very financial strained (on top of the strain that I already had) because of this.



DslDwg said:


> They don't eat out


I do eat out often, however that is because other people are treating me to dinner. I haven't taken anyone out to dinner since Valentine's Day. That was when I took my bf to Olive Garden.



DslDwg said:


> They don't visit high end hair, nail salons.


I have crappy hair, so I use wigs instead. I do my own nails. (probably why they look like shit.  )




DslDwg said:


> They don't have large Plasma TV's in their homes.


Again, thanks to school loans and grants I was able to buy a decent 32" flat panel TV. This turned out to be a fantastic investment because it has great energy saving features on it. I was using a CRT 32" TV prior to this. By investing that $250, I went from adding about $13/month extra to the electric bill down to $13/year extra. It has practically paid for itself with the savings in the year that I've had it.



Now I've caught a few lucky breaks here and there (can't tell you how grateful I am for them too) but on the whole I'm broke at least 85% of the time. Unemployment where I live is sitting at 25%, so with the few jobs that ARE available there's a whole mob of people fighting for it. The only white knight I've had in all of it is government funding for school. The bulk of that money is in loans; money that I will have to pay back with interest. Given that to even get this Associates degree that I'm shooting for, I have to put myself about $18,000 in debt. With interest, that is looking like I will be spending the rest of my working life trying to pay it off. So no, I'm not getting handouts. Local and state GOP has raised tuition almost double what it was, and have been slashing funding for grants and other forms of financial aid. So my "cash cow" is drying up as well and I will be back to having pretty much nothing here soon. I have all kinds of musical ideas and projects that are just sitting there doing nothing because I don't even have the money to replace the faulty recording gear I bought back in 2006-2007 when I had a shitty job at walmart.

Where in all of that will I have the money to pay for healthcare? When I do get my hands on any kind of money it goes towards paying people back that have loaned me money when I had none. 
I'm half-deaf with broken hearing aides, I'm transsexual and need to be under the care of a gender therapist, endocrinologist, general practitioner, and probably a few more doctors with fancy names and I also need to be seeing a psychiatrist to continue treatment for my PTSD, insomnia and chronic depression and to continue getting my medication for it. I haven't had any meds for the depression/ptsd/insomnia in probably 8 months and have been suffering because of it. You try having a functioning life when your body refuses to sleep until 7am and you wake up at 11am, then when you ARE awake, you're depressed to the brink of suicide for much of the day. Factor in that gender identity disorder will compound the depression still further and I'm surprised I haven't eaten a bullet yet. Not that anyone on the right will care because to them it's "a lifestyle choice". 

Point is that I can't pay for any of my medical needs because I'm going into debt to pay off other debt, I had to move in with family in an attempt to save money, and the medical issues are compounding one on top of another.

Universal healthcare would be an absolute blessing for people like me. By treating the conditions that are keeping me down all the time, I can more easily take care of the other issues that are keeping me financially strained all the time.


----------



## Mexi (Aug 11, 2012)

Everything ends up costing more than the gov't estimates say and is ALWAYS inefficiently managed, regardless of the political affiliation. some of you guys are speaking as if Obama is the first president to "waste" taxpayers' money. never mind the billions that go to the defense budget or corporate tax incentives and god forbid he "waste" your money with the ideal that people will be able to go to the doctor or not bankrupt their family through medical bills.

how about bitching about Obama's human rights abuses with all those drone assassinations or his dick sucking of Wall Street. the rest of developed world has some sort of public health care system and have moved on to trying to deal with you know, *important* things that affect our respective societies. with everything that has gone to hell in the past few years...all the wars, wall street bailouts, curtailing civil rights/privacy laws, a diminishing middle class (and I could go on and on) I'm amazed people spend so much time and energy bitching about taxes or the price of Obamacare.

The problem with Obamacare isn't the cost, it is that fact that will do nothing to address the fundamental issues of American health and will not offset the costs that the government will have to cover with the the rising heart disease and other _*preventable*_ illness costs in the coming decades. In trying to compromise with Republican demands, it got whittled down to nothing and barely helps anyone to the degree it should have (but those that do, benefit greatly still) and Obama has spent too much to just give up so he needs to save face, as any president would.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Aug 11, 2012)

What ever happened to voting for what is right even if it doesn't necessarily benefit yourself individually?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 11, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> What ever happened to voting for what is right even if it doesn't necessarily benefit yourself individually?



'Murica... That's what happened.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 11, 2012)

DslDwg said:


> My issue with additional social programs is that we are already carrying close to 20,000,000 undocumented immigrants. We school their children, we provide them healthcare.
> 
> How about we address this issue and then the additional tax dollars could go towards giving our own citizens healthcare.
> 
> ...



Technically the government as far as I know isn't all that involved in this version of the bill. For most people it just forces you to have insurance and if you don't (and only if you don't) then you have to pay a tax. That is it. Most of the other things were forced policy changes for the insurance companies so that they couldn't screw terminal cases.



TemjinStrife said:


> Do you realize that, no matter how well you or anyone else budgets and spends their money, the way our system is currently set up it only takes one major unexpected expense to destroy all your hard-earned financial equilibrium?
> 
> Just because you're not currently benefitting from government aid doesn't mean that you will not need it in the future. I, myself, would rather have the safety net there if I need it (and pay a little extra tax for the insurance associated with it).



Exactly, all it takes (under the old rules) is finding out you have cancer and you can forget about having affordable healthcare even with the best plan. At least now they can't fuck you over. Some things like that are worth a higher cost (for myself and for others, something called being selfless).

Doesn't matter if you budget and do all the right things you could still get screwed.

Furthermore what trimmed package we have currently is NOT universal healthcare, it is healthcare reform that is it.

Also worthy to note that this is changes to the insurance, not to the healthcare itself. My doctors have sucked for the last few years and doctors commonly make mistakes so I don't know where this "quality" bullshit is coming from. As far as I'm concerned they started sucking after they were forced to make visits under 15 minutes.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 11, 2012)

On Not Noticing What Government Does Well - Fedblog - News - GovExec.com

The government is not this devil everyone presumes it to be either. Even when it does the right thing, it either shouldn't have or didn't do enough or both somehow. This is something the "smaller government" advocates want you to think. It does do some things quite well.


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 12, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I'll go ahead and respond to this. Take the "quiz" so to speak.
> 
> 
> I do, however the service was turned off on it about a month ago. It is a prepaid boost mobile phone.
> ...



I guess you missed the part where I said I think we should give people a helping hand. 

You get your education and get yourself a decent job and then pay for your own healthcare.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Aug 12, 2012)

DslDwg said:


> I guess you missed the part where I said I think we should give people a helping hand.
> 
> You get your education and get yourself a decent job and then pay for your own healthcare.



Come on, man. That is just plainly ignoring multiple issues that most Americans face. Education costs are the highest they've ever been. Most students are drowning in student loan debt and even when they graduate, the job pickings are slim. If you do manage to get a job, then you'll probably have health insurance. But what about when you actually get sick? The company lays your ass off and now you're faced with paying for insurance with no job, with increasing costs because you're now a high risk for the insurance company. You still have those student loan debts to pay off at the same time as well and not even bankruptcy can get rid of those. For the normal lower to middle class citizen, this scenario is all too common and the system is designed to screw them.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 12, 2012)

"Getting a decent job" in this economy that actually has health insurance benefits is by no means easy or guaranteed (especially for those who are just out of college, where unemployment/underemployment rates are at record highs) even after an Ivy League education and/or with a practical computer science, engineering, or similar degree. 

It often takes years, and I have friends who graduated in 2006, 2008, and earlier who are still "making ends meet" with shitty jobs while looking for something that grants benefits and pays enough to let them both pay down their loans and move out of their parents' house.

Obamacare makes that period of time less risky healthwise by both extending the time that a kid can be claimed under their parents' insurance to 26 and also creating a lower-cost subsidized insurance option for those who cannot afford insurance any other way.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 12, 2012)

DslDwg said:


> You get your education and get yourself a decent job and then pay for your own healthcare.



And there ya go. Another prime example of a person that gives exactly zero shits about anyone but themselves. Just explained (in huge detail) that in order to better function as a person and get other aspects of my life taken of, I need my medical taken care of. I can't afford it because some sketchy tweaker bitch stole my car and fucked it off and I'm STILL paying to have it fixed up. 

Your response to that? The same shit I hear all the time from very cold, callous people; tough shit. Proof that people are incapable of feeling empathy or compassion unless it happens to them.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 12, 2012)

Well the "happens to them" part isn't really empathy it is still just pure selfishness.

Like how many Republicans said that people being allowed to sue doctors was outrageous so they made it more difficult and the return lower. So now if someone kills your family member out of neglect/stupidity or cuts your hand off because they grabbed the wrong patient well you can only get maybe 100k for the pain and suffering. I think most people will agree that in the instance where you lost a limb at least that you will now have a harder time working (especially if you were a blue collar worker originally), you lost something priceless (I don't even know if I'd want to live honestly), and then they put a price tag on it that barely covers the medical aspect of it all. That is until the shoe is on the other foot and they are bitching that they can't take them to the cleaners.

Moral of the story is yes people like this are either incredibly selfish or are just unable to comprehend the complexities of the situation and that they may be on the other side of the table in the next decade.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 19, 2012)

To flip this around just a moment... imagine a company which has flat profits saying, "We want to do more for our workers, and so we're raising our prices 14 cents, but that money is earmarked and guaranteed to allow all our employees to have full health insurance. We hope you will agree that health care is important."

I'd go there over a business which implies that taking care of its workers is the least of their priorities. 


Fourteen fucking cents more per pizza will make sure all these people are taken care of. Or, in other words, 

Profits up 7.2 percent, but not willing to spend less than 1% on that workforce. Fuck 'em.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 19, 2012)

A-greed.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Aug 19, 2012)

For some reason people dont realize that americans are supposed to be all on the same team. If half the country goes down, we all go down. Even richy rich. It doesnt benefit us to have the douchbag, fuck everyone else but me, mentality.

We are all one interconnected entity. We should try acting like it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 19, 2012)

Well, saying "fuck Papa Johns" for not sharing their 7% profit increase with their employees, yet complaining about supposed extra costs imposed by Obamacare, is different than saying "fuck them, I hope they completely fail." So, yeah, whatever, I guess.


----------



## Labrie (Aug 19, 2012)

I'll never understand how Americans can support their current health care system. I remember hearing a story not that long ago from the chief of EMS here in the niagara region about when he was transporting an American citizen over the border to an American hospital for treatment. By the time they got there, she was VSA and they were doing CPR as they wheeled her through the hospital doors. The very first thing the hospital asked for was a credit card...you can just imagine the response of the medics. Anyway, the woman died because no one else would help her because she couldn't prove she could pay (because she was essentially dead on the stretcher).

This is privatized healthcare. This is the land of the free and home of the brave...


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 19, 2012)

Labrie said:


> I'll never understand how Americans can support their current health care system. I remember hearing a story not that long ago from the chief of EMS here in the niagara region about when he was transporting an American citizen over the border to an American hospital for treatment. By the time they got there, she was VSA and they were doing CPR as they wheeled her through the hospital doors. The very first thing the hospital asked for was a credit card...you can just imagine the response of the medics. Anyway, the woman died because no one else would help her because she couldn't prove she could pay (because she was essentially dead on the stretcher).
> 
> This is privatized healthcare. This is the land of the free and home of the brave...


Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia look at their military budget for 2012 and have a good laugh at the ridiculous amount they spend just on interest! This is the big problem. The defense budget is eating up all of the countries resources.


----------



## signalgrey (Aug 19, 2012)

its not about YOU its about EVERYONE.


----------



## philoking (Aug 19, 2012)

Not to sound like a whiner, because I get that other people have it rougher, but I have what they call a Cadillac healthcare policy provided by Microsoft. With the new model and "Cadillac tax" that Microsoft has to pay, Microsoft just decided to stop offering the policy altogether and move to a very generic insurance policy like an average job provides. That doesn't sound that bad, except I have a child with Cystic Fibrosis. Some of his medication costs $3,000 a month. He's in the hospital for weeks at a time every year.

Before Obamacare, I had no premiums, no copays, no deductibles. I practically didn't bother looking at medical care invoices because they always said $0. Now I'm going to have copays, payout caps, etc.

Again, I get there are people who have it worse, so it's an awkward position to complain from, except that I heavily considered the benefits against other offers when I took the position. With Andy's needs, I'll practically be taking a $30k a year pay cut. It's not like Obamacare is going to give me a raise to make up for the difference.

I am not saying I am against providing healthcare, but so much of paying for it is dependent on this Cadillac tax. I am guessing that Microsoft isn't the only company figuring out that it's not workable paying that tax. If they all drop those policies, and nobody is paying this tax, who pays for the healthcare for everyone? We all do, they just raise taxes on everyone to make up for it.

I can't imagine that no analyst model anywhere predicted that......


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Aug 19, 2012)

philoking said:


> Not to sound like a whiner, because I get that other people have it rougher, but I have what they call a Cadillac healthcare policy provided by Microsoft. With the new model and "Cadillac tax" that Microsoft has to pay, Microsoft just decided to stop offering the policy altogether and move to a very generic insurance policy like an average job provides. That doesn't sound that bad, except I have a child with Cystic Fibrosis. Some of his medication costs $3,000 a month. He's in the hospital for weeks at a time every year.
> 
> Before Obamacare, I had no premiums, no copays, no deductibles. I practically didn't bother looking at medical care invoices because they always said $0. Now I'm going to have copays, payout caps, etc.
> 
> ...



Now you'll have to be like everyone else and actually pay for healthcare? How dare they!!

I know your situation sucks, but your taking a 30k pay cut?? I MAKE 30k. I own a home, cars, nice shit and still make it work. The sense of entitlement in this country is insane. I have nice shit because i save and handle my money situation as my income dictates. Not what I THINK my income should dictate. And a lot of other people are too.

In all honesty, you should be happy you have had it so good and only NOW have to pay for that stuff. Everyone and everything i know is slowly declining(pay, jobs, economy) and some people are just now having to deal with that. Alot of us havnt had a choice and had to start dealing with it along time ago.


(Sorry if that came off dickish. I didnt really mean to be and I feel for you and the situation your in with your childs health care issues)


----------



## BlackMesa (Aug 19, 2012)

Here what will be interesting. How many years after, if it passes, will companies more or less kill their insurance and force workers onto the government dole healthcare?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 19, 2012)

Well it all goes full circle. Insurance companies are raising their prices because of the healthcare bill (I think partially as a political tactic IMO) thus raising the costs for companies making them either drop plans or switch or eat the cost. None of those provide good light for the redesign and I honestly think that was the point.

I'm no expert, but the people who control the prices are the ones getting screwed at the expense of the general public by the current political environment. That leads me to being very skeptical of their motives.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 19, 2012)

Our current healthcare system is inefficient for myriad reasons. No matter what, it will never be perfect. 

Yes, we have probably the most cutting edge care in the US, but costs are ballooning at an absurd rate. 

We already pay for uninsured/underinsured people as is evidenced by our staggeringly high costs (Yes, high quality is expensive. Low quality is cheap, I know.) 

Our system can be improved. It will never be perfected. It has resisted virtually anything other than very minor attempts at improving or doing things differently.

Obamacare is not radical. It is just the biggest baby step at reform/improvement that has yet passed. We ought to at least give it a chance and see if we can all be a little better off.

If it doesn't work, try something else. Not doing anything except standing by and forking over more and more $ to insurance companies is dumb. 

Letting uninsured and uninsurable people group together in an exchange in order to get "group" rates is a smart idea to at least try.

Just trying to improve our health care does not = Stanlinism. 

Americans need to chill. Read a little more history, get news from more than just Fox and think for two seconds before flying off the handle and spewing bile and vitriol about something they actually know very little about. 

Being Republican or Democrat does not automatically determine quality of ideas, intelligence or patriotism. 

Ignorance, however, is equal opportunity.


----------



## philoking (Aug 20, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Now you'll have to be like everyone else and actually pay for healthcare? How dare they!!
> 
> I know your situation sucks, but your taking a 30k pay cut?? I MAKE 30k. I own a home, cars, nice shit and still make it work. The sense of entitlement in this country is insane. I have nice shit because i save and handle my money situation as my income dictates. Not what I THINK my income should dictate. And a lot of other people are too.
> 
> ...



Wow man. I am 37, I've worked from a 20k a year job to a 140k a year job over the last like 18 years or so. I'm an engineer at Microsoft and I get paid pretty much what the industry dictates for a person of my position with my seniority. Being upset that my income is going to be reduced that much is entitlement? No. Expecting to get free healthcare because you can't afford it is actually the definition of entitlement. Being upset that I am losing benefits and income so other people can get what I've earned for free isn't entitlement.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 20, 2012)

BlackMesa said:


> Here what will be interesting. How many years after, if it passes, will companies more or less kill their insurance and force workers onto the government dole healthcare?



I hope it happens quickly so we can dispose of this individual mandate nonsense and move to a single-payer system like every other fucking first-world country.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 20, 2012)

I love how many of you act like this is the armegeddon when all you have to do is like....look at other countries to what happens.


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 20, 2012)

Rarely would I stick my head into this kind of of room and say something but after a recent visit to the states and talking at length with guys in one of our sister offices, i came to the conclusion that healthcare in the states is totally fucked. It's constantly rated as the worst health care in any first world country.

One guy that works for my company actually won't even consider switching jobs because his healthcare will change and a pre-exisiting condition that he has as well has one of his kids will no longer be covered. He grinds out the job JUST because of healthcare.

It was sad to the point where I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry when I heard about this running list of horror stories, especially when I live in a country where ALL of these concerns that the US guys had aren't even on my radar because I pay into a universal health care system that takes care of everyone. Sure there are little gotcha stories that people can hold up high and say our system sucks, but I can tell you without a doubt that if I was a US citizen, the nerve issues I experienced for almost 3 years would have saddled with me with a lifetime of debt and put "pre-existing" condition on my record. Instead, the money never worried me once and I was treated by some of the best doctors we have to offer. The idea that PAYING for getting hurt worries people more than actually getting hurt is truly and unbelievably fucked up.

Again, normally I wouldn't say shit, but hearing the unbelievably fucked up rhetoric of people clamoring to denounce ANY sort of universal health care as the apocalypse that would bankrupt the US really pisses me off. Why aren't people screaming about the billions of dollars wasted on a daily basis on wars that can't be won? 

Wanna know who would probably still be alive had he been Canadian? This guy.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 20, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> Rarely would I stick my head into this kind of of room and say something but after a recent visit to the states and talking at length with guys in one of our sister offices, i came to the conclusion that healthcare in the states is totally fucked. It's constantly rated as the worst health care in any first world country.
> 
> One guy that works for my company actually won't even consider switching jobs because his healthcare will change and a pre-exisiting condition that he has as well has one of his kids will no longer be covered. He grinds out the job JUST because of healthcare.
> 
> ...


