Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Allowing people to KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY is NOT a subsidy.. ITS THEIR GOD DAM MONEY..
Exactly. It takes a special kind of warped mentality to think that the fruits of one's labor belongs to someone else. That's SLAVERY. I thought liberals were opposed to slavery. But here they are, actually endorsing slavery. WTF?!?
In order for you to get that deduction the government must raise taxes on the rest of us.
Wrong again. You seem to think that what I pay in taxes, directly impacts what you will be forced to pay. So if I only earn $45k a year, and did not get that raise to earn $50k a year, then this will force you to pay more in taxes. Is the income I'm supposed to earn written in stone somewhere? If I don't work overtime, and I pay less in taxes, "the government must raise taxes on the rest of us?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
The Obamacare subsidies are independent of your tax paying status.
Because it's a subsidy, it's FREE money, it's money that is not yours, It's money you did not earn!!!
Wrong again. You seem to think that what I pay in taxes, directly impacts what you will be forced to pay. So if I only earn $45k a year, and did not get that raise to earn $50k a year...
Exactly. Whose taxes are raised in that event? lycos679 needs to explain and document exactly who gets charged more in taxes when someone else works less overtime or loses their job and therefore pays less in taxes.
Well, President Obama did get one thing right...keeping this a secret until after he was re-elected.
Do I feel sorry for Obama voters? About as much as I felt/feel sorry for the media when the Justice Department goes after them or the White House reporters whine about Jay Carney and transparency.
It was affordable health insurance for everyone at the expense of everyone.
Clearly, the purpose of ObamaCare was NOT to provide health care insurance to the uninsured, otherwise we wouldn't be punishing the uninsured for being uninsured.
It's a fundamentally flawed program, if it's supposed to provide health insurance for the uninsured, and does not accomplish this. It's like a benevolent programs which are designed to end hunger and homelessness, they are fundamentally flawed if the mechanism to feed and house people requires punishing the people for being hungry and homeless.
It's like "We are hereto help you, we're from the government," and then they start beating the crap out of you. It's like a scene from "Mars Attacks" where the Martians say "We come in peace" as they incinerate everyone.
Clearly, the purpose of ObamaCare was NOT to provide health care insurance to the uninsured, otherwise we wouldn't be punishing the uninsured for being uninsured.
It's a fundamentally flawed program, if it's supposed to provide health insurance for the uninsured, and does not accomplish this. It's like a benevolent programs which are designed to end hunger and homelessness, they are fundamentally flawed if the mechanism to feed and house people requires punishing the people for being hungry and homeless.
It's like "We are hereto help you, we're from the government," and then they start beating the crap out of you. It's like a scene from "Mars Attacks" where the Martians say "We come in peace" as they incinerate everyone.
I see the ACA has a rushed piece of legislation by one party. The Democrats.
They were so desperate to accomplished anything at any cost. Reforming health care has been a long time goal. They were quickly losing support. So what did they do? They made side deals with insurance companies, hospitals, big pharma, and device makers.
Dems didn't have enough votes even within their own party for the public option. Even lowering Medicare age to age 55 was met with strong opposition because they couldn't figure out a cost structure how to make it reasonable to the public.
Dems passed the ACA with hope it could be fixed later down the road.
It's going to be hard for them to fix any part of the ACA without 60 votes in the Senate. Let alone getting the House back under control.
Let's eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction that costs the government about $70 billion a year.
But lets also eliminate the EITC (earn income tax credit) that cost the government about 60 billion a year.
That's 130 billion in savings and can offset most of the ACA "subsidies?"
Who's game? I am.
Everyone should contribute.
The EITC, one that Bush greatly increased giving a real subsidy to a lot of americans, is called a tax cut for the rich.. Who the hell believes this garbage? Thats right, those on the left..
I know all about the taxcode, even better than some IRS agents.. My tax return last year was OVER 150 pages long, and when I got audited in 2010, I fought for YEARS with them, where they eventually began to try to negotiate me down from the 6+ figures they said I owed them, to finally ZERO when they finally admitted my return was correct.
Allowing people to KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY is NOT a subsidy.. ITS THEIR GOD DAM MONEY..
Give the stupidity a break.. This is why our nation is failing, this utopia thought by many on the left that the government is entitled to all of your money, and if they allow you to keep some of it, its a subsidy..
One of the stupidiest arguments I've heard repeatedly over and over and over again, and no surprise, its always lefties who make it.
Well then if you are so familiar with the tax code then you must know this:
If you take out a loan to buy a home, the interest you pay on the mortgage is tax deductible.
To see how this works, consider two families with equal incomes of $100,000. One family owns its house and pays $2,000 in interest on its mortgage each month, or $24,000 annually. The other pays $2,000 a month to rent an apartment. The family that owns its home can deduct $24,000 from its taxable income and pay taxes as if it only earned $76,000. The renter family is taxed on all $100,000 of its income.[1] The homeowners pay about $6,000 less in taxes a year.
The mortgage interest deduction is written into the tax code. It is an exception from the general rule that you can’t deduct personal expenses (for example, interest on your credit card or the cost of a new television set isn’t deductible, and neither is one’s rent). Such special provisions are considered “tax expenditures” if they cost the federal government revenue.
Economists use the word “expenditure” in this context because these tax breaks are essentially the same as spending programs. If the government wrote checks to homeowners to help them cover their mortgage payments instead of giving them a tax break, the effect on both the taxpayers and the federal Treasury would be the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if I only earn $45k a year, and did not get that raise to earn $50k a year, then this will force you to pay more in taxes. Is the income I'm supposed to earn written in stone somewhere? If I don't work overtime, and I pay less in taxes, "the government must raise taxes on the rest of us?" 
Former dem staffer learns truth about Obamacare after defending it for years....