The problem is too many americans think they live in the best country in the world


----------



## flint757 (Aug 20, 2012)

Yeah and when people pull horror stories of universal healthcare they don't consider how many more horror stories exist just with our current system. My dad would have to pay 24,000 a year just for his RA medication with descent insurance as it isn't covered. Then you have cancer patients who hit their cap and lose further coverage, the many different procedures/drugs that aren't even covered despite paying for the access and much much more. i'm pretty sure the "gotcha" moments and horror stories are far less frequent with universal healthcare.

It's like anything else I suppose. As an example my republican senator pointed out that Obama was cutting part of the planetary science division or something to that effect and just left it at that to make it seem like this terrible news for a science lover like myself. What she failed to mention is that he intends to take the funds from that program and give it to the Mars program. So the money stayed within the science community, it just moved to another division basically. Doesn't sound so bad in that context and yet that isn't how it was first presented to me. I'd say peoples perception of healthcare would be with similar bias.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2012)

Non-sequitur: I've been sick to my stomach approximately 10 times in the last 20 years. 7 of those times were within hours after eating Papa Johns pizza. You'd think I'd have learned after the first or second time, but nooooooooo... 

Semi-related: The fact that people are giving political credence to a pizza chef who has presented a clearly biased (and inaccurate) idea about how economics work within his company, _also_ makes me feel rather ill. John Stewart - as per usual - pretty much hit the nail on the head for this one:

It's Not Delivery, It's D'Economies of Scale - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/14/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 20, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Yeah and when people pull horror stories of universal healthcare they don't consider how many more horror stories exist just with our current system. My dad would have to pay 24,000 a year just for his RA medication with descent insurance as it isn't covered. Then you have cancer patients who hit their cap and lose further coverage, the many different procedures/drugs that aren't even covered despite paying for the access and much much more. i'm pretty sure the "gotcha" moments and horror stories are far less frequent with universal healthcare.
> 
> It's like anything else I suppose. As an example my republican senator pointed out that Obama was cutting part of the planetary science division or something to that effect and just left it at that to make it seem like this terrible news for a science lover like myself. What she failed to mention is that he intends to take the funds from that program and give it to the Mars program. So the money stayed within the science community, it just moved to another division basically. Doesn't sound so bad in that context and yet that isn't how it was first presented to me. I'd say peoples perception of healthcare would be with similar bias.


People are too quick to jump the gun on things they hear. They don't take the time to dig deep and find the actual truth. Large conglomerates pretty much control the country. The news industry and entertainment industry is just a huge propaganda machine trying to create sheep. The political system is a joke. Money makes the law these days. People need to also be willing to pay taxes towards social programs like universal health care. The real sad thing is there is not much change from voting a republican or democrat into office... things will never really change until there is a huge push-back from the citizens of the united states.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 20, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I love how many of you act like this is the armegeddon when all you have to do is like....look at other countries to what happens.


Omg! It's the sign of the endtimes! The Rapture! Hell on earth! 
God forbid we end up like Canada! Socialist, commie, heathen, savages. Their currency isn't worth anything, they live in mud huts. Wait, no, igloos. No running water. And their only cell phone company is going tits up! (sorry)  
Even worse, a third of their rotten country insists on speaking the devil's language: FRENCH! 

If only we could aspire to be like the Somalian paradise.  Limited government, virtually no taxes. The feds over there can't squander money on wasteful infrastructure or stupid sanitation projects. Clean water is for pussies. An honest days wage for an honest days work is the law over there. If you can't hack it in Somalia, you die. Just like you deserve.... Darwinism at its finest. Oh wait, Darwin is the devil. Doh!


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 20, 2012)

It's a shame what is happening to RIM! It was a sign of things to come when Lizarditis and Balsille pulled out of the company. I don't think Lizarditis had the foresight to keep up with smartphone tech and stay ahead of the curve. It's a shame because they headquarters are here in my city. Oh, well... hope they turn things around. This summer was really slow for the city. Combination of extreme heat + RIM going down isn't helping :/


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 20, 2012)

philoking said:


> Not to sound like a whiner, because I get that other people have it rougher, but I have what they call a Cadillac healthcare policy provided by Microsoft. With the new model and "Cadillac tax" that Microsoft has to pay, Microsoft just decided to stop offering the policy altogether and move to a very generic insurance policy like an average job provides. That doesn't sound that bad, except I have a child with Cystic Fibrosis. Some of his medication costs $3,000 a month. He's in the hospital for weeks at a time every year.
> 
> Before Obamacare, I had no premiums, no copays, no deductibles. I practically didn't bother looking at medical care invoices because they always said $0. Now I'm going to have copays, payout caps, etc.
> 
> ...



I have to say even with that kind of a pay cut, you are still doing VERY well. Be thankful for that. Most of us barely make $30,000. (in my case I make about $12,000 in grants and loans) Be glad that you can actually afford to pay for your kid's healthcare. 

Something to think about that people often don't:
-It sounds to me like you "made it" in terms of relative success here in America (Andy's medical condition notwithstanding). As in twice what upper middle class people make annually kind of success. I'm not envious of this at all, and it's actually something that I aspire to myself. America was good to you, so why not pay that forward? You see a broke college kid trying to make it and has to live off of ramen and mac 'n' cheese just so he can pay for his books (nevermind if he gets sick and has to go to class with a 103 fever), why not show up to his dorm with some pizzas or pay for a few of those textbooks out of kindness? Give him a leg up and let him know that you were going through that shit yourself at some point, so you know firsthand just how much something like that would help him out. 

Or how about doing something like that, but without the hassle of having to drive over there and meet one and all that crap by just paying a bit more for healthcare so that when that kid gets sick he doesn't have to collapse in class trying to "suck it up", get rushed to the hospital, and then have a bill that's twice the size of his tuition?
Too many people are trying to pin the whole cost of health insurance on "those lazy poor people" when a lot of it is working lower middle class families or college kids trying to make it in this country same as you. If more people that had a fair bit of money would take the time to pass the same opportunities they got onto other people, this country would be a FAR better shape.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> The problem is too many americans think they live in the best country in the world


 
Hahahaha yeah, some of us sure do love our country! What a bunch of retards! LOL!


----------



## The Uncreator (Aug 20, 2012)

"Fanatic ethnic, relgious, or national identifications are a little difficult to support when we see our planet as a fragile, blue crescent - fading to become and inconspicous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars."

-Carl Sagan


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2012)

It's possible to love ones country without being a nationalistic zealot.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 20, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It's possible to love ones country without being a nationalistic zealot.



Absolutely correct!! I love the US. I feel lucky that was was born and live here. I'm happy I'm American. But, I like the Carlin quote above. To me "proud" has a connotation of accomplishment. It's just pure dumb luck that I was born in the US instead of North Korea or Sudan. I had nothing to do with it.


----------



## The Uncreator (Aug 20, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It's possible to love ones country without being a nationalistic zealot.



There in lies the question, how are you defining the country? Its government? its principles? its people? its history?

EDIT

Whatever you define it by, then its not really THE country. To you it is, yes, but logically you love your environment or your people most, right? I think being nationalistic in any way is dangerous, its just one more limitation and boundary used to separate us. Love this history, love the people, love the view, but remember its not a defining aspect of you. Because its mere coincidence, and that is it.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 20, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> There in lies the question, how are you defining the country? Its government? its principles? its people? its history?
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Whatever you define it by, then its not really THE country. To you it is, yes, but logically you love your environment or your people most, right? I think being nationalistic in any way is dangerous, its just one more limitation and boundary used to separate us. Love this history, love the people, love the view, but remember its not a defining aspect of you. Because its mere coincidence, and that is it.



Ok, I know, very cheesy. But I just saw Roger Waters in concert a few months ago. Seriously, seriously cool show.
But to paraphrase Mr Waters: "Fear builds walls"


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> There in lies the question, how are you defining the country? Its government? its principles? its people? its history?
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Whatever you define it by, then its not really THE country. To you it is, yes, but logically you love your environment or your people most, right? I think being nationalistic in any way is dangerous, its just one more limitation and boundary used to separate us. Love this history, love the people, love the view, but remember its not a defining aspect of you. Because its mere coincidence, and that is it.


 
Why do I have to only focus on my country's positive aspects to say that I love it? I feel I can say my country is _all_ of those things (its government, its people, its places, its history, its culture), admit that it's not perfect and has problems that need sorted out (some fairly serious), but still decide that the good outweighs the bad and that I love my country in general. 

Loving something doesn't mean you're blind to its faults. I love my my mom, despite her being obese and a conservative fundamental christian. I love my dog, despite that I'm convinced it comes into my room JUST to fart and then leave again immediately afterwards. I really don't get how people can recognize that that's how love works with everything _but_ countries. Hell, with anything but their _own_ countries. I've seen plenty of people talking about how much they love other countries like Italy or Japan, but they can't say they love their _own _country (especially not if it's America, amirite everyone?) unless it has zero faults, for some reason.


Blablabla ramble ramble ramble. I need a hobby .


----------



## The Uncreator (Aug 20, 2012)

People use the country as a primary defining characteristic of themselves. We Americans suffer from it worse, by further dividing ourselves into states. This, is what I mean. This is dangerous, its such a severe and bold line dividing humans I think its an idea that should not be facilitated in society. I am not questioning the love of your country, but the idea that your country is something you need to be actively proud about with blind faith (like religion) and use it as a major basis for who you are. Because its pure coincidence , you were not chosen by your country and you made no conscious choice to be the nationality you are.

Love your history, and your people, but it doesn't define the individual. Or at least it shouldn't, I think.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> People use the country as a primary defining characteristic of themselves. We Americans suffer from it worse, by further dividing ourselves into states. This, is what I mean. This is dangerous, its such a severe and bold line dividing humans I think its an idea that should not be facilitated in society. I am not questioning the love of your country, but the idea that your country is something you need to be actively proud about with blind faith (like religion) and use it as a major basis for who you are. Because its pure coincidence , you were not chosen by your country and you made no conscious choice to be the nationality you are.
> 
> Love your history, and your people, but it doesn't define the individual. Or at least it shouldn't, I think.


 
We're talking two different things here, really. Getting to know a country and deciding that you love it is a different thing entirely than being proud to be of a certain nationality just because you were born there. Blind nationalism can certainly be dangerous, as particularly overzealous nationalists from any number of nations have proven time and time again. 

Perhaps you weren't replying directly to me when you posted that Carlin pic/quote after I mentioned loving our country, and I shouldn't have assumed you were. However, if you were, it does seem you were posting on the assumtion that love of country can only come from blind nationalistic pride. I think that sort of pride is a different animal entirely from love of country. I also think one can have national pride without having that sort of pride, especially considering there are immigrants who came and EARNED their right to call themselves Americans, and are justifiably proud of it. A person born and raised in the US can love the same things about America that an immigrant who choses to come here and become an American would.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 20, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It's possible to love ones country without being a nationalistic zealot.



I believe very strongly that those that aren't afraid to point out the real flaws in government are much more patriotic than those who would rather pretend the flaws don't exist at all.

But back on topic. John Stewart said it best:

"I gotta pay an extra 11-14 cents so the guy who makes my pizza can get antibiotics to keep him from hacking up lung tissue onto my pizza? OUTRAGEOUS!" 

The Affordable care act has and will continue to benefit the entire country in countless ways. I'd go so far as to say that everyone who's against the bill because of what it MIGHT do to the private insurance provided through companies to their employees is missing the entire point of the bill.

_*Having access to affordable healthcare in a post-industrialized country should not be dependent on whether or not your employer is willing to provide it to you.*_ Virtually every other developed country on earth has already figured this out.


----------



## The Uncreator (Aug 20, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> We're talking two different things here, really. Getting to know a country and deciding that you love it is a different thing entirely than being proud to be of a certain nationality just because you were born there. Blind nationalism can certainly be dangerous, as particularly overzealous nationalists from any number of nations have proven time and time again.
> 
> Perhaps you weren't replying directly to me when you posted that Carlin pic/quote after I mentioned loving our country, and I shouldn't have assumed you were. However, if you were, it does seem you were posting on the assumtion that love of country can only come from blind nationalistic pride. I think that sort of pride is a different animal entirely from love of country. I also think one can have national pride without having that sort of pride, especially considering there are immigrants who came and EARNED their right to call themselves Americans, and are justifiably proud of it. A person born and raised in the US can love the same things about America that an immigrant who choses to come here and become an American would.



It was actually more of a response to the person you quoted, and I wasn't saying love of your country is only from blind nationalism, rather that people don't know how to separate the two all the time and know that one is dangerous. I think any form of Nationalism is dangerous in some form, blind of course bordering on extremely dangerous. 

I think love of your country, and pride in your country are two separate ideas vaguely divided. One is a genuine emotion based on your perception of the people, environment, social and principal dynamics; And the other is a divide, an acceptance leading to irrational misconceptions of the quality of other countries based on the idea that your country, is superior.

Thats what I am trying to say. There was also, for the record, no personal judgement cast on anyone, just observations made for reference.


----------



## renzoip (Aug 20, 2012)

I like my country, but my loyalty goes to the international class-conscious workers and the oppressed minorities all over the world. No flags, states, or governments for me. I used to be supportive of nationalism in certain contexts (national liberation struggles), but now I'm definitely more of an internationalist. 


I like Papa John's pizza too.


----------



## pink freud (Aug 21, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Now you'll have to be like everyone else and actually pay for healthcare? How dare they!!
> 
> I know your situation sucks, but your taking a 30k pay cut?? I MAKE 30k. I own a home, cars, nice shit and still make it work. The sense of entitlement in this country is insane. I have nice shit because i save and handle my money situation as my income dictates. Not what I THINK my income should dictate. And a lot of other people are too.
> 
> ...



I'd just like to point out that 30K in Seattle is probably different than 30K in St. Louis. According to Salary.com St. Louis is 18.6% cheaper live in than Seattle (and you on average get payed 11.5% less, so it's actually easier to save money in St. Louis than it is Seattle).


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> Not to sound like a whiner, because I get that other people have it rougher, but I have what they call a Cadillac healthcare policy provided by Microsoft. With the new model and "Cadillac tax" that Microsoft has to pay, Microsoft just decided to stop offering the policy altogether and move to a very generic insurance policy like an average job provides. That doesn't sound that bad, except I have a child with Cystic Fibrosis. Some of his medication costs $3,000 a month. He's in the hospital for weeks at a time every year.
> 
> Before Obamacare, I had no premiums, no copays, no deductibles. I practically didn't bother looking at medical care invoices because they always said $0. Now I'm going to have copays, payout caps, etc.
> 
> ...


 
If the new plan is forcing a well established and extremely successful company like Microsoft to alter and possibly even drop certain current coverages, then the effects are likely going to be much more significant with smaller, newer, and less successful companies.
It's going to be even harder for the companies that actually self insure their employees, many of which do, and only use an insurance company to adminitrate the worker's policies.
Many of these smaller self insuring companies pay part of their wages in the form of employee owned stock programs and bi-annual profit sharing systems, so when these tax adaptions eat into the company profits, they also effectively reduce the worker's annual income.
Indirectly or directly, it doesn't make a difference when you see that paycheck going down.
If wages need to be bumped down in order for a company to come out with a given % profit margin, then that's what is going to happen in an employers market like the Obama system of high unemployment and growing entitlement programs.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I have to say even with that kind of a pay cut, you are still doing VERY well. Be thankful for that. Most of us barely make $30,000. (in my case I make about $12,000 in grants and loans) Be glad that you can actually afford to pay for your kid's healthcare.
> 
> Something to think about that people often don't:
> -It sounds to me like you "made it" in terms of relative success here in America (Andy's medical condition notwithstanding). As in twice what upper middle class people make annually kind of success. I'm not envious of this at all, and it's actually something that I aspire to myself. America was good to you, so why not pay that forward? You see a broke college kid trying to make it and has to live off of ramen and mac 'n' cheese just so he can pay for his books (nevermind if he gets sick and has to go to class with a 103 fever), why not show up to his dorm with some pizzas or pay for a few of those textbooks out of kindness? Give him a leg up and let him know that you were going through that shit yourself at some point, so you know firsthand just how much something like that would help him out.
> ...



I think you completely missed the point of what I said. I said that Obamacare depends heavily on the cadillac tax to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it. I don't pay the cadillac tax, my employer does. But my employer said hell no, that's not profitable. So I lose my great insurance, and your mac n cheese student gets nothing because Microsoft isn't paying the tax on the high end health coverage, they scrapped that. So now I'll be in a position to potentially be bankrupted by healthcare bills, and obama care gets nothing out of the deal. It's a loss/loss. I lost my great healthcare and no money was added to the pool to help pay for others. Now if you are saying I should feel bad that the kid doesn't have coverage and pay some for him out of pocket? I say no. I just lost my great insurance, now I have a kid with sometimes $200,000+ medical bills in a single year. Excuse me for being pissed that I worked hard to have some success only to have the president decide that my healthcare is too good to be fair and take it away. There is no logical grounding for the government deciding how well a company can treat their employees and financially penalizing them for being too good. I don't buy it and I never will.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 21, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Hahahaha yeah, some of us sure do love our country! What a bunch of retards! LOL!


You're twisting my words, bro. Not once did I mention anything about love / patriotism.
It's one thing to love your country... yet still be aware of the inherent problems in your country. I can tell a lot of you guys *LOVE* your country! You guys wouldn't be here talking about these issues. The fact is, a lot of people in america are blind to the problems that your country faces.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> Excuse me for being pissed that I worked hard to have some success only to have the president decide that my healthcare is too good to be fair and take it away. There is no logical grounding for the government deciding how well a company can treat their employees and financially penalizing them for being too good. I don't buy it and I never will.



I'd like to point out that the board (money hoarders if you will) of Microsoft decided it wasn't worth treating their employee's well anymore, the government has nothing directly to do with that fact. Insurance companies want to raise their prices because the republicans insist that keeping insurance mostly private is a good thing, but the problem is everyone has to make a bottom line and by the time we get to the person actually using it, it cost way too much. 

The government didn't force your company to drop coverage and only mandates any sort of fee if they don't. It sounds like the reason they actually dropped the coverage was because the plan you used to be on before the policy change (pre-existing no longer matters and no caps, something your child, as a matter of fact, would greatly benefit from in the long run) became expensive as the insurance companies bottom line went down and raising the prices is the only way for them to meet the artificial "quota's" they set themselves. 

This is why insurance either shouldn't exist or should be in the public domain only. A company can't take care of everyone the best it can without going into the hole, luckily we pay taxes and the government is not meant to be a business based on profits. They can bare the burden better than anyone else can as their job is specifically the welfare of it's citizens.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

Bingo. Nobody _forced_ Microsoft to change their policies. It's not like they're exactly hemorrhaging money, and they _could have_ chosen to do the right thing by their employees by swallowing the negligible increase in costs. Semi-related, their stock has been on a relatively steady incline since October.

The problem - in this case - isn't health care reform or any other legislative changes; it's Microsoft taking the stance that being _profitable_ isn't good enough. Like most money-grubbing American businesses, they feel they have to be _exponentially_ profitable. Instead of cutting, say, executive bonuses, they opted to cut YOUR benefits.

By rights, one who's losing coverage should be placing blame on their employer, and related private insurance companies; not with the government.

Caveat = I have no issues blaming government for the problems they are actually responsible for. I just don't believe in illogically scapegoating them.

*edit* I mean, if I worked for a company who took away my health benefits, while our founder is simultaneously keeping himself busy donating _billions_ to philanthropic causes in other parts of the World, I'd be pretty pissed off at my company.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 21, 2012)

signalgrey said:


> its not about YOU its about EVERYONE.



Socialist...


----------



## Semichastny (Aug 21, 2012)

Obsess upon perceived short term problems, and the long term problems will grow until you run face first into them with no understanding on how they got there.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 21, 2012)

I am going to add my two pennies in this conversation. This is coming from somebody who is actually a doctor, and makes decent money. First of all I want to say that I am completely for Obamacare. I understand that with this taking place that hospitals will become a bit more packed and it will take longer to see somebody. Although I also believe that a lot of people will also actually get to see a doctor and get preventative care (which will in fact keep our urgency care and emergency care a little less congested). I don't mind paying a little extra in taxes to help out my fellow man who is in need of help and not dying simply because they can't afford healthcare. When I was going to college I was pretty much as poor as can be, and absolutely could not afford healthcare. Not only that I was a big guy, which literally made it impossible to get healthcare without paying 300+ a month for it. So if I were to get extremely sick there is a possibility that they wouldn't have done all of the tests needed to save my life. There are tons of people going through this, and I believe that just because you are poor it means that you shouldn't have the right to some healthcare. I also hate the idea of individually run health care structures. The amount of money wasted in hospitals is fucking ridiculous. The upcharge for everything is just fucking insane. If you use a box of tissues they itemize it and charge 13 dollars for that. Every single small thing they charge you up the ass for, and they bill the insurance because they can. I think with Obamacare they might actually look at this kind of billing and possibly fix it in the future.

Even for people who make a decent living, and happen to have insurance it can still cost them a lot, and put their finances in jeopardy. Here is a good example of that: A year and a half ago I had to go the ER for intense intestine pain. Turns out I have diverticulitis, and I had to have a ct scan to check for that. They also did a couple of blood tests. I was in the hospital for about 2.5 hours. That small trip to the hospital cost me $14,753.77. Keep in mind I have insurance, and I still had to pay 20% of that bill. So it ended up costing me about 3 thousand dollars out of pocket. That will hurt any middle income class family. Imagine if you are a poor person who had to pay that back. A lot of people happen to think that healthcare in he US is the best in the world. That is 100% false. I could have gone to another country with better healthcare, and got better service, and payed straight out of pocket without insurance about 2 thousand dollars for the exact same if not better care. That is how much they are screwing you over. 

There are several people out there like Mitt Romney, and Mr Papa John who don't want Obamacare to pass, because they know they will have to pry a little more money out of their taxes to help pay for it. Greed at its finest level if you ask me. What I don't get is that all of the "super conservative" republicans I know who are against Obamacare are poor as shit. I don't get how they are so against something that will benefit them in the long run. They keep using all of these scare tactics and misconstruing of statements to make people believe that a public option healthcare is the worst thing in the world. It works for almost every progressive country in the world, but it sure as fuck can't work for us. 

Once again, this is coming from a person who is absolutely going to be affected by this. I understand that I will be busier, and I am honestly okay with that. They keep saying that doctors will be getting a huge paycut from this. I honestly don't believe that. I think that the extra patients will make up for that. I think it will mostly cut into unnecessary spending more than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I am a little weary about the government taking control of such a huge thing as this. Although in this case I think it is worth giving it a try for the sake of all of the people who generally need healthcare out there, and can't get it.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> The government didn't force your company to drop coverage and only mandates any sort of fee if they don't.



You should do a little research before you talk about things like you know anything about them.

The Cadillac tax says that Microsoft has to pay a 40% tax on insurance plans exceeding $8,500 annually for an individual, or $23,000 for a family.

So Microsoft, who has 90,000 employees across the world, all whom have policies that exceed this maximum, would have to pay 40% MORE to provide the same level of insurance to their employees.

We're talking about a 40% tax on billions of dollars.

So yea, the government absolutely did force the company to drop coverage by making it so prohibitively expensive that it would be fiscally irresponsible to a company beholden to shareholders to continue offering the coverage.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Bingo. Nobody _forced_ Microsoft to change their policies. It's not like they're exactly hemorrhaging money, and they _could have_ chosen to do the right thing by their employees by swallowing the negligible increase in costs.



40% is "negligible?" So if I take 40% of your income, it's "negligible?"

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> 40% is "negligible?" So if I take 40% of your income, it's "negligible?"
> 
> *rolls eyes*



Conservatives seem to be missing the point of the entire bill.



philoking said:


> The Cadillac tax says that Microsoft has to pay a 40% tax on insurance plans exceeding $8,500 annually for an individual, or $23,000 for a family.



The bill is designed to make care AFFORDABLE and ACCESSIBLE. That's exactly why this would be written in there, is it not? If the only way to make a Capitalistic band of private insurance companies to become more efficient and less costly without seeming like a Marxist Dictator is to play _their own game,_ then that's their fault. It's their fault for being the greedy sons of bitches that have been bankrupting families for decades because their profit motive was more important than the well being of their own customers.

Jesus Christ, _this is the government fighting for the middle class again_. That's huge news. When was the last time you felt like your interests were being represented by the government? Mine was when this bill passed and I got to stay on my parents' health insurance until I was 25 and out of college. 

More people need to realize that this administration actually IS fighting for things like upward mobility and gay/women's rights and not some insane ploy to take away your guns and run the debt up until China invades. The sad part for me is that they wouldn't be fighting so hard for these things if the Republicans were't trying to effectively burn the country to the ground while blaming the Democrats and the "big government" that they're employed by.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> 40% is "negligible?" So if I take 40% of your income, it's "negligible?"
> 
> *rolls eyes*



I make $40k a year (gross), and I'm _lucky_ to get it. 40,000 x .4 = 16,000. You're absolutely right I'd feel a hit like that.

This is one of my problems with the conversation in our country right now. We The People can't relate to the kinds of numbers large corporations (or executives of those corporations) pull, and we get sold on the idea that the more someone makes, the less they can afford to lose. The truth, in my estimation, seems to be much more the opposite.

The thing is, I'm not the 2nd most valuable company in the history of the World, and my _net_ worth isn't currently in the neighborhood of 240 _billion_ dollars. *rolls eyes back*

I may live in a fantasy World, but let me express where I'm coming from.

Your company's executives essentially bathe in cash, and you think they're gonna even _cough_ at the kind of numbers we're talking about, here? I really don't intend for this to sound like I'm on the attack, but from where I sit, it looks an awful lot like _they've made you and your colleagues political pawns by making this statement out of their benefits policies._ Worse, the statement seems to be predicated on the false idea that this is an _additional_ tax. 

I mean, you're not trying to tell me that they were paying *0*% before, are you? If not, what was it? 15%? 20%? 30%? Does it even _matter_ when we're talking about _Microsoft Money_?

240,000,000,000 x .4 = 92,000,000,000

Sure, to us, 92,000,000,000 is like "holy shit, I didn't even know money numbers went that high", but if we get past that hang-up, we get to the more important equation:

240,000,000,000 - 92,000,000,000 = 148,000,000,000. One Hundrd Fourty Eight _Billion_ Dollars. That's what they have left *after* the pay out, and that's hardly what _anyone_ in their right mind could consider chump change. Think about all the _amazing_ that could be done with 148 billion dollars.

Now, all those numbers are based on their _net_ worth. I don't have access to their gross numbers, but what you're talking about would be tax on their gross; not their _net_. That said, it's a moot point, because the net is _already_ so high that giving up 40% of it _still_ equates to a drop in the bucket. The higher the worth is, the less impact the tax makes.

I mean, seriously, Microsoft _netted_ almost 17 million this year alone. Unless you wanna tell me that their executive team is riding the bus to work every day, eating packed lunches, flying coach, and generally subject to the same lifestyle all the rest of us are, don't tell me they can't afford to keep giving _you_ good health care.

Oh, and much more importantly? Health care wouldn't cost _anyone_ (Microsoft, or otherwise) so God damn much, if there weren't a major, major problem with the private insurance system and pharmaceutical industry. America is essentially the only advanced country left in the World who practices as though even the _suffering of its own people_ should turn a profit.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Conservatives seem to be missing the point of the entire bill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How backwards is your thinking that you think that overtaxing insurance policies that are being paid by businesses on the behalf of their employees has anything to do with making healthcare accessible and affordable for other people!?!? So the government wants to give healthcare to people who can't afford it, I get that part.

So they decide to pay for it by taxing the crap out of companies who are paying for healthcare for their employees. The companies decide they can't afford it and lower their insurance coverage to get under the cap.

The net result? I get worse healthcare, and they get NO money to help pay for healthcare for others. Companies lower their coverage to avoid paying the tax, therefore they don't ever pay the tax, therefore no money comes in to pay for the healthcare for others. The only effect it has on the affordability of healthcare is that insurances companies make LESS money in premiums, therefore raise their prices to maintain their profits.

It's common sense, Obama will just write another bad check on our future (social security anyone? I don't expect to get a dime yet I pay in hundreds per check) and he'll get his coverage for everyone. Only the bill that lays out how it will be paid for is an out and out ruse. The money it's counting on will not be there, and it will just come from taxes they throw on someone else.

Don't think it happens? How about me buying a hybrid car to be a good environmental citizen and finding out recently that they are going to add a tax now that I will have to pay because apparently since I am using less gas, I'm not paying my part anymore, so I need to pay more taxes.

It's all a shell game.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I make $40k a year (gross), and I'm _lucky_ to get it. 40,000 x .4 = 16,000. You're absolutely right I'd feel a hit like that.
> 
> This is one of my problems with the conversation in our country right now. We The People can't relate to the kinds of numbers large corporations (or executives of those corporations) pull, and we get sold on the idea that the more someone makes, the less they can afford to lose. The truth, in my estimation, seems to be much more the opposite.
> 
> ...



Man, you just don't get it. Microsoft employs 90,000 people. They DO actually have to pay them salaries. They do have to pay for the real estate they work in, the power they use, the computers they do their jobs on, the benefits they provide them, the public transportation they offer them, they conferences they hold, the training they give them, the drinks they provide, the consumables they use... I guess you think that all that stuff is free.

You DO realize that the "EVIL" corporation is public and is entirely accountable to it's shareholders who are people just like you and me. They may net large profits, but they also pay dividends to their shareholders out of that profit. They fund research and development that will create new products, they store cash reserves so they can not have to lay off employees during recessions. Oh, and by the way, they also matched the $96 MILLION their employees gave to charity last year.

You've watched too many Orwellian movies about big bad companies. Microsoft is large company ran by ordinary people, accountable to ordinary people. 

OH, and that 40%. It's not an increase for 10/20/30%, it's a penalty tax on TOP of any existing taxes being paid.

The part that NOBODY seems to be addressing is....

OBAMA SAYS this tax is going to fund his healthcare package. Companies are lowering their policies across the country to avoid the tax before it's even in place. That money will not be there. Our country will go further in debt, all of our taxes will increase. Sure, we'll have a public healthcare option for people who can't afford it, but many who have great healthcare will lose it for nothing. 

Obama should have just called it what it was, said what it will cost, and left good insurance alone. Pay for it by getting out of Iraq and Afganistan.

Lame.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

I think I'll excuse myself from this thread. I don't think it's possible for to have reasonable discussion about this topic with people who believe that the haves don't have any right to what they have when there are have nots.

I am not a socialist. I do not believe that a company loses entitlement to it's profits because it's successful.

Norway has great healthcare and is considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Their tax on individuals? Up to 47.5%. Their tax on corporations? 28%.

When you allow a company to be successful beyond your imagination, that 28% grows in dollars with all of their success.

If you cripple them with taxes when they gain that success, they leave the country and go somewhere they can be profitable.

I'm out.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> Man, you just don't get it. Microsoft employs 90,000 people. They DO actually have to pay them salaries.



No, actually, I _do_ get it. That's why I gave you numbers based on their NET, AKA what they have AFTER they pay their 90,000 employees AND cover ALL their other expenses. Nice of you to completely ignore my entire post, though.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> We'll have a public healthcare option for people who can't afford it, but many who have great healthcare will lose it for nothing.


 
What stops you from still paying for private healthcare when public is available?


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> I think I'll excuse myself from this thread. I don't think it's possible for to have reasonable discussion about this topic with people who believe that the haves don't have any right to what they have when there are have nots.
> 
> I am not a socialist. I do not believe that a company loses entitlement to it's profits because it's successful.
> 
> ...



The engine of economy is people; not business. Businesses make no money at all, unless We The People buy their products. If the business pockets more money, what good is that to _anyone_? It's not going to any individual, and it's not going back into the economy, so it's basically a lose for _everyone_ who isn't an executive, or major shareholder of the company in question.

It was nice of you to glaze over my entire post and incorrectly re-interpret it as "OMG, THE EVIL CORPORASHUNZ, LOL", but I'm not a socialist as you imply, or some kind of Robin Hood wannabe, either. I'm just making a basic point: I'd miss 40% of 40K a hell of a lot more than I'd miss 40% of >1billion, and the same goes for you or any other individual. As an unrelated side, this is part of why the idea that a corporation is a person is completely ludicrous.

I was showing you, in raw numbers, why the taxes are in no conceivable way "crippling" to Microsoft, as you suggest.

Also, if "you're out", the proper thing to do would have been not post any response or exit at all, rather than post a bunch of retaliatory stuff and THEN remove yourself. The way you did it kind of comes off like a tantrum.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 21, 2012)

Fiction said:


> What stops you from still paying for private healthcare when public is available?


 
I don't get why people think that private healthcare will die completely. I think if anything it will make them a lot more competitive, and strive to cut out wasteful spending so they don't have to shell it out. Or if they want to still completely fuck people over they can have their own hospitals with little wait and charge more they are welcome to do it.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

synrgy said:


> No, actually, I _do_ get it. That's why I gave you numbers based on their NET, AKA what they have AFTER they pay their 90,000 employees AND cover ALL their other expenses. Nice of you to completely ignore my entire post, though.



Oh, I read it. I just think it's laughable that you think 17 million in profit in a year for a company valued at 258 billion is a lot. It's also funny that the numer is so ridiculous because you had to have made it up. Microsoft hasn't made a number in 30 years.

Microsoft had revenue of $17.4 Billion in the 3rd Quarter of 2012. They spent $11 Billion in operating expenses. They paid $1.2 Billion in taxes. They had a net income of $5.1 Billion. 

They paid earnings to shareholders of $0.20 per share on about 17 billion shares of stock. That's $3.2 Billion.

That means Microsoft put $1.9 Billion into cash reserves. That's roughly 10%.

So really.... are you going to say that it's unreasonable for a company that pays $1.2 Billion in taxes to make $1.9 Billion in profit?

I don't think so, maybe you think that companies exist to pay taxes and not make money though. Maybe you should read the definition of capitalism.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> Oh, I read it. I just think it's laughable that you think 17 million in profit in a year for a company valued at 258 billion is a lot. It's also funny that the numer is so ridiculous because you had to have made it up. Microsoft hasn't made a number in 30 years.
> 
> Maybe you should read the definition of capitalism.



Maybe you should acknowledge that I gave links to sources proving my numbers.  (Those weren't underlined points. They were links.)

Here it is again: MSFT Income Statement | Microsoft Corporation Stock - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

synrgy said:


> The way you did it kind of comes off like a tantrum.



Dude, I am not throwing a tantrum, and I am not mad at you. I enjoy a healthy debate. I just realized that you are debating something you don't have a solid knowledge of.

The numbers you are using to support your argument aren't just wrong, they are not in sync with reality at all.

The Cadillac tax is paid based on what they pay for insurance, not profit.

Publicly traded companies are accountable to their shareholders, just like elected officials, the people that run the companies can be ejected for making poor financial decisions.

I do completely reject the notion of the more you have the more you can pay. The reality is the more you have, the more you pay, period. 

You say you make $40k? That means you were in the 25% tax bracket this year. So you would have paid about $10,000 in taxes.

I am not trying to brag about my income here, so excuse me, but I made about $145,000. That put me in the 28% tax bracket. So I would have paid $40,600 in taxes. 

So yea, I get pissed off when someone like you, who I paid more in taxes last year than you made, bitches about "fairness."

I worked very hard to get to where I am. To be here, in Redmond Washington, I have to pay $400,000 for a house that costs $150,000 in many other places.

You act like the equation is so simple, people who make more have more to lose without "feeling it", and it's that easy.

I am proud to live in a country where I can work hard and find success. I wish you all the success in the world and go out of my way to help provide a path for others to succeed when I can.

I have a family, I have a house and bills, I have a son with a terminal disease that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.

Stop telling me what you think I can afford to lose. It's always easy to spend someone else's money.

Finally, stop sitting there acting like you know the complex financial model that is a company like Microsoft, and making absolutely idiotic statements like "they can afford to lose 40% of their profit."

If you want fair, equal is fair. A percentage is equal. I not only pay four times more taxes than you, but a higher percentage as well. There is no mathematical logic that makes that fair.

That being said, I quit thinking there was an entitlement to fair in elementary school.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 21, 2012)

poopyalligator said:


> I don't get why people think that private healthcare will die completely. I think if anything it will make them a lot more competitive, and strive to cut out wasteful spending so they don't have to shell it out. Or if they want to still completely fuck people over they can have their own hospitals with little wait and charge more they are welcome to do it.


 
Beats me 

In Australia once you earn over a certain threshold per year ($84,000, I believe), you're required to take out private healthcare, which i think would help keep our taxes lower regarding healthcare. And i'm fine with paying that if/when I cross that, The whole concept of people being against healthcare baffles me, but It's all i've known really.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> Stop telling me what you think I can afford to lose. It's always easy to spend someone else's money.
> 
> Finally, stop sitting there acting like you know the complex financial model that is a company like Microsoft, and making absolutely idiotic statements like "they can afford to lose 40% of their profit."



I didn't say *you* can afford it. That's my whole point, which I can't seem to make you understand. Neither of US can afford it, and neither can most _individuals_, but a company with a worth like Microsoft absolutely can. To tax the individual more, but toss a break to the business, serves _noone_.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Beats me
> 
> In Australia once you earn over a certain threshold per year ($84,000, I believe), you're required to take out private healthcare, which i think would help keep our taxes lower regarding healthcare. And i'm fine with paying that if/when I cross that, The whole concept of people being against healthcare baffles me, but It's all i've known really.



I think you misunderstand man. I am not AT ALL against public healthcare. I am against the way it happened.

I factored the benefits my company offered into accepting the position I have and the fact that they pay for healthcare 100% was one of them. I could have accepted a position that made more money with a more normal healthcare package, but I did not.

What I am against, is paying for it by taking people who have great healthcare, reducing the quality of it, and charging them more for it.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2012)

1.9 billion is so little.  And that is after paying for EVERYTHING according to you. Might as well shutdown business with that low of a number PER year.

It seems you think a company like Microsoft (one of the biggest around) shouldn't participate in the general public's welfare. While through loop holes they may not be helping "us" or you in the process, it is still them being huge dicks because Insurance decided to pass the burden from policies your child benefits from when he grows up (you know insurance through college and pre-existing condition not being an issue) and the government was the bad guy.

Insurance is like regulated gambling. They collect everyone's money and hope as few people as possible get sick and then pay out when someone does get sick. With the newer policies (excluding the tax part all together) insurance are now making bigger gambles. Now they are passing their "burden" on the companies and they in turn pass it on to you. Does that suck? Yes. However, a company that can in fact absorb the cost should. 1.9 billion is a lot of cash and serves plenty as its own motivation. Hell, Bill donated 10 billion on his own (and the pile in reserves gets bigger every year still).


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I didn't say *you* can afford it. That's my whole point, which I can't seem to make you understand. Neither of US can afford it, and neither can most _individuals_, but a company with a worth like Microsoft absolutely can. To tax the individual more, but toss a break to the business, serves _noone_.



Again, it just doesn't work that way man. I mentioned Microsoft paid out $3.2 Billion in stock dividends. If they paid out only half of that because they took the hit of the increased healthcare, less people buy the stock, it goes down, it reduces the value of the company.

You are reducing the complexity of a company like Microsoft down to a lemonade stand and pretending you understand it.

Yes, Microsoft could technically afford it if you are drawing two numbers on a piece of paper and subtracting them. Does that mean that it makes good business sense to afford it? Does that mean that shareholders would accept the decision to reduce the profit on their investment by half?

That's all I am saying. Just like you can't tell me what I can and can't afford, you can't tell a $258 Billion dollar corporation what they can afford because you have no idea what's going on. You don't know if they are about to write off a multibillion dollar loss on a failed aquisition in the next quarter, you don't know if they have a multibillion dollar legal suit pending with the European Union, you don't know if they have already planned began building a few billion dollars in server farms around the world to support new services infrastructure.

We can stop now, I am not running off, I am just finished debating this topic with you. When you can tell me that you've groc'd the entire business model of Microsoft and all of it's subsidiaries in every country, you understand all of it's future plans, forecasts and expectations and you've explored the financial analysts projections of what the healthcare change will cost, I'll listen to your opinion.

Until then, neither of us know much, I just happen to know a bit more than you and I disagree.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 21, 2012)

Are you offered a rebate if you have private health insurance already? It seems like that, but i'm having trouble finding concrete sources.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> You say you make $40k? That means you were in the 25% tax bracket this year. So you would have paid about $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> I am not trying to brag about my income here, so excuse me, but I made about $145,000. That put me in the 28% tax bracket. So I would have paid $40,600 in taxes.
> 
> So yea, I get pissed off when someone like you, who I paid more in taxes last year than you made, bitches about "fairness."


 

I'm nitpicking here, of course, but that also means that after taxes you were left with more than three times more than he was.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm nitpicking here, of course, but that also means that after taxes you were left with more than three times more than he was.



And your point is? Are we saying in America now we should equalize everyone's income? Paying 400% of his taxes isn't enough I should keep paying until I only make $30k after taxes too? Pay $115k taxes on $145k income? 79% income tax? lol

If it's going to work that way, I'm moving out of the US.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> And your point is? Are we saying in America now we should equalize everyone's income? Paying 400% of his taxes isn't enough I should keep paying until I only make $30k after taxes too? Pay $115k taxes on $145k income? 79% income tax? lol


 
You're not paying 400% his tax (Literally you are), but relatively (not too sure of the word ) you're paying 103% his tax. 

You can't claim because you pay $40,000, he must pay $40,000.. He makes that much.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> And your point is? Are we saying in America now we should equalize everyone's income?



Such would be no less imbalanced than your assertion that we should all be paying the same percentage.

The point isn't about what's _fair_. The point is about what _works_.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> You say you make $40k? That means you were in the 25% tax bracket this year. So you would have paid about $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> I am not trying to brag about my income here, so excuse me, but I made about $145,000. That put me in the 28% tax bracket. So I would have paid $40,600 in taxes.
> 
> ...



I honestly think that is the price you should expect to pay when you make that kind of money. It is unfair of you to say well I paid $___ in taxes when you earn three times more than another person. 25% of 40k is a shitload of money for a person who is trying to survive and lead a prosperous life. Don't get me wrong, I dont like having to pay what I pay in taxes either, but I honestly can say that the extra 3% that I pay as opposed to somebody like synergy will not bankrupt me, or make my life any harder. 25% of a salary of 40k might actually make my life harder. We happen to be lucky and we worked hard to be where we are at, but isn't saying that somebody like synergy doesn't work as hard as you. 

I feel bad for what you are going through. I can only imagine that things aren't that easy in your situation. I think mainly what synergy is referring to is people who just make disgusting amounts of money, and bitch about how much they do (and in some cases don't) pay in taxes. Let's look at somebody like Mitt Romney, The dude made tons of money in the past few years. With all loopholes, hidden accounts, tax breaks, and claiming capital gains, he gets away with only paying 14%. Granted 14% of what he makes is a lot of money, but do you think that if he payed the 35% in taxes like he should pay that he would be hurting, or put him, or his business in any financial strain? I would be that it doesn't. Do you think he is going to move to another country, or take his business anywhere else because he isn't making enough money because of the loss of tax money? Hell No!! Think of all of the greedy bastards out there who don't contribute the percentage that you do that are filthy fucking rich, then look at all of the people who are struggling just to get by. I think that is what synergy is getting at. I don't think he is necessarily calling you alone out. I just think that if we make a little more, we can afford to put that extra three percent out annually to help some people get the healthcare they need, at a rate that won't fuck anybody making a low income any more than they should.

Feel free to hate on me.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2012)

Even with a progressive tax as you make more you may pay more in taxes, but even after the fact you still have more money, that is the point. It does not devalue people or motivation (as it is still an overall increase) to lose more if you make more as long as what you described isn't the case (which was ridiculous to begin with). Up to a point (and not referring to your current financial position) there is a diminishing return on the next dollar earned. If I made 10,000 today one more dollar isn't going to make a world of a difference. Is it fair that someone makes 20 million can get away with only paying 13%. That means he is left with 17.4 million. Even flat tax is not "fair" especially when corporations interface with the government more often and benefit extremely from infrastructure (like people being able to get to work).


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2012)

Let's put it another way:

In the 3 year period between 2009-2011 - according to Yahoo finance - Microsoft's annual operation costs averaged around 25mil.

I absolutely concede that I am no economist, and am not versed in most matters pertaining to.. Well.. Anything.. 

Regardless of my credentials, it seems to me that when one's net worth (again, approx. 230-240bil) allows them to operate (presuming an average expense of 25mil per year) with NO profit (let alone the healthy profit they do see) for approximately 9,600 YEARS, it would therefore take a lot more than a tax penalty to "cripple" them. 

Granted: I don't know how much of their net worth is actual cash-in-the-bank, but again, we're talking about a company who only dropped to "number 2" (In the entire history of business on this planet) very recently, and it's also important to note that such a company - and such 'Cadillac' benefits - are more the exception, than the rule. It seems to me that you represent an unfortunate minority.

I feel that your beef should be with your employer for pulling the rug out from under you. My mom lost her benefits in the middle of a battle with Multiple Sclerosis *and* Bechet's Disease - and died shortly thereafter - so please try to believe me when I say I feel a very deep empathy for your family situation. My respectful disagreement is in where you've directed the blame for your situation.

But, we don't have to agree. I just enjoy shooting the proverbial shit with people who aren't complete idiots. For the record, you're included in that description, which is why I've bothered to have such a lengthy conversation with you here in the first place.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

Fiction said:


> You're not paying 400% his tax (Literally you are), but relatively (not too sure of the word ) you're paying 103% his tax.
> 
> You can't claim because you pay $40,000, he must pay $40,000.. He makes that much.



You aren't very good at math are you  They withhold over 400% more of my income. I think you are thinking "proportionately," and by that I pay 11% more than him.

Where does that logic stop though? The minimum bracket is $8,700/yr. Maybe that should be the target? If we did it "fairly" or "proportionately" we'd just push the upper class into the middle class, the middle class into poverty and the ultra rich would still be fine.

When I go to a car dealer, I don't expect to get a Porsche when I can only pay for a Honda. The world does not operate on any concept resembling fair.

When the concept of government was created, tax was taken to pay for the infrastructure and for services that the government provides.

Somewhere along the road, the concept was twisted, and the government became a caretaker of the people. I sincerely believe that it is right and just for every person to pay in a fair share of taxes. I do not believe it is remotely right and just for a person to pay a number so obscene that it cannot reasonably be balanced.

A person who made say $10,000,000 per year, likely based on their talents and/or intelligence, business savvy, etc. (or Snookie, there are flukes, lol) would pay $3,500,000 in taxes a year.

You are wasting your time if you ever attempt to convince me that any person, ANY person, is NOT paying their fair share when they are giving $3,500,000 to the government when they use dramatically less of the government's resources as someone who contributes nothing.

The, yes I am going to say it, socialist logic that it is fair to take obscene amounts of money from someone or some company because they'll still have an obscene amount of money left is simply selfish.

A child cries when another child has a toy. An adult gets an education, earns a living and gets his or her own toy.

I legitimately understand there are people who will always need to be supported, but we have gotten ourselves to a place where everyone feels so entitled, that they are disrespectful to, and ignorant of, the concepts that built this country.

It is possible to provide for those who truly need help, still maintain a performance based culture, and keep a reasonable semblance of equality.

It's not possible to operate any structure, be it your own life, a business, an organization or even a government on a system that only makes those who succeed accountable.

A government should not give tax refunds to people who paid no income tax. A government should not provide healthcare for someone who isn't a legal citizen and does not pay income tax. A government should not provide unemployment and welfare checks to someone who spends them on drugs and doesn't try to get a job.

I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am just a very logical person. I actually do care about other people and want to help. I just believe in accountability and responsibility, and I believe in rewarding hard work.

If I end up in bankruptcy court to fight a half a million dollars worth of medical bills and a have a dead son because I couldn't afford to provide the same kind of care he has now, you can bet your ass I am going to be royally pissed.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> And your point is? Are we saying in America now we should equalize everyone's income? Paying 400% of his taxes isn't enough I should keep paying until I only make $30k after taxes too? Pay $115k taxes on $145k income? 79% income tax? lol
> 
> If it's going to work that way, I'm moving out of the US.


 
Yes, my point was that because you make more than him you should absolutely be taxed until you both make the same amount. What else would it have been? My point definitely wasn't that because you are left with far more than him even though your taxes are higher, it's hard to feel too sorry for the fact that you pay higher taxes.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

synrgy said:


> It seems to me that you represent an unfortunate minority.



That minority is estimated to be 19% of employed Americans. Around 150,000,000 Americans are employed. That means I'm in an unfortunate minority with 28.5 million other people.



Digest these facts:
- 50.7M Americans are uninsured
- 44.5% of the 150M employed Americans have employer provided insurance, that number has deceased every year since 2008
- 28.5 Million employer-insured Americans fall under the 'Cadillac' policy bracket

Logically, the government should be increasing the incentive for companies to provide healthcare for employees. By reducing the incentives to provide healthcare, you potentially end up increasing the number of uninsured by 200%.

Common sense do everything you can to incentivize businesses to provide it for their employees. Businesses are WAY better at making money than the government is, you can guarantee they aren't paying a dime more than they have to.

If every business is providing healthcare for it's employees, the number of uninsured is so small that government provided managed care for those who are unemployed or unable to care for themselves is feasible.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yes, my point was that because you make more than him you should absolutely be taxed until you both make the same amount. What else would it have been? My point definitely wasn't that because you are left with far more than him even though your taxes are higher, it's hard to feel too sorry for the fact that you pay higher taxes.



I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. I only expect you to not tell me I don't pay enough.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> A person who made say $10,000,000 per year, likely based on their talents and/or intelligence, business savvy, etc. (or Snookie, there are flukes, lol) would pay $3,500,000 in taxes a year.
> 
> You are wasting your time if you ever attempt to convince me that any person, ANY person, is NOT paying their fair share when they are giving $3,500,000 to the government when they use dramatically less of the government's resources as someone who contributes nothing.



I don't think that anybody is arguing the fact that somebody paying 3.5M isn't paying their fair share. Is anybody saying that here? Although most people who make that type of money, have very good tax agents who take every deductible they possibly can (including some unfair ones for people who make insane amounts of money) and they end up paying a substantially less percent to taxes as opposed to people like you and I who get screwed either way.


----------



## philoking (Aug 21, 2012)

poopyalligator said:


> I don't think that anybody is arguing the fact that somebody paying 3.5M isn't paying their fair share. Is anybody saying that here? Although most people who make that type of money, have very good tax agents who take every deductible they possibly can (including some unfair ones for people who make insane amounts of money) and they end up paying a substantially less percent to taxes as opposed to people like you and I who get screwed either way.



I am just extending the logic of fair, it was an intentionally dramatic example. I feel the same way when someone tells me that I should stop whining that my insurance is going to cost me $30,000 a year more next year.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> You aren't very good at math are you  They withhold over 400% more of my income. I think you are thinking "proportionately," and by that I pay 11% more than him.



Yes proportionally, and I did say that you pay 400% more, but overall proportionally you're paying an extra 3% no? How is it 11% as yes I'm not the greatest at Maths


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 21, 2012)

philoking said:


> And your point is? Are we saying in America now we should equalize everyone's income? Paying 400% of his taxes isn't enough I should keep paying until I only make $30k after taxes too? Pay $115k taxes on $145k income? 79% income tax? lol
> 
> If it's going to work that way, I'm moving out of the US.


 
Yelp , and so will every other business and business man and all people who are willing to work the extra mile for something better.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2012)

Companies aren't going anywhere. Some companies who outsourced are even coming back as it slowly becoming cheaper to do things at home like assemble cars as an example. Albeit they do that in the middle of poor areas so they basically still only pay minimum wage.

It is such a shame when countries grow out of poverty and these benevolent companies can't take advantage of the disadvantaged.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Companies aren't going anywhere.


 
It seems the Council on Foreign Ralations might disagree with that.
http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-ameri...g-the-united-states-and-how-to-get-them-back/

It says that U.S. based companies have cut 2.9 million jobs domestically over the past decade, while adding 2.4 million jobs abroad.
That's bigtime loss for America.

It's clear now that Obama is unwilling to take the steps required to begin turning this trend around.
He won't even meet with HIS OWN jobs council and hasn't for over 6 months now.
I guess he just doesn't want to hear what they are telling him.


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 22, 2012)

I don't pretend to know much about Obama care, but isn't the idea that more people will be covered?

I remember reading that one of the main causes of bankruptcy in America is medical bills. (That seems wrong, so please correct me if it is, but if even someone like philoking who sounds like he has a strong and stable income can be made financially insecure due to medical bills, then I guess it seems plausible.) I think the main problem is that the people who decide who gets what level of treatment is motivated by profit, rather than compassion. The profit motive is great for business, but not so great for maintaining the sanctity of life. That's why I don't think health insurance should be privet. The government isn't concerned with turning a profit, and therefore will be more willing to cover everybody, rather than just those who can pay for it. I guess it all comes down to if you think health care is a privilege or a right.

And now, obligatory (and tangentially related) David Mitchell rant:


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 22, 2012)

For an idea of what medical coverage costs here, take my sister's example. She's been getting progessively more and more sick throughout her life, starting with severe asthma and then just adding random allergies seemingly annually (the most annoying of which is citric acid. wtf?), and she was recently diagnosed with Goodpasture's Disease, and had to have chemo. A couple years back she sold a screenplay to Sony Pictures for $50k, and _every single penny_ of it went to medical debt (which didn't come close to clearing it all), and she _had_ company medical insurance.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> The government isn't concerned with turning a profit, and therefore will be more willing to cover everybody, rather than just those who can pay for it.



I think that's the entire problem with it. The United states is $15,914,973,399,363 in debt! We're talking about Microsoft's $258 Billion market cap like it's a lot of money. Our country's debt is 6,100% of Microsoft's market cap. 

We'd have to sell Microsoft AND Apple over 18 times EACH to pay off our debt!

Want to know the scary part? The national debt is increasing 3.8 Billion A F%&KING DAY! We're talking about Microsoft being selfish for 1.9 Billion in profit in a quarter, when your own government, who you are trusting with your life if they take over healthcare, pissed that away by the time you ate lunch today.

You're absolutely right. Our government isn't concerned with turning a profit. They are also not concerned with going bankrupt either.

Do you plan on living another 22 years? I paid $428 in Social Security tax last month. Analysts predict that Social Security will run out in 2035. I am 30 years from retirement.

If my income stays completely still for the next 22 years, I'll pay in another $112,992 in Social Security tax and it will run out before I retire. I'll never be able to collect a single penny of what I paid in to fund MY OWN retirement on the Government plan.

Think about that.

If you add in Federal tax and medicare, and assume taxes don't go up, I'll pay $598,224 in taxes in the next 22 years. If I don't put money away, I'll be completely screwed because the government is already spending the money they are "holding for me" for when I can retire.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2012)

List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering that list is made up of, you know, the _entire_ civilized world, I'd reckon the emphasis on 'paying down the debt' is overstated.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Randy said:


> List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Considering that list is made up of, you know, the _entire_ civilized world, I'd reckon the emphasis on 'paying down the debt' is overstated.



lol, so other countries are in debt too, so it doesn't matter that we won't get social security because we're spending 3.9 Billion dollars a day MORE than we're taking in taxes. 

Seriously guys, at least try to care.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2012)

I do care.

And all I'm trying to say is (not directed entirely at you), I keep hearing 'the debt, the debt, the debt' like the US is a delinquent about to be foreclosed on. The link isn't to illustrate that 'some' other countries are in debt, EVERY country is in debt; including countries that we are 'in debt' to. That's kind of the way it works. I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from fully educated in the field of economics but I reckon all the grandstanding over debt is, all things considered, a little much.

As has been said in other threads, we've 'always' been in debt. How that effects life for the public at large has been little. What _does_ effect people everyday is cutting back on social programs because we're being told to fear the 'Debt Boogeyman'. 

That's not to say we should just continue to spend in a way that ignores the deficit but if your bridge is under water, the two options are lower the water or raise the bridge. Considering federal funding _has_ been cut in a million different places, we've done a lot of one but with no compromise on 'revenue raisers', we've done _zero_ of the other.

A country where 'tightening out belt' to satisfy the Boogeyman means no socially redeeming programs is not a country worth 'tightening your belt' for.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Randy said:


> I do care.
> 
> And all I'm trying to say is (not directed entirely at you), I keep hearing 'the debt, the debt, the debt' like the US is a delinquent about to be foreclosed on. The link isn't to illustrate that 'some' other countries are in debt, EVERY country is in debt; including countries that we are 'in debt' to. That's kind of the way it works. I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from fully educated in the field of economics but I reckon all the grandstanding over debt is, all things considered, a little much.
> 
> ...



Tell that to the Belgium who had their credit ranking reduced, their companies stocks tumbled overnight.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Randy said:


> I do care.
> 
> And all I'm trying to say is (not directed entirely at you), I keep hearing 'the debt, the debt, the debt' like the US is a delinquent about to be foreclosed on. The link isn't to illustrate that 'some' other countries are in debt, EVERY country is in debt; including countries that we are 'in debt' to. That's kind of the way it works. I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from fully educated in the field of economics but I reckon all the grandstanding over debt is, all things considered, a little much.
> 
> ...



One other point, while I will concede that being in debt isn't necessarily bad, I would not agree that a financial budget that operates at a 3.9 Billion dollar a day loss is sustainable and eventually it will cause inflation to the point that money has no value.

It's no mystery why the US dollar as slipped in value so greatly. When the reality sinks in that the government can, and has been for ages, printing money that is not backed by gold reserves like the system jokingly implies, money loses value. The entire concept of money is falling apart, because it mostly exists as numbers in bank databases somewhere.

The debt does matter, the amount of money we spend does matter. It's not a boogeyman, it's a reality. This financial model is at the heart of inflation. The think that everyone should fear, is that the value of the dollar continues to erode at a rate faster than the growth of your income. That means your expenses rise faster than your ability to pay them. That means we all go broker and broker while the government continues to compound the problem.

National debt isn't about worrying about China repossessing West Virginia, they can have it.  National debt is about you having to pay more for less. You want to buy that Ibanez Jem guitar from your friend in Europe? He paid 2,015 Euros for it, you've got to pay him $2,513 for it.

Do you know why that is? Because Foreign holders of our more than $15 Trillion debt are concerned that the US will continue to fabricate money that is not backed by actual assets which makes the relative value of what we owe them less.

So you don't care about that, what we owe other countries because everyone owes, right? But that financial model is what is used to calculate exchange rates. That means that every day, the value of the dollars in our bank accounts decreases in value and the goods and services that you and I purchase from other countries get more expensive.

It's really worth a little of your time to read up and understand the inner workings of the world's economic system before you decide for yourself that it doesn't matter. The problem is there are more of you than there are of me, and they see "OOOH! FREE SHIT! I'LL VOTE FOR THAT GUY!" and forget about their future and their children.

I really am not a republican, I am not a conservative, but I am a overwhelmingly logical person with passion about researching and understanding things. I haven't explained anything in this thread that you couldn't find out for yourself with a search engine on your lunch break.

You just have to be willing to care and learn things for yourself.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> I haven't explained anything in this thread that you couldn't find out for yourself with a search engine on your lunch break.



That's kinda funny, to me.

See, just a single page ago, when I presented some of Microsoft's numbers, you said - and I quote:



philoking said:


> It's also funny that the numer is so ridiculous because _you had to have made it up_.



This was your well researched position, despite the fact that I provided a direct link to the reputable investment site from which I found the numbers, which - by the way - you could have found out for yourself with a search engine on your lunch break. 

I have to say, a lot of the comments in your posts so far are reading like this: "If you don't agree with my assessment, you're A) a socialist, B) don't care, C) unintelligent, or D) all of the above." 

I don't know if that's your intent, or not, but I can tell you I'm really not digging it. Further, I find it strange that in your holier-than-thou style of writing in this topic, that you're doing so much dodging of the sources being presented to you, whilst completely avoiding presenting any sources of your own. You know better than our sources, but we're supposed to take your word for it, apparently?


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> Tell that to the Belgium who had their credit ranking reduced, their companies stocks tumbled overnight.





philoking said:


> One other point, while I will concede that being in debt isn't necessarily bad, I would not agree that a financial budget that operates at a 3.9 Billion dollar a day loss is sustainable and eventually it will cause inflation to the point that money has no value.
> 
> It's no mystery why the US dollar as slipped in value so greatly. When the reality sinks in that the government can, and has been for ages, printing money that is not backed by gold reserves like the system jokingly implies, money loses value. The entire concept of money is falling apart, because it mostly exists as numbers in bank databases somewhere.
> 
> ...




That's fine and I appreciate the fact you sound more educated on the subject than I am. 

As I said, even in my uneducated opinion, I still don't think it's fair to completely 'ignore' the debt either. I'm all for solutions. So how about more talk about 'revenue raisers'; some of which include, yes, tax increases.

You're from the US, you're pretty well tuned in, you mentioned that you're "Not a republican" and "not a conservative" so you're probably familiar with the fact the argument you're making has been co-opted to push the 'anti-current administration' political machine.

_EDIT: The following is meant rhetorically, with regard to "we" "you" etc._

The dialogue I've been hearing is 'you need to reduce the debt, which means cuts, which means Obamacare only digs us deeper!' So then we try to have a frank discussion about raising taxes on people over a certain income as _part_ of the package, all of the sudden the civility and 'ZOMG! Emergency' of addressing the debt isn't so important anymore, and we get diverted into a debate over 'class warfare'. We try proposing cuts to defense spending and, again, reducing the deficit isn't so important anymore and we're diverted to a discussion about how we're weakening America. So then we try to have a discussion about how Obamacare _reduces_ the deficit (Updated CBO Estimate Of Affordable Care Act Still Says It Will Help Many Millions And Reduce The Deficit. But Fewer Will Get Coverage If States Opt Out Of Medicaid Expansion. | The New Republic) and, diverted once again, we visit the red herring of 'defunding Medicare', etc. etc. etc. 


This all happens, around and around in circles until eventually it becomes clear what's supposed to be an open discussion about all options to address this 'debt emergency' has exposed itself as a subject that's only important so long as it distinctly villainizes one side.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

I was referring to this:



synrgy said:


> I mean, seriously, Microsoft _netted_ almost 17 million this year alone. .



Microsoft Netted over 6 Billion last quarter..... 17 million this year is the ridiculous number I was referring to.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> I was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft Netted over 6 Billion last quarter..... 17 million this year is the ridiculous number I was referring to.



Yet the link supports my claim; not yours. I'm really starting to wonder if you are confusing gross with net?


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Randy said:


> That's fine and I appreciate the fact you sound more educated on the subject than I am.
> 
> As I said, even in my uneducated opinion, I still don't think it's fair to completely 'ignore' the debt either. I'm all for solutions. So how about more talk about 'revenue raisers'; some of which include, yes, tax increases.
> 
> ...



Again man.... people with more income DO pay more taxes. It's just simply not debatable. I don't agree with penalizing success. The argument "You make more, so you should pay more." only stands up if you don't pay more.

Maybe taller basketball players should get less points, girls with big tits should have to get breast reductions and Steve Vai should have one of his fingers removed.

Fair is a fallacy. Some people are always going to be better or more successful at things. Seeing their success should be a carrot to entice people to seek that success on their own.

I guess that's my closing statement to the raise taxes on the rich argument. They already pay more taxes. I don't think a billionaire should have to give a larger piece of his pie than I do. I sincerely hope (and usually it's true) that they do give to give help in ways that they are passionate about, but I don't think the the proportion of their contribution should be increased as their income increases because the amount that they contribute already increases uniformly.

Raising money isn't hard. The war on drugs could finance healthcare alone. Legalize pot and tax it since it's jokingly illegal anyway. Prostitution is illegal everywhere but Nevada? Legalize it, make it safe and tax the living shit out of it (He could buyout Craigslist and call it Obama's Hooker List, that's where everyone goes to find hookers anyway). Gambling is a state by state decision and we're outlawing it online, when anyone who remotely want to can walk around the laws? Legalize it, tax the crap out if it, and have the balls to say "I'm sorry you lost your house because you bet all of your money on a 7-2 off suit."

We walk away from so much money for historical or flimsy moral reasons. Tax an AK-47 200% and don't make it easier to buy bullets than a beer. Require birth control and drug tests to qualify for welfare. Stop paying for large corporations to do research and development on clean energy when they would be willing to pay for it themselves because it is so profitable. Stop spending billions of dollars developing airplanes for war because the ones that are already unstoppable in war are maintainable.

I could do this for hours man....

The bottom line is, you can't legislate failure. I don't believe you should let people who can't help themselves suffer, but I don't believe that you should subsidize stupidity. As long as I am paying taxes, I'll reserve the right to be pissed that I have to pee to keep my job, but a Heroine addict can collect what I pay in to buy drugs.

Darwinism.......


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Yet the link supports my claim; not yours. I'm really starting to wonder if you are confusing gross with net?



MSFT Annual Report 2011

23.15 Billion Net Income in 2011 in case you don't want to click through.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Yet the link supports my claim; not yours. I'm really starting to wonder if you are confusing gross with net?



At the bottom of the report on your link it says "Numbers in Thousands" i.e. Multiply by 1,000.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> Again man.... people with more income DO pay more taxes. It's just simply not debatable. I don't agree with penalizing success. The argument "You make more, so you should pay more." only stands up if you don't pay more.
> 
> Maybe taller basketball players should get less points, girls with big tits should have to get breast reductions and Steve Vai should have one of his fingers removed.
> 
> ...





> *So then we try to have a frank discussion about raising taxes on people over a certain income as part of the package, all of the sudden the civility and 'ZOMG! Emergency' of addressing the debt isn't so important anymore, and we get diverted into a debate over 'class warfare'.*



And thank you kindly for proving my point, exactly. 

I would engage you on the idea of our historically low tax rates on the rich, the fact most of the people in the top income bracket get it via capital gains (so 15% tax rate), etc. etc. but, where I thought you might be a free thinking, rational person with just different ideas and concerns, in one rant you've exposed yourself as Republican talking points being RSS'd into this thread.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> I was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft Netted over 6 Billion last quarter..... 17 million this year is the ridiculous number I was referring to.





Wow. I didn't catch that. Good eye. Makes much more sense, and I do feel more than a bit silly.

Of course, the increased numbers further _support_ the point I was making (again, the larger the number, the less impact the tax makes), so I can't imagine why you would choose to draw light to that.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Wow. I didn't catch that. Good eye. Makes much more sense, and I do feel more than a bit silly.
> 
> Of course, the increased numbers further _support_ the point I was making (again, the larger the number, the less impact the tax makes), so I can't imagine why you would choose to draw light to that.



Because I don't think it supports your argument at all. The larger the value, the larger the obligation of the company and the more income required to ensure it's stability, the performance of it's stock and ultimately the job security of it's employees.

Value slides, business gets scrutinized, things on the bubble get cut and thousands of people lose their jobs.

Microsoft contributes $1.2 billion in taxes, but they also employ 90,000 people. If I could be considered "average" then that means that their employees contribute $3.6 billion in taxes yearly. Why would you want to damage the health of your most profitable companies at the expense of that kind of tax income. When is enough enough?

It's a simple formula. Successful businesses grow. The more they make, they more you get. You should encourage as much success and prosperity as possible. You should want companies like Microsoft to get so big, they open an office in every town in America. More jobs, more taxes, more money.

Spend your time making sure they ACTUALLY pay the taxes they are supposed to pay instead of adding and raising taxes while you pretend your tax code isn't swiss cheese. Everyone could have free premium healthcare of there weren't tax loopholes that allow them to pay 15% instead of 30%.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Randy said:


> And thank you kindly for proving my point, exactly.
> 
> I would engage you on the idea of our historically low tax rates on the rich, the fact most of the people in the top income bracket get it via capital gains (so 15% tax rate), etc. etc. but, where I thought you might be a free thinking, rational person with just different ideas and concerns, in one rant you've exposed yourself as Republican talking points being RSS'd into this thread.



[Definition]A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a cost amount that was lower than the amount realized on the sale. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.[/Definition]

Capital gains tax is an additional tax on the sale of assets that were probably purchased with income that you already paid tax on.

I agree that we should all pay our complete percentage of the tax that we owe. I don't think there should be refunds. I don't think there should be deductions. I think if it says 28%, I should pay 28% of my income, period. I don't want deductions and I don't want them to hold more then I owe them.

That's the crux really. Stop trying to take more and concentrate on taking what you're supposed to be taking to begin with. If someone is in a 28% tax bracket and they are paying 15%, that's completely wrong and should be dealt with. That goes back to retarded tax code. My favorite tax code loophole is that you can pay zero taxes and still get the earned income credit as a refund.

What moron thinks that it makes sense to refund someone money they didn't pay?


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> [Definition]
> 
> That's the crux really. Stop trying to take more and concentrate on taking what you're supposed to be taking to begin with. If someone is in a 28% tax bracket and they are paying 15%, that's completely wrong and should be dealt with. That goes back to retarded tax code. My favorite tax code loophole is that you can pay zero taxes and still get the earned income credit as a refund.
> 
> What moron thinks that it makes sense to refund someone money they didn't pay?



Start a church, don't pay for shit, collect tithes, and enjoy the fruits of other peoples labors. Fuck tax exempt status for religious groups.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

poopyalligator said:


> Start a church, don't pay for shit, collect tithes, and enjoy the fruits of other peoples labors. Fuck tax exempt status for religious groups.



Totally agree with that one bro. Churches are businesses too.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> How backwards is your thinking that you think that overtaxing insurance policies that are being paid by businesses on the behalf of their employees has anything to do with making healthcare accessible and affordable for other people!?!? So the government wants to give healthcare to people who can't afford it, I get that part.
> 
> So they decide to pay for it by taxing the crap out of companies who are paying for healthcare for their employees. The companies decide they can't afford it and lower their insurance coverage to get under the cap.
> 
> ...



Either you didn't actually read what I said, or you're reducing my argument into something it's not because you can't argue against what I said. I'll address both scenarios.

I'd like you to look at this graph. It's very straight forward and seems to be playing into exactly what this administration is onto with it's strategy to curb health costs by putting a sort of fiscal gun to a corporations head giving them a choice; either become more efficient or suffer a huge tax.







If you apply this to healthcare costs instead of pure gross profit, the companies that spend the most on healthcare for their employees will _petition the insurance companies to bring their costs down in order to avoid this tax._ That's the whole point. It's not about taxing the living fuck out of the job creators, it's about creating an incentive for healthcare costs to go down WITHOUT simply adding more healthcare subsidies. _That's what government does best_, and I'm glad to finally see it being done someplace other than Bill Clinton's latest book. 

For once it's the private insurance that's clogged with expensive bureaucracy and it's government trying to quell it.That's a step in the right direction for both parties.

As for the whole Social Security thing, the reason it's about to start running out in 2020(?) is because we need to increase the cap for how much you can pay in through your lifetime to adjust for inflation or something (right now it's about 100k). That is absolutely essential in order to handle the coming wave of baby boomers like my parents and not suffer a huge crisis of homeless elderly. No one wants that... 

So if you, with your well deserved 145k job aren't willing to pay a little more so that doesn't happen, fine. At least donate as much to some home for elderly baby boomers. Charity is MUCH more efficient than direct government intervention, right conservatives?

Oh wait. That's the mentality that led to the worst three years of the depression. Thanks Hoover.

Okay now I'm just babbling. That's my argument, take it or leave it.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It seems the Council on Foreign Ralations might disagree with that.
> http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-ameri...g-the-united-states-and-how-to-get-them-back/
> 
> It says that U.S. based companies have cut 2.9 million jobs domestically over the past decade, while adding 2.4 million jobs abroad.
> ...



I really like that you've been hanging back on this whole conversation doing nothing but liking philokings points until you FINALLY found something you could argue with yourself. 

Sorry that probably sounded mean. But honestly, despite your clear obsession to blame Obama for whatever issue we're discussing in these threads, it's really not up to Obama in the grand scheme of things.

A simple way to combat this (while not resulting to the mix of radical capitalism and central government China has) is to provide tax incentives to companies that stay here or come back. It's up to Congress to make that happen, not Obama. You know what the worst part about that job cutting fact is? They're still turning record profits.

I've noticed over the past four years the degree in which people tend to think the president is actually responsible/to blame for more than he is (oil prices, the economy he partially inherited, etc).

If anything, the only thing Obama is solely responsible for is being black enough to scare the Republicans in Congress to such radically partisan tactics as to end Democracy as we know it.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Either you didn't actually read what I said, or you're reducing my argument into something it's not because you can't argue against what I said. I'll address both scenarios.
> 
> I'd like you to look at this graph. It's very straight forward and seems to be playing into exactly what this administration is onto with it's strategy to curb health costs by putting a sort of fiscal gun to a corporations head giving them a choice; either become more efficient or suffer a huge tax.
> 
> ...



That's a very pretty picture that fails the reality test. If it financially made sense to do that, I wouldn't be losing my insurance.

Do you think Microsoft's accountants couldn't figure this out and they made a rash, unrehearsed decision because they couldn't find this info graph?

I'm telling the story of one guy in one company. Towers Watson published a report saying that the excise tax will affect more than 60% of large employers' active health plans by 2018.

The law doesn't account for reality. Analyst expect average insurance policies to exceed the Cadillac plan threshold in 6 years.

You may think greedy corporations should suck it up because they have so much money, but we all know they will not.

They will do one of two things: Reduce the quality of their insurance to get under the limit, or pass the tax through to their employees in the way of higher insurance premiums.

The logic is just clearly flawed. If the Affordable Healthcare bill collects Cadillac tax money, it will be far less than they have accounted for, and it will come from the pockets of American tax payers, not the businesses they work for.

When I want to stop a bully from beating up a kid in the school yard, I don't kick the kid. As I said, if the government wants more money from corporations, tax them clearly and collect the taxes they owe. Don't pass bullshit provisions like this that only go to take benefits away from tax payers like me to fund a healthcare policy that is estimated to increase the federal deficit by $530 billion by 2021.

That's right, even by it's own accounting it can't pay for itself. I am surprised Obama isn't just going to charge it to his American Express and pay the bill with his MasterCard....


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

By the way, just to give you a little context on me, I spent the last four years designing Business Intelligence software. I live and breath analytics, data, data visualization, etc.

It's not like I make coffee for a living.

Regardless of the earlier diatribe, I am not a Republican. I think Mitt Romney is an idiot. I have never voted party line on anything in my life. I am an every day Spock. I consume mountains of information, I process it, and I come to the most logical conclusion. I am not prone to being biased.

The comments I have made in this thread are based purely on my own analysis of the many variables, not some blind party affiliation. I am not an economist, I am not a genius, I am just a regular dude who cares enough to research things that impact my life and understand them as best as I can.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 22, 2012)

Weird you complain so much...let me tell you something.


When my dad was younger my family didnt have much money and everyone was full of health problems. Luckily Canada has an awesome healthcare system and progressive tax structure. Past year he paid over 55% in taxes and he didnt mind at all because things like free healthcare, and free education gave him the opportunity to make something of himself. Its called not being a greedy asshole and respecting the system and your country for giving you what you have.

Also the arguement that people wont work as hard if there is more tax burden on the rich is complete bullshit.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Weird you complain so much...let me tell you something.
> 
> 
> When my dad was younger my family didnt have much money and everyone was full of health problems. Luckily Canada has an awesome healthcare system and progressive tax structure. Past year he paid over 55% in taxes and he didnt mind at all because things like free healthcare, and free education gave him the opportunity to make something of himself. Its called not being a greedy asshole and respecting the system and your country for giving you what you have.
> ...



I guess your dad was paying taxes twice?

Federal tax rates for 2012

15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
29% of taxable income over $132,406.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 22, 2012)

Thats not the total in taxes, just income


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Thats not the total in taxes, just income



But you said he paid 55% in taxes and the maximum you would pay is 29% and that's on a stepped scale that starts at 15% for everyone.

It's a smart code by the way, I'd do that with a smile on my face.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> Because I don't think it supports your argument at all. The larger the value, the larger the obligation of the company and the more income required to ensure it's stability, the performance of it's stock and ultimately the job security of it's employees.
> 
> Value slides, business gets scrutinized, things on the bubble get cut and thousands of people lose their jobs.
> 
> Microsoft contributes $1.2 billion in taxes, but they also employ 90,000 people. If I could be considered "average" then that means that their employees contribute $3.6 billion in taxes yearly. Why would you want to damage the health of your most profitable companies at the expense of that kind of tax income. When is enough enough?



This I actually tend to agree with. Corporations, especially large ones, have definite expenses that change with time, and that's not in their control at all. However, this doesn't apply to individuals, whom, especially at high income brackets, tend to hoard (for lack of a better term) their wealth because they will never need to spend a vast majority of it. Therefore, I contend that Corporate taxes should stay low, and personal tax, as the numbers rise, should go up fairly progressively.



philoking said:


> It's a simple formula. Successful businesses grow. The more they make, they more you get. You should encourage as much success and prosperity as possible. You should want companies like Microsoft to get so big, they open an office in every town in America. More jobs, more taxes, more money.
> 
> Spend your time making sure they ACTUALLY pay the taxes they are supposed to pay instead of adding and raising taxes while you pretend your tax code isn't swiss cheese. Everyone could have free premium healthcare of there weren't tax loopholes that allow them to pay 15% instead of 30%.



Government *is* one of the driving forces of "encouragement" for business to expand and innovate. Furthermore, in case you've forgotten, Government is responsible for the programs that allow middle class people to even begin to afford attending college to get to that income bracket in the first place. _This isn't about punishing success, it's about recognizing what helped that success come into being, and the responsibility the successful owe to the rest of us so that we can get up there, too._

Also, it's literally impossible for everyone to attain or even strive for the income of the 1%, 5%, or even 20% wealthiest Americans. _That's why it's called the 1%. _


----------



## synrgy (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> But you said he paid 55% in taxes and the maximum you would pay is 29% and that's on a stepped scale that starts at 15% for everyone.
> 
> It's a smart code by the way, I'd do that with a smile on my face.



Just making sure we're on the same page: you do realize he's under Canadian tax codes, right?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 22, 2012)

Yeah im not american. Why are you accusing me of lying?


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Just making sure we're on the same page: you do realize he's under Canadian tax codes, right?



Yes 

I got the rates from their own income tax site

What are the income tax rates in Canada?

JB


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 22, 2012)

Again, thats just income tax, there are other implications the higher you go.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah im not american. Why are you accusing me of lying?



I'm not calling you a liar, I am just asking how you arrived at that number. With Canada's tax structure, someone who made a million dollars would only effectively pay a 27.9% tax.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2012)

It looks like there is an additional provincial tax you missed based on the link you posted. And even in our tax system there are other things being taxed not included in income why wouldn't this be the case in other countries.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Again, thats just income tax, there are other implications the higher you go.



But I've only been arguing federal income tax. We've not remotely discussed the taxes I pay on stock, bonuses, state, property, sales, etc.

You can't compare all of the additive of one to the singular of the other.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> That's a very pretty picture that fails the reality test. If it financially made sense to do that, I wouldn't be losing my insurance.
> 
> Do you think Microsoft's accountants couldn't figure this out and they made a rash, unrehearsed decision because they couldn't find this info graph?
> 
> ...



The deficit REDUCTION of this bill has already been cited by Randy. If corporations manipulate it's intentions and make things worse, that's their decision. But I honestly don't think they're going to do that. They're going to fall in line because it would take a lot more effort to resist.

That bullying argument is also extremely simple for one that is supposed to be a metaphor for a discussion about macroeconomics.

As for the Obama MasterCard allusion, Obama finished paying off his student loans three years before taking office. He is not the wealthy elitist that everyone seems to be picturing. That would be Mitt Romney.


----------



## Labrie (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> You say you make $40k? That means you were in the 25% tax bracket this year. So you would have paid about $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> I am not trying to brag about my income here, so excuse me, but I made about $145,000. That put me in the 28% tax bracket. So I would have paid $40,600 in taxes.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry...but WHAT?! Are you seriously complaining about fairness and in the same breath stating that you bring in a six figure income after taxes? Please tell me I'm reading that wrong...


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 22, 2012)

Labrie said:


> I'm sorry...but WHAT?! Are you seriously complaining about fairness and in the same breath stating that you bring in a six figure income after taxes? Please tell me I'm reading that wrong...



Don't forget about is $400k house that costs $150k in other areas... 


Lets see... someone makes $40k... pays $10k in federal income tax. That leave them with less than $3k a month to survive on. Someone who makes $140+k pays $40k and still has $100k left to live... Over $8k a month... how the hell can you complain? 

This is the kind of selfish thinking is why so many problems exists. Sense of entitlement.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> Don't forget about is $400k house that costs $150k in other areas...
> 
> 
> Lets see... someone makes $40k... pays $10k in federal income tax. That leave them with less than $3k a month to survive on. Someone who makes $140+k pays $40k and still has $100k left to live... Over $8k a month... how the hell can you complain?
> ...



I am not complaining about my tax burden. I am saying stop saying that it's not fair and that I should pay even more. BIG difference. I am more than happy to pay my fair share. I am saying he makes $40k and pays $10k in taxes, I make $145k and pay $40k in taxes. I am not complaining about that $40k.

I am saying don't tell me that it's fine to make my insurance go up $30k per year because I make more.

I not only pay more actual dollars, but a larger percentage of my income also. Saying that it's fair to increase my taxes, and not his is the very definition of entitlement.

A person who says they deserve something they did not earn is entitlement. Saying that you deserve to keep a fair portion of what you earn is not entitlement.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I really like that you've been hanging back on this whole conversation doing nothing but liking philokings points until you FINALLY found something you could argue with yourself.
> 
> If anything, the only thing Obama is solely responsible for is being black enough to scare the Republicans in Congress to such radically partisan tactics as to end Democracy as we know it.


 
So you're saying that I shouldn't use the like button unless I'm participating much in the thread?  Must be new rules.  I was unaware. 

I'll just continue to keep my post short, sweet, and limited. I have a tendency to get too emotionally worked up with this shit anyways, and all my Fox news watching and conservative talk radio listening only helps me understand how futile it can be speaking logic to the political left.

Anyways, philo has most of the hard facts covered, and I'm really just enjoying the learning.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

I think we've beat this horse enough guys. I am a selfish bastard who's hoarding money like Scrooge McDuck. I deserve to lose my insurance benefits and I should give away anything I make that's more than you guys.

*rolls eyes*

The reality is that I am considered "middle class." I'm not rich. It's ok to do well for yourself. Your time would be better spent attacking people who are not paying their fair share of taxes than treating someone who does like a selfish crook.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> all my Fox news watching and conservative talk radio listening only helps me understand how futile it can be speaking logic to the political left.



All of your fox news watching, and conservative talk radio listening only helps you understand how to talk louder than somebody else, and act like you won an argument because you are louder and had the last word before the other person gives up. You seem to be really conservative, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can't just go say that you are right because your opinion is different than somebody who is on a different side than you. Way to keep bi-partisanship alive and well dude.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

poopyalligator said:


> All of your fox news watching, and conservative talk radio listening only helps you understand how to talk louder than somebody else, and act like you won an argument because you are louder and had the last word before the other person gives up. You seem to be really conservative, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can't just go say that you are right because your opinion is different than somebody who is on a different side than you. Way to keep bi-partisanship alive and well dude.


 
Sounds like you are the one doing the saying, not me.

That's just absurd to even suggest that nothing can be learned by watching and listening to dozens of financial and political experts from all sides of the debate. 

Now I'm seeing why you never seem understand the actual problems this country faces, no matter who is in office.

Also, why are you trying to turn this in to a referendum on my TV and radio habits . 
You are taking a page right out of Obama's distraction tactics book.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> I think we've beat this horse enough guys. I am a selfish bastard who's hoarding money like Scrooge McDuck. I deserve to lose my insurance benefits and I should give away anything I make that's more than you guys.
> 
> *rolls eyes*
> 
> The reality is that I am considered "middle class." I'm not rich. It's ok to do well for yourself. Your time would be better spent attacking people who are not paying their fair share of taxes than treating someone who does like a selfish crook.



That isn't remotely what anyone has said. They are saying overall you have less to complain about and that corporations should be held accountable for their portion. They may try and screw the system (and in the process you) making the whole system crumble, but that is Microsoft's problem and sadly everyone else's in the process. I do not think employee's or civilians should have to bow down to the retaliatory nature of corporations and the only way to stop it is out last them. Eventually they will come to terms with everything, at the moment it is shell shock. 

In the beginning the only thing anyone was telling you was to blame Microsoft not the government and then slowly but surely you began writing angrier (or at least that was my interpretation) and started getting quite condescending. That very well may not have been your intent, but you went from stating your circumstance to hitting all the right wing talking points. When you get worked up others get worked up too (hence everyone's reaction towards you, and this post doesn't help anything).

Also, no one, not once, said your income should be diluted to the same as everyone else's nor mentioned your personal taxes (at least in the way your phrasing it). I seriously doubt this new insurance plan of your which probably won't start at a minimum of 2 years from now (feel free to correct this) is going to cost you 30K a year. Hell Cobra only costs 1K a month and it covers A LOT.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Sounds like you are the one doing the saying, not me.
> 
> That's just absurd to even suggest that nothing can be learned by watching and listening to dozens of financial and political experts from all sides of the debate.
> 
> ...



If you bother with all the networks sure. Otherwise no.

People would take you more seriously without the obvious slant in your posts.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

flint757 said:


> That isn't remotely what anyone has said. They are saying overall you have less to complain about and that corporations should be held accountable for their portion. They may try and screw the system (and in the process you) making the whole system crumble, but that is Microsoft's problem and sadly everyone else's in the process. I do not think employee's or civilians should have to bow down to the retaliatory nature of corporations and the only way to stop it is out last them. Eventually they will come to terms with everything, at the moment it is shell shock.
> 
> In the beginning the only thing anyone was telling you was to blame Microsoft not the government and then slowly but surely you began writing angrier (or at least that was my interpretation) and started getting quite condescending. That very well may not have been your intent, but you went from stating your circumstance to hitting all the right wing talking points. When you get worked up others get worked up too (hence everyone's reaction towards you, and this post doesn't help anything).
> 
> Also, no one, not once, said your income should be diluted to the same as everyone else's nor mentioned your personal taxes (at least in the way your phrasing it). I seriously doubt this new insurance plan of your which probably won't start at a minimum of 2 years from now (feel free to correct this) is going to cost you 30K a year. Hell Cobra only costs 1K a month and it covers A LOT.



It starts at the end of 2012, a few monts away. Before the new policy I had no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no caps. Now I will have co-pays, deductibles, and it pays 80% until it goes over a million dollars. I have a son with a terminal disease that's medical bills regularly exceed a few hundred thousand dollars a year. I wasn't referring to $30k/year in premiums. I was referring to $30k a year in that I didn't have to pay 20% of his medical expenses, now I do.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> So you're saying that I shouldn't use the like button unless I'm participating much in the thread?  Must be new rules.  I was unaware.
> 
> I'll just continue to keep my post short, sweet, and limited. I have a tendency to get too emotionally worked up with this shit anyways, and all my Fox news watching and conservative talk radio listening only helps me understand how futile it can be speaking logic to the political left.
> 
> Anyways, philo has most of the hard facts covered, and I'm really just enjoying the learning.



Let me stop you right there. You cannot claim to take Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio seriously and talk about learning in the same post.

Yes, it's THAT misleading.




TRENCHLORD said:


> Sounds like you are the one doing the saying, not me.
> 
> That's just absurd to even suggest that nothing can be learned by watching and listening to dozens of financial and political experts from all sides of the debate.
> 
> ...



Referring to the in-studio political operative trained zombies Fox news calls experts and saying learning in the same sentence. ALSO NOT ALLOWED IN THE WORLD OF LOGIC AND REASON.

And you topped it off with "Obama's tactic book". Perfection.

My distain for what Fox News calls fair and balanced journalism can not be expressed over a forum thread comment. As someone seriously considering Journalism as a career field, I am disgusted by the industry Fox has created because of their tactics. Not until Fox News began airing was our dialog so bogged with nonsense and partisanship. Not until Fox News began airing did we start turning on the TV not for the information we need to make an informed decision in the next election, but for the information WE WANT to hear to justify our own bigotry and ignorance. *Not until Fox news began airing did news become a profit industry.*

The part of your post I hate the most is where you say "I have a tendency to get too emotionally worked up". Do you know why you get worked up? *Because tactics like emotional appeal are the only real weapon Fox News has against the truth.* For a real journalist, the truth is the only side to any story.

That's me getting worked up.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Sounds like you are the one doing the saying, not me.
> 
> That's just absurd to even suggest that nothing can be learned by watching and listening to dozens of financial and political experts from all sides of the debate.
> 
> ...



I am not saying by any means that you can't learn anything from financial experts. It just seems like you only listen to one side, and take it in as fact without ever listening to anybody else.

I don't get why you say that I never seem to understand the actual problems this country faces. I rarely ever post in the politics section, so you would have no idea what my ideas, or opinions are on a lot of things. Kind of asinine on your part to automatically figure I don't know anything about them in the first place. 

Just in case it was a bit unclear, I was being somewhat facetious when I made the statement. If you only listen to one side, and never take other peoples opinions or ideas with a grain of salt then you are not being well informed. To me there are always three sides of a story, group 1s story, group 2s story, and the truth. 

I think it is funny that you think I am so devoted to Obama, and that I intentionally took one of his plays from his "distractions tactics book". Don't get me wrong, given the two choices, I will definitely vote for Obama again. Not really because I like him, and fully believe everything he says, but mostly because I don't agree with most of the ideas Mitt Romney has.


----------



## Labrie (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> I am not complaining about my tax burden. I am saying stop saying that it's not fair and that I should pay even more. BIG difference. I am more than happy to pay my fair share. I am saying he makes $40k and pays $10k in taxes, I make $145k and pay $40k in taxes. I am not complaining about that $40k.
> 
> I am saying don't tell me that it's fine to make my insurance go up $30k per year because I make more.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up, I did indeed think you meant something different. I'm not familiar with American tax brackets but honestly only 3% increase from 40k to 145k isn't that bad in my opinion.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> The part of your post I hate the most is where you say "I have a tendency to get too emotionally worked up". Do you know why you get worked up? *Because tactics like emotional appeal are the only real weapon Fox News has against the truth.*


 
Actually, i don't get worked up at all watching Fox or listening to a patriot like Rush. It's actually vary soothing to know there are men of sound logic still gracing the radio waves, and men of fairness and objectivity still lending class to the modern media.

It's only when scowbling with leftist that the fires of Thor emerge form within me . 
No really guys, I do respect everyone here on a personal basis, but these socialist ideas are condemned to failure anyways now that the Romney/Ryan ticket is off and charging hard.
It's just good entertainment for me at this point.
Flame away,
signing out for today.
I just got some more floyd saddle shims yesterday so I can finally get my last couple axes radiused to match fretboard correctly, even Fox is taking a backseat tonight .


----------



## MstrH (Aug 22, 2012)

We don't live in a dictatorship. Neither G.W. Bush nor Obama have helped or hurt the country as much as their supporters or detractors would care to imagine.

Flat (income, in this case) taxes are regressive and, therefore, burden lower earners more. This is using the assumption that the cost of bare _basic_ necessities of living are the same. Which, they are. People technically don't have to have big nice houses and cars. (i.e. poorer people have to spend a larger % of their incomes just to pay for basic living essentials. Warren Buffet, on the other hand, probably doesn't have to spend 50% of his income just to buy ramen noodles and a bus pass.)

Progressive taxes tax higher income earners more because they make more money and can still "get by" even though they pay a higher %. _Too progressive_ absolutely removes incentive (i.e. more $) to try and make more money. As in "Why expend 20% more time and effort to only make 1% more money?" That scenario is economically illogical.

However (merely to make a point!) if $30k earner Joe Sixpack was taxed at an effective total rate of 25% he would be left with $22.5 "spendin' money". 

If $100k earner John Kegger was taxed at an effective total rate of 50% they would be left with $50k "spendin' money".

Now, I certainly don't endorse such a radically progressive tax structure. But the point is that even though John Kegger paid (grossly) more % of his income and total $ amt in taxes, he's still better off than Joe Sixpack. Mr Kegger still has over twice the cash leftover (even though he originally made triple what Mr Sixpack did.)

The U.S. must remain competitive and create and nurture new and existing companies and help provide jobs for the populace. Taxing everyone to death is not the answer. 

Though our current tax structure is currently progressive, it is nowhere near as progressive as it once was. It has flattened over time. The top "marginal" rate used to be 90%! We shouldn't go back there, but could we stand to be a couple of % points more progressive? I think so.

For some, it might be the difference between a Maserati and an Audi. That sucks, but is still an ok deal.

For others, it might be the difference between a Kia and a '74 Pinto.....

Income equality has never, should never, and will never happen. That's good. People who are more productive (excepting ponzi schemers and the like) deserve more.

_Massive income inequality_ (Mexico, Africa, India...) is a cancer that will eventually affect everyone.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Labrie said:


> Thanks for clearing that up, I did indeed think you meant something different. I'm not familiar with American tax brackets but honestly only 3% increase from 40k to 145k isn't that bad in my opinion.



I completely agree bro, it's totally reasonable and I don't mind it. I was simply reacting to the response that I shouldn't be upset that I might lose $30k a year more because I make so much more that it's not unfair.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually, i don't get worked up at all watching Fox or listening to a patriot like Rush. It's actually vary soothing to know there are men of sound logic still gracing the radio waves, and men of fairness and objectivity still lending class to the modern media.
> 
> It's only when scowbling with leftist that the fires of Thor emerge form within me .
> No really guys, I do respect everyone here on a personal basis, but these socialist ideas are condemned to failure anyways now that the Romney/Ryan ticket is off and charging hard.
> ...



You don't know me on a personal basis.

Literally everything you say on here is insulting to someone. Calling people socialists, saying that our "pointless squabbles" are just entertainment for you, saying Fox News is a credible source of unbiased information as if the earth was flat.

These aren't opinions. It's hot air. Speaking in a way that resembles that of a troll account designed to aggravate a forum isn't something to be proud of.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

MstrH said:


> We don't live in a dictatorship. Neither G.W. Bush nor Obama have helped or hurt the country as much as their supporters or detractors would care to imagine.
> 
> Flat (income, in this case) taxes are regressive and, therefore, burden lower earners more. This is using the assumption that the cost of bare _basic_ necessities of living are the same. Which, they are. People technically don't have to have big nice houses and cars. (i.e. poorer people have to spend a larger % of their incomes just to pay for basic living essentials. Warren Buffet, on the other hand, probably doesn't have to spend 50% of his income just to buy ramen noodles and a bus pass.)
> 
> ...



Roughly the point I was trying to make about my house. I had to find a place nearly 30 miles away from my job to for the size house my family needed to be affordable.

It's very easy to say that I have much more 'spending money' but my mortgage is $2,400 per month, that means just my house payment is almost $30k a year. I don't live in a mansion. It's a normal sized house. Where I grew up, the average income is lower, but this house would cost $200,000 less than it does here. If I had tried to buy an equivalent house near my work it would have been $200,000 more than this one.

Much of the income here is related to cost of living. It's not like I make a lot more money and still have the same expenses as someone who makes $30k a year.

Perspective is a funny thing, it's very easy to tell someone how they live when you have no idea what their circumstances are.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> You don't know me on a personal basis.
> 
> Literally everything you say on here is insulting to someone. Calling people socialists, saying that our "pointless squabbles" are just entertainment for you, saying Fox News is a credible source of unbiased information as if the earth was flat.
> 
> These aren't opinions. It's hot air. Speaking in a way that resembles that of a troll account designed to aggravate a forum isn't something to be proud of.


 
Not trying to insult anyone, maybe the skin is a bit thin?
Why do you bother responding to so many of my post if they are so meaningless?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2012)

He means you are condescending and rarely make meaningful points before saying everyone is just a misinformed monkey or making room for others up Obama's ass or something to that effect. I don't think anyone actually gives a shit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is insulting. You don't have to care for something to be insulting.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

flint757 said:


> He means you are condescending and rarely make meaningful points before saying everyone is just a misinformed monkey or making room for others up Obama's ass or something to that effect. I don't think anyone actually gives a shit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is insulting. You don't have to care for something to be insulting.


 
But telling someone who pays 10 times what the average person pays that they don't pay their fair share, that's not insulting to them?

And you just created a term "misinformed monkey" out of thin air, then accused me of calling people that term which you just made up.
I'm insulted lol.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> But telling someone who pays 10 times what the average person pays that they don't pay their fair share, that's not insulting to them?
> 
> And you just created a term "misinformed monkey" out of thin air, then accused me of calling people that term which you just made up.
> I'm insulted lol.



No. It isn't. Know why? Because discussing whether to tax the individual more or whether to toss a break to the business is not an attack on their intelligence, it's an argument of economics.

What you're doing is trying to reduce other people's arguments into what yours is; Baseless.

I keep taking the time to respond to your comments because in a few days I'm going to see you calling people misinformed monkeys. That's just your style and I, along with quite a few other people, don't really appreciate it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> No. It isn't. Know why? Because discussing whether to tax the individual more or whether to toss a break to the business is not an attack on their intelligence, it's an argument of economics.
> 
> What you're doing is trying to reduce other people's arguments into what yours is; Baseless.
> 
> I keep taking the time to respond to your comments because in a few days I'm going to see you calling people misinformed monkeys. That's just your style


 
I've never even heard the term "misinformed monkeys" until now.
As much as I think it's a cool sounding term (has a certain ring to it 4sure), as yet I've only been accused of calling it, never called anyone that term. 
Not really getting your argument here. 

Seems like you are getting offended because I'm not falling in line with Liberal thinking. Am I wrong about that?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 22, 2012)

I think trench is always polite/not condescending..even though i disagree with him 110% of the time.


----------



## Necris (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I've never even heard the term "misinformed monkeys" until now.
> As much as I think it's a cool sounding term (has a certain ring to it 4sure), as yet I've only been accused of calling it, never called anyone that term.
> Not really getting your argument here.
> 
> Seems like you are getting offended because I'm not falling in line with Liberal thinking. Am I wrong about that?




I hope no-one would be mad that you won't "fall in line", I'd hope the issue would be your tendency to imply that those members who don't agree with you have no grasp on basic logic and thus it's pointless for you to argue with them. Like you did earlier in this thread.

When you choose to paint them as a leftist, a socialist, or an Obama supporter without much reason beyond the fact that they disagree with you, that's something someone can be legitimately offended about.


----------



## Labrie (Aug 22, 2012)

philoking said:


> I completely agree bro, it's totally reasonable and I don't mind it. I was simply reacting to the response that I shouldn't be upset that I might lose $30k a year more because I make so much more that it's not unfair.



I think this thread is getting a little off track and I don't really have anything else constructive to add to the debate so I'm going to go back to watching but on a personal note, as a father I can empathize with your situation. Regardless of our different views on politics, taxes or healthcare, I sincerely wish you and your family the best and hope that through all the bullshit you can still see the silver lining; your son is alive and you are still in a position to take care of him. Cherish the time you have left.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I've never even heard the term "misinformed monkeys" until now.
> As much as I think it's a cool sounding term (has a certain ring to it 4sure), as yet I've only been accused of calling it, never called anyone that term.
> Not really getting your argument here.
> 
> Seems like you are getting offended because I'm not falling in line with Liberal thinking. Am I wrong about that?



Dude. You're not falling in line with ANY thinking. You're reciting insults you hear on Fox News in response to otherwise thoughtful arguments. You're changing the subject in order to allude to political generalizations about whoever you're arguing with. No matter how much you wish it was, this isn't about a simple ideological viewpoint. You're ideological reduction of every argument that's different than yours is an insult in itself.

The things you say couldn't begin to get under my skin. That's too bad, because I'd honestly rather be genuinely out-argued. That way, I could learn a new perspective, allowing me to leave the conversation with a wider perspective than when I came in.

Not exactly the feeling I get when I read your comments.

I also agree this is getting off topic. Can't imagine why.


----------



## philoking (Aug 22, 2012)

Labrie said:


> I think this thread is getting a little off track and I don't really have anything else constructive to add to the debate so I'm going to go back to watching but on a personal note, as a father I can empathize with your situation. Regardless of our different views on politics, taxes or healthcare, I sincerely wish you and your family the best and hope that through all the bullshit you can still see the silver lining; your son is alive and you are still in a position to take care of him. Cherish the time you have left.



Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 23, 2012)

Necris said:


> I hope no-one would be mad that you won't "fall in line", I'd hope the issue would be your tendency to imply that those members who don't agree with you have no grasp on basic logic and thus it's pointless for you to argue with them. Like you did earlier in this thread.
> 
> When you choose to paint them as a leftist, a socialist, or an Obama supporter without much reason beyond the fact that they disagree with you, that's something someone can be legitimately offended about.


 
I wouldn't feel offended if I were painted as fically right wing, free market wide open capitolistic and Romny/Ryan supporting. It's true.

I would assume those who are supporting (in spirit at least, not always financially) Obama, who are on the left on most of the issues including socialized healthcare and expanding social programs and social engineering in the form of an ever more "progressive" tax system, to be as equally proud as I am of my political beliefs.
For me to claim that I am glad there are men of sound logic like Bill O'reilly on the tube still, that isn't no more suggestive than seeing post saying how much of a stupid douchbag Rush Limbaugh is, or how Rick Santorum is this or that.
If I let myself feel insulted on an intellectual level or personal level when a fellow member bashes Hannity calling him an"incompetent disgrace" , I would be perpetually insulted feeling.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I've never even heard the term "misinformed monkeys" until now.
> As much as I think it's a cool sounding term (has a certain ring to it 4sure), as yet I've only been accused of calling it, never called anyone that term.
> Not really getting your argument here.
> 
> Seems like you are getting offended because I'm not falling in line with Liberal thinking. Am I wrong about that?



Dude 

I was not implying you used those exact words in the least. My made up phrases were for dramatic effect (and thank you for liking them). That is the impression I get though (in spirit if you will) of what you think of everyone's view point that isn't yours.




TRENCHLORD said:


> I wouldn't feel offended if I were painted as fically right wing, free market wide open capitolistic and Romny/Ryan supporting. It's true.
> 
> I would assume those who are supporting (in spirit at least, not always financially) Obama, who are on the left on most of the issues including socialized healthcare and expanding social programs and social engineering in the form of an ever more "progressive" tax system, to be as equally proud as I am of my political beliefs.
> For me to claim that I am glad there are men of sound logic like Bill O'reilly on the tube still, that isn't no more suggestive than seeing post saying how much of a stupid douchbag Rush Limbaugh is, or how Rick Santorum is this or that.
> If I let myself feel insulted on an intellectual level or personal level when a fellow member bashes Hannity calling him an"incompetent disgrace" , I would be perpetually insulted feeling.



You would be mistaken. I know plenty of conservative republicans who find Rush to be a complete ass hat and I know plenty of people who think Obama is reaching too far while still remaining Democrats (there are plenty of examples as people who use critical thinking don't typically fall completely on one side or the other). You don't have to agree with everything one side says and honestly people shouldn't. It is not offensive for you to make fun of Obama (who gives a shit) it is offensive to act like everyone is an idiot with the exception of you and apparently FOX. People can easily disagree without poo slinging. I mean I can feel the sarcasm just from this post alone. To put into context it seems FOX and the more conservative public have tried (and in many ways succeeded) in turning socialism and liberals into derogatory terms. So when you throw them around and at people you disagree with you are in fact intending to be insulting (maybe not always, but you can't claim never).


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> it is offensive to act like everyone is an idiot with the exception of you and apparently FOX.


 
Act? 
See the thing is, I expouse what I believe to be true, and you are taking that ,with which you don't agree, and surmising that I question your intellect for not agreeing, which i certainly do not.

I'm really not seeing it as my problem that my faith/belief/endorsement of a certain viewpoint results in any fellow members feeling of being downgraded.

As i attempted to demonstrate previously, if that were the case, then I would feel insulted and intellectually reduced everytime someone puts down or disreguards the sources I deem credible.

The shoe goes on both feet gentlemen.


----------



## Necris (Aug 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> ...all my Fox news watching and conservative talk radio listening only helps me understand how futile it can be speaking logic to the political left.





TRENCHLORD said:


> That's just absurd to even suggest that nothing can be learned by watching and listening to dozens of financial and political experts from all sides of the debate.
> 
> Now I'm seeing why you never seem understand the actual problems this country faces, no matter who is in office.
> 
> ...



The first quote is what I referenced earlier, implying that members who are politically left wing have no grasp of logic. 
The second is you either willfully or accidentally misinterpreting a members post (a member who almost never pokes his head into PC&E) and then stating that it's obvious why they never understand the issues being discussed and then assuming their real issue was with your TV and radio habits.
You never questioned the sources the member got their information, you instead shot directly at the person who disagreed with you, and how you argue in support of your viewpoint absolutely is your problem.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Act?
> See the thing is, I expouse what I believe to be true, and you are taking that ,with which you don't agree, and surmising that I question your intellect for not agreeing, which i certainly do not.
> 
> I'm really not seeing it as my problem that my faith/belief/endorsement of a certain viewpoint results in any fellow members feeling of being downgraded.
> ...



It's definitely you dude as Philoking seems to share similar view points as you in this thread and only you seem to come across that way. 

But it's whatever. It honestly doesn't matter, lets get back on topic, Papa Johns honestly looks really dumb with this announcement. 14 cents is not a lot of money and can be explained away thanks to 2 years of inflation all on its own. I'll need to do more research, but it is late and I have work in the morning so it will have to wait. 

I suppose it does bring up certain key points, like Philoking and Microsoft, but it is my firm opinion that we shouldn't just leave things the way they are or let big business control the entire political environment through bullying. Will it screw with their finances? Probably to an extent, but if it sticks most of business done in the US is service industry so they aren't going anywhere as you know the people need to be there to do the service. Yes tech support, assembly and manufacturing services can be outsources, but we don't even do those things effectively (the up charge on products made here are ridiculous too just to cover cost of labor). Econ 101 will show you off the bat that outsourcing is not a bad thing. What makes it bad is the tariffs imposed between countries making things less efficient IMO. When one industry leaves the market another enters.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> I am not complaining about my tax burden. I am saying stop saying that it's not fair and that I should pay even more. BIG difference. I am more than happy to pay my fair share. I am saying he makes $40k and pays $10k in taxes, I make $145k and pay $40k in taxes. I am not complaining about that $40k.
> 
> I am saying don't tell me that it's fine to make my insurance go up $30k per year because I make more.
> 
> ...


You do pay your fair share of taxes. My point is that someone who makes less than 1/3 of your total income should not have to pay the same PERCENTAGE in taxes as you... surviving on $30k a year is much more difficult than surviving on $100k a year. Being pissed off at someone that is complaining about having a hard time paying $10k worth of taxes is silly. You are complaining about your INSURANCE rates going up? Well, that's part of the problem of your shitty tax structure. Not my fault your country sucks at providing its citizens with quality healthcare and education... even though it could afford it no problem. Take some of that money you guys hemorrhage every day on military expenditures and the wars you fight and actually put it back into HELPING the country and not just padding the pockets of the filthy rich. 
Again, further down you state you have a $2,400 mortgage... so what? I pay $1500 every month as well and don't make 6 figures a year. Even after paying your mortgage you still have about $6k left over (more than twice the amount of someone making $40k a year and paying taxes without any expenditures yet) to pay everything else after taxes. You're a lot better off than the majority of america, bro.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 23, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> You do pay your fair share of taxes. My point is that someone who makes less than 1/3 of your total income should not have to pay the same PERCENTAGE in taxes as you... surviving on $30k a year is much more difficult than surviving on $100k a year. Being pissed off at someone that is complaining about having a hard time paying $10k worth of taxes is silly. You are complaining about your INSURANCE rates going up? Well, that's part of the problem of your shitty tax structure. Not my fault your country sucks at providing its citizens with quality healthcare and education... even though it could afford it no problem. Take some of that money you guys hemorrhage every day on military expenditures and the wars you fight and actually put it back into HELPING the country and not just padding the pockets of the filthy rich.


 

The man has stated sveral times already that he is more than happy to pay a few percentage points more than lower earners.
That is how it is already for him, and he said he doesn't mind.

Beleive what you will, but the U.S. doesn't really suck at any of those things. We have historically had some of the finest health care in the world. It might not last if Obamacare isn't ditched though.
If our education sucks so bad, then how is it we have we paved the way for global technological advances. 

As for our military spending, you are correct we spend too much, unfortunately for our tax payers. If other countries were as capitolistically fruitful as we have historically been then they would be able to contribute more in combating global problems.
With so many other nations going down the shitter economically because of socialistic tendencies, we have to be the big dog in order to maintane stability.

The rest of the world should be thanking us for that, not condemming.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 23, 2012)

Respectfully, I think you frequently allude to an overestimation/exaggeration of how many of the World's nations are socialist.

Four of them, currently, in case you were wondering.

List of socialist countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flint757 (Aug 23, 2012)

And places like Israel aren't anyone's problem. It isn't because they aren't capable it's because no one wants to get involved (except us) in religious wars. Most nations don't even want our help because it always leads to us getting WAY too involved in their business. There are countries who in the past severely needed our help, but refused anyways (the governments at least) because we are like the mob, we don't do favors without something (usually big) in return.


----------



## philoking (Aug 23, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> You do pay your fair share of taxes. My point is that someone who makes less than 1/3 of your total income should not have to pay the same PERCENTAGE in taxes as you... surviving on $30k a year is much more difficult than surviving on $100k a year. Being pissed off at someone that is complaining about having a hard time paying $10k worth of taxes is silly. You are complaining about your INSURANCE rates going up? Well, that's part of the problem of your shitty tax structure. Not my fault your country sucks at providing its citizens with quality healthcare and education... even though it could afford it no problem. Take some of that money you guys hemorrhage every day on military expenditures and the wars you fight and actually put it back into HELPING the country and not just padding the pockets of the filthy rich.
> Again, further down you state you have a $2,400 mortgage... so what? I pay $1500 every month as well and don't make 6 figures a year. Even after paying your mortgage you still have about $6k left over (more than twice the amount of someone making $40k a year and paying taxes without any expenditures yet) to pay everything else after taxes. You're a lot better off than the majority of america, bro.



lol. Forget it man. You will never get it. I was bitching about the cost of my insurance going up 75% of his entire yearly salary. Not a few hundred dollars a month, a few THOUSAND dollars a month. And it's not like my mortgage is the only bill that I have to pay. My wife and I both have cars, they have insurance, we have power, gas, water, sewer, internet access, food, phones, pets. lol. Jesus. You act like I'm tossing $6k in the bank a month and whining.

I am not whining. I am saying that until two months from now my employer paid my healthcare. In two months it's going to cost me $30k a year based on Andy's average yearly medical expenses. That's $2,500 PER MONTH more than I pay now. So for you guys that think I just don't have any other bills, that means one of my two week paychecks pays my mortgage, the other pays for insurance. You guys have been calculating my income like I don't pay taxes at all! I paid over $40,000 in taxes last year.

Quick math for you. $145k income - $45,000 taxes = $105k left; $105k - $29k in mortgage leaves $76k left; $76k - $30k in new insurance costs leaves $46k left; $46k - $10k put away for retirement leaves $36k left; $36k - 7.8k average in utilities leaves 28.2k left.

I am now under $30k a year and we haven't talked about feeding three people, car payments, car insurance, home insurance, home maintenance, clothes, gas and all of the other things that life creeps in that you have to pay for.

I am done defending myself. Anyone who is in my position would understand where I am coming from. You can't take someone who makes $40k a year and someone who makes $145k a year and compare their incomes like their financial situations are identical. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Randy (Aug 23, 2012)

And that's why you're still $105,000 or possibly even $855,000 a year below the income rational people have proposed raising the tax on.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> lol. Forget it man. You will never get it. I was bitching about the cost of my insurance going up 75% of his entire yearly salary. Not a few hundred dollars a month, a few THOUSAND dollars a month. And it's not like my mortgage is the only bill that I have to pay. My wife and I both have cars, they have insurance, we have power, gas, water, sewer, internet access, food, phones, pets. lol. Jesus. You act like I'm tossing $6k in the bank a month and whining.
> 
> I am not whining. I am saying that until two months from now my employer paid my healthcare. In two months it's going to cost me $30k a year based on Andy's average yearly medical expenses. That's $2,500 PER MONTH more than I pay now. So for you guys that think I just don't have any other bills, that means one of my two week paychecks pays my mortgage, the other pays for insurance. You guys have been calculating my income like I don't pay taxes at all! I paid over $40,000 in taxes last year.
> 
> ...



You're continually defending against attacks no-one's making. Go back and read it all again. The *only* thing most of us keep saying, is that we disagree with *who* you're mad at; Not *why* you're mad. We all seem to be in agreement that you *should* be good-and-pissed-off. It's just that we think you should be pissed at your employer, since they're the ones who are physically/literally taking your benefits away.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> lol. Forget it man. You will never get it. I was bitching about the cost of my insurance going up 75% of his entire yearly salary. Not a few hundred dollars a month, a few THOUSAND dollars a month. And it's not like my mortgage is the only bill that I have to pay. My wife and I both have cars, they have insurance, we have power, gas, water, sewer, internet access, food, phones, pets. lol. Jesus. You act like I'm tossing $6k in the bank a month and whining.
> 
> I am not whining. I am saying that until two months from now my employer paid my healthcare. In two months it's going to cost me $30k a year based on Andy's average yearly medical expenses. That's $2,500 PER MONTH more than I pay now. So for you guys that think I just don't have any other bills, that means one of my two week paychecks pays my mortgage, the other pays for insurance. You guys have been calculating my income like I don't pay taxes at all! I paid over $40,000 in taxes last year.
> 
> ...


 
I totally get you on this dude. I really do. Now lets do some budgeting from someone like myself that makes $12,000 annually, k? (keep in mind that this about what someone on minimum wage makes annually)

Rent - $0 (had to move in with family so I just pay for extra groceries and drive people around when they need it, which will explain the higher costs of these other things)

Car payment - $0 (car was paid in full off of craigslist for $1200)

Car maintenence - $1200 annually (things like gas), $3000 in repair costs so far (this is where buying off of craigslist has bit me in the ass)

Car insurance - $1100 annually (progressive gives me damn good rates compared to other places)

Books for school - $1,000 (I save about $400 by buying used when/where possible)

Groceries - $3000 (we'll say an even 3k annually for food even though to help feed a family of 5, including myself, it takes more than $300 a month)

Help out with utilities - $1000 (I don't necessarily HAVE to, but I'm by no means a free loader so I'm helping out with the power I'm consuming with my guitar and computer equipment and the hot water for the showers and laundry I do)

School supplies - $200 annually (things like paper, pencils, staples, printer ink, etc)

$660 annually for my cell phone.

I also just got a damn ticket that I need to pay. If I fulfill the requirements the judge gave me, I can have the case dropped but will have to pay a $50 administrative fee per charge and there are two charges. So that's $100.

So after the math, I'm left with $740 play money for the whole year. Dividing by 12 will leave me $61.66 a month. Yep, I can TOTALLY pay for a doctor and prescriptions with that kind of income...

Edit: Just realized that there are some new fees that were implemented here at this college, and I forgot to account for parking. So after accounting for those I actually have $55 a month to spend. I'm one rich bitch right? Keep in mind that $9500 of that $12000 annually is in student loans that MUST be paid back with interest. 

It should also be noted that as others have said, yeah be mad that you have pay more for healthcare now, but not at Obama. Be mad at microsoft for dropping the ball on you. Those assholes with 7, 8, or 9 figure incomes are trying to screw you over so that they can keep their incomes at the same levels. It is indeed class warfare, and the way they have the game rigged is to get you mad at the people that have it just as bad, if not worse, than you instead of being mad at the people that put you in that shitty position to begin with. Instead of blaming Obama or some obscure leader, be mad as hell at Microsoft.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> lol. Forget it man. You will never get it. I was bitching about the cost of my insurance going up 75% of his entire yearly salary. Not a few hundred dollars a month, a few THOUSAND dollars a month. And it's not like my mortgage is the only bill that I have to pay. My wife and I both have cars, they have insurance, we have power, gas, water, sewer, internet access, food, phones, pets. lol. Jesus. You act like I'm tossing $6k in the bank a month and whining.
> 
> I am not whining. I am saying that until two months from now my employer paid my healthcare. In two months it's going to cost me $30k a year based on Andy's average yearly medical expenses. That's $2,500 PER MONTH more than I pay now. So for you guys that think I just don't have any other bills, that means one of my two week paychecks pays my mortgage, the other pays for insurance. You guys have been calculating my income like I don't pay taxes at all! I paid over $40,000 in taxes last year.
> 
> ...


This is exactly why a BIG change needs to happen in the united states. I'm not trying to attack you, dude. I want you to see that the system in the united states needs a serious and massive overhaul. how can someone making a six figure salary get so fucked over by medical insurance / expenses? It boggles my MIND! I'm in canada. I don't even pay any kind of health insurance. Yet, I have no worries when I break my arm or get sick. My government will take care of me. Anyone who thinks Canada is a socialist country is *retarded*. My parent's fled a socialist country... My mom can recount stories of having to wait in line with rations to get the bare essentials to survive. Something that I will never experience or really understand because I didn't grow up in a situation like that.

edit: I also want you to think of something else... you are in a position where you can still afford your sons medical expenses. Think about the guy making only $40k a year who has a son dealing with similar medical issues? How is he supposed to take care of his family? This is not a direct attack at you man, I'm just trying to paint a picture here. 

You know, maybe you should consider moving to Canada?


----------



## philoking (Aug 23, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I totally get you on this dude. I really do. Now lets do some budgeting from someone like myself that makes $12,000 annually, k? (keep in mind that this about what someone on minimum wage makes annually)



I'll put my responses inline:

Rent - $0 (had to move in with family so I just pay for extra groceries and drive people around when they need it, which will explain the higher costs of these other things) My family is 3,000 miles away in North Carolina. Renting a two bedroom apartment here cost $1,500 a month.

Car payment - $0 (car was paid in full off of craigslist for $1200) I commute 60 miles a day. I have 22k miles on a car that's just about a year old. I am not going to commute in a beater. That being said, I drive a Nissan Altima man, it's not like I have Porsche.

Car maintenence - $1200 annually (things like gas), $3000 in repair costs so far (this is where buying off of craigslist has bit me in the ass) Your $1,200 annually for gas would get me 7,843 miles in my car which gets 30MPG. That means I could have driven 1/3 of the miles I had to just to get back and forth to work, Seattle to the hospital, every day driving.. and that's just my car, my wife has one too.

Car insurance - $1100 annually (progressive gives me damn good rates compared to other places) That's not far off from what I pay, but I also have home insurance which is more than that.

Books for school - $1,000 (I save about $400 by buying used when/where possible)

Groceries - $3000 (we'll say an even 3k annually for food even though to help feed a family of 5, including myself, it takes more than $300 a month) Andy is supposed to eat 3,000-5,000 calories a day just to NOT lose weight, we average about $350 every two weeks ($8,400 a year) at the grocery store and that doesn't include all the times we eat fast food or something because Andy is in the hospital. 




ghstofperdition said:


> It should also be noted that as others have said, yeah be mad that you have pay more for healthcare now, but not at Obama. Be mad at microsoft for dropping the ball on you. Those assholes with 7, 8, or 9 figure incomes are trying to screw you over so that they can keep their incomes at the same levels. It is indeed class warfare, and the way they have the game rigged is to get you mad at the people that have it just as bad, if not worse, than you instead of being mad at the people that put you in that shitty position to begin with. Instead of blaming Obama or some obscure leader, be mad as hell at Microsoft.



And no, I am not in the least upset at Microsoft for providing the best healthcare of any company in the country up until now. They estimated that the cost of healthcare would increase several billion dollars annually because of this tax. They changed their system to compensate for it by way of adding flexible spending accounts, etc. and for the average person that works out pretty well. Microsoft is still has very competitive healthcare and most people can do will be able to put a few bucks away pre-tax in flexible spending and see little difference. I just can't put $30,000 per year in a flexible spending account, so for ME, it doesn't work out at all. I get that I am an outlier, but the reality is that if the Affordable Healthcare Act would not have tried to fund insurance for the uninsured by taxing insurance for those who have insurance, this would not have changed.

The reality, which no-one is addressing, is regardless of who we want to be mad at for changing the policies, if the Obama administration's analysts did not predict businesses changing their healthcare to avoid this new tax, they are absolute morons. If they are not absolute morons, that means they passed this with the understanding that the financial model was bullshit and that the money to fund it does not exist.


----------



## philoking (Aug 23, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> This is exactly why a BIG change needs to happen in the united states. I'm not trying to attack you, dude. I want you to see that the system in the united states needs a serious and massive overhaul. how can someone making a six figure salary get so fucked over by medical insurance / expenses? It boggles my MIND! I'm in canada. I don't even pay any kind of health insurance. Yet, I have no worries when I break my arm or get sick. My government will take care of me. Anyone who thinks Canada is a socialist country is *retarded*. My parent's fled a socialist country... My mom can recount stories of having to wait in line with rations to get the bare essentials to survive. Something that I will never experience or really understand because I didn't grow up in a situation like that.
> 
> edit: I also want you to think of something else... you are in a position where you can still afford your sons medical expenses. Think about the guy making only $40k a year who has a son dealing with similar medical issues? How is he supposed to take care of his family? This is not a direct attack at you man, I'm just trying to paint a picture here.
> 
> You know, maybe you should consider moving to Canada?



I know man. I've said several times, I support government provided healthcare. I believe that this model is an abomination. The government should absolutely regulate healthcare costs just like they do interest rates, etc.

They should also operate against a realistic budget, not spend money that doesn't exist and collect the taxes that are actually owed to them before they raise them.

Businesses who are operating by using every tax loophole in the book aren't effected much by tax increases, people like us that either pay all of our tax or get our property seized are.

So yea, that's the bottom line. Don't try to tell my employer good their insurance for their employees can be and penalize them if it's "too good." Go after my employer for using tax loopholes to avoid paying more than half of the tax they owe. I have NO problem with that.


----------



## philoking (Aug 23, 2012)

By the way, how many more times do I need to school you guys before this wins longest thread ever? 

@axxessdenied: I can't move to Canada, you guys talk funny.


----------



## Necris (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> By the way, how many more times do I need to school you guys before this wins longest thread ever?




I think we have a few 225+ page threads so... keep going.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> By the way, how many more times do I need to school you guys before this wins longest thread ever?
> 
> @axxessdenied: I can't move to Canada, you guys talk funny.


You don't hear the hardcore canuck accent too much 


It really is a shame what large corporations can get away with. The tax structure is so convoluted it's ridiculous!


----------



## Randy (Aug 23, 2012)

philoking said:


> By the way, how many more times do I need to school you guys before this wins longest thread ever?





Necris said:


> I think we have a few 225+ page threads so... keep going.



Got a ways to go.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/20568-100k-reply-contest-1054.html


----------



## philoking (Aug 23, 2012)

Randy said:


> Got a ways to go.
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/20568-100k-reply-contest-1054.html



I guess I should start a modeling vs. tube thread.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 23, 2012)

ITT we learn:

- Obamacare sucks for a few people
- Obamacare helps a lot more people
- obama no djeny


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 23, 2012)

I think this thread missed a large point here. To me, the issue isn't one of how the tax code should work (although I do think that is important, see other threads on this issue), it's that at the level of cover that that most Americans will have, having a seriously ill child can bankrupt you. If anything I'd say that means Obamacare (Romneycare) doesn't go far enough. It seems like America should do like the rest of us, and go to a single payer system.

I somehow doubt that will happen anytime soon, though. The insurance companies would basically have to dissolve, and there's no way their lobbyists would allow that.


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 23, 2012)

double post


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> The man has stated sveral times already that he is more than happy to pay a few percentage points more than lower earners.
> That is how it is already for him, and he said he doesn't mind.





philoking said:


> lol. Forget it man. You will never get it. I was bitching about the cost of my insurance going up 75% of his entire yearly salary. Not a few hundred dollars a month, a few THOUSAND dollars a month. And it's not like my mortgage is the only bill that I have to pay. My wife and I both have cars, they have insurance, we have power, gas, water, sewer, internet access, food, phones, pets. lol. Jesus. You act like I'm tossing $6k in the bank a month and whining.



_*The amount of taxes you pay is relative to how much you earn and how much you can afford to lose while still managing a higher standard of living.*_

25% of 40k makes 30k left over. *25% of 140k equals 105k left over.* No matter how you spin that, it's not an equal sacrifice. Not even close.

It's that simple. If you make more money, you can afford to pay more taxes. The reason the rich feel demonized by this is because they don't think about the relativity of that equation when it is put next to someone who makes a third what you do. In reality, you're the lucky ones when it comes to taxes.

Okay, done.


----------



## Aceshighhhh (Aug 23, 2012)

The amount of entitlement in this thread is astounding


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 24, 2012)

Aceshighhhh said:


> The amount of entitlement in this thread is astounding



Indeed. It's amazing how people can justify keeping things to themselves when there are others in need.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 24, 2012)

Jonathan Gruber - 'Cadillac' tax isn't a tax -- it's a plan to finance real health reform

Ironically enough what is happening to Philoking is in fact the point of the cadillac tax it seems (force companies to better budget medical costs). It sucks, but there was a plan and it seems like it wasn't entirely for the purpose of making money. 

No matter what anyone does somebody is going to get screwed and nobody wants it to be them.

I haven't read the entire article or other sources, but I have part of tomorrow off so I'll do some more light digging/reading.


----------



## Necris (Aug 24, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Jonathan Gruber - 'Cadillac' tax isn't a tax -- it's a plan to finance real health reform
> 
> Ironically enough what is happening to Philoking is in fact the point of the cadillac tax it seems (force companies to better budget medical costs)


That wording makes it sound like the tax is penalizing companies for being too generous.
When actually, according to the article at least, it is eliminating a tax break (or closing a loophole) that allows companies to avoid paying taxes on wages paid to workers by instead compensating them with health insurance in the same amount they would have gotten paid since under current laws the compensation in the form of health insurance is not taxed.

Half-assed example, *Arbitrary Numbers Incoming*: If a company were going to get taxed for paying their employee $40,000 a year in wages they may instead choose to pay them $35,000 a year in wages and make up the difference in health insurance which is not taxed under the current law, thus lowering their taxes.

According to the article this practice is costing taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion a year.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 24, 2012)

just noticed this negative rep I got from someone in this thread



> So a doctor should be taxed to the point where his take home pay is the same as a burger flipper's? Idiot.



We're having a political discussion here and raising different point. If you read my posts I never attacked anyone. I never said someone making a six figure salary should be taxed to the point where they clear minimum wage. It seems that the poor education system in the united states has failed you, because your reading comprehension is pretty low. 
It's much more difficult for someone who is making $40k a year to pay a %25 income tax rate. versus someone who is making almost 4 times that amount. Pull your head out of your ass and learn to use that thing inside your skull.
It's nice being able to make comments like that behind a cloak of anonymity where no one will call you out on your bullshit.


----------



## poopyalligator (Aug 24, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> So a doctor should be taxed to the point where his take home pay is the same as a burger flipper's? Idiot.



Whoever put that in your rep was clearly asleep at the wheel lol.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 24, 2012)

poopyalligator said:


> Whoever put that in your rep was clearly asleep at the wheel lol.



Welcome to the world of politics


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 24, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Jonathan Gruber - 'Cadillac' tax isn't a tax -- it's a plan to finance real health reform
> 
> Ironically enough what is happening to Philoking is in fact the point of the cadillac tax it seems (force companies to better budget medical costs).



WHAT THE FUCK DID I SAY

Seriously did I not say that like three pages ago because I totally did.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 24, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> just noticed this negative rep I got from someone in this thread
> 
> 
> Well, c'mon now. You _are_ Canadian. That means they just gave you neg rep for good measure. Kind of like a preemptive strike on all the subversive Stalinist views you're just waiting to unleash.
> ...


----------



## spattergrind (Aug 24, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Because to many people, anything Obama does is "bad."



Democrat gets elected, Republicans hate it.

Republicans get elected, Democrats hate it.

=

*That's politics for ya!*, and that's one of the reasons I hate it.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 24, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> WHAT THE FUCK DID I SAY
> 
> Seriously did I not say that like three pages ago because I totally did.



You might have  I have poor memory...but I posted a link. 

And Necris I didn't get very far in the article as I had work at 8 and i was already like 2:30 when I found it. Makes total sense though and yes your description was more appropriate for sure as it addresses the unfair tax advantage that companies like Microsoft were receiving.


----------



## axxessdenied (Aug 24, 2012)

MstrH said:


> axxessdenied said:
> 
> 
> > just noticed this negative rep I got from someone in this thread
> ...


----------



## MstrH (Aug 24, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> MstrH said:
> 
> 
> > that is awesome! darn us canadians for coming and spending our money in your country! They are just mad that we can afford to clean your shelves out
> ...


----------

