Stop Putting So Much Tax Burden on Single People!! (illegal, health care, racist)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

When I heard about some potential legislation to place more tax burden on single people without kids recently, I flipped my lid.

Then I guess it's a good thing you don't understand the Community Rating Scheme used by the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross.

In order to steal money from Americans more efficiently and effectively, the American Hospital Association embarked on a lobbying campaign for several years to get "enabling laws" enacted at State level. Those laws barred State insurance commissions and regulators from examining the books of hospitals.

One way to avoid the appearance of insurance was the use of Community Rating Schemes, in which young single people are soaked to pay for the healthcare of married without children, single with children, married with children and older married without children.

The 1949 In Re: Inland Steel Supreme Court decision proved employer-based health plan coverage was not just a fluke, and that opened the flood-gates for insurance companies to enter the Market.

The insurance companies offered cheaper group plans than the Blue Cross because it was real insurance and not fee-for-service like the Blue Cross.

What's more, real insurance allows Americans to profit off of their own health plan coverage, while the Blue Cross did not.

As a result, the Blue Cross lost 60+% of the Market Share in a few short years after 1949.

The Blue Cross ran to Congress and lobbied for changes in the IRS tax code to keep Americans from building wealth and profiting off of their health insurance...

"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."

Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.

So, your choice was throw away your money every month in premiums by giving it to the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross....or...

...build wealth you can pass onto your children and grand-children by purchasing a catastrophic health/life insurance plan from an insurance company.

See, the catastrophic health/life insurance plans were mostly term, and you chose the term: 10, 20 or 30 years and then you were done, or you took the other route.

Is that the stupidest thing or what? What moron would want to make 120 monthly payments and then be fully covered for catastrophic health/life insurance? So you have, say, $2 Million in catastrophic health/life insurance coverage, and you use $500,000 for you/your family over time, and then when you die you have $1.5 Million to leave to your spouse, children, grandchildren, charities, the cat, the dog, the rat, the frog....anyone you want.

Is the Free Market beautiful or what?

You can see how that totally frightens Liberals and fills them with fear.

What if that was a Black Man?

Do you see how disgusting that is? A Black Man paying $60/month for only 20 years --and no more --for a $1.5 Million catastrophic/life insurance policy? That is truly sick.

And horrors.....what if the Black Man's employer paid the $60/month as part of employee benefits?

Suppose the Black Man -- or just any Poor Man --- and his family used $400,000 in catastrophic healthcare over the course of his life-time...he would have $1.1 Million to leave to his spouse and children and grandchildren.

Do you see how destructive that is?

He could leave $100,000 each to his six grandchildren.

They would get to go to university....without needing Student Loans

After they were graduated, they would have money for a down-payment on a home

But that is not the worst thing for Liberals....the worst thing is the Black Man or the Poor Man would be doing it without government help.

Liberals think that empowering people is a Crime Against Humanity, and when Conservatives like me attempt to empower everyone, Liberals accuse us of being "racist."

Anyway, if you are tired of bank-rolling everyone else, then you might want to seriously consider Free Market reforms in many areas where government is involved.

Empowering...

Mircea

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Flat tax... zero exemptions... zero deductions.... zero credits.... everyone pays an equal percent... done, no complaining, no whining, nothing....

That will never work for a few reasons:

1) The accounting lobby won't let that happen. Incentives are the governments way of influencing policy. If you want to start a trend, the government simply creates tax incentives. Accounting is a huge industry in this country for good reason.

2) Flat taxes need an EITC, because they are quite regressive to the little guy struggling to make ends meet. Flat tax is good in theory, but a consumption (sales) tax should be part of it. That way you can exempt food and clothing (necessities) to ease the burden on low income citizens.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

When I heard about some potential legislation to place more tax burden on single people without kids recently, I flipped my lid. The US tax system is so unfairly balanced right now, and it is pushing me out of the middle class into poverty.

Almost 1/4 of my gross incomes goes directly to state and federal taxes. And I only make 43K. My net take home ends up being 30K. The system punishes my demographic because we are single with no kids. My GF made close to 100K last year, and she was taxed nearly 25K. Again, 1/4 of the income.

Maybe the government looks at it that we are getting to keep three fourths of our hard earned money without dealing with the expenses of kids. Screw that. A married couple has the benefit of a dual income. They are the ones I see with the nice houses, the garages full of stuff. I am in my 40s, and can't afford a house. I've never owned a lawnmower because I've never had my own yard.

Yes, kids are expensive, but I believe a dual income more than makes up for that especially with all the tax breaks. But the government wants to take more away from me to help familes? Why should I be punished because I was a responsible adult and didn't engage in risky behavior or poor parenting? I have a friend on FB who has a new kid every year. He now has 7 kids. He was bragging about his big tax refund and how his family would get to enjoy a nice cruise. Does he really deserve a break and not me?

I'm all for everyone paying their fair share. So if I have to fork over 25% then everyone should have to do the same.

That isn't a fair share. Fair share means everyone pays whatever the liberal wants them to pay.

The poor disadvantaged people who have kids when they're teenagers and then work at Walmart for 20 years without ever developing any marketable job skills need to be supported so they'll continue voting for Democrats. The Democrats need that money from somewhere. You're it.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by northbound74

No kidding! Problem solved.
Man I hate taxes. I actually did better as a single person. Much better.
We do ours with one of those computer programs. When I enter my info, it's all good. Nice refund. Then......... I enter spouse's info...... BOOM! We owe a grand.
Unless you have several kids and an even lower income than mine, married with children does nothing for you tax-wise.

For us, the mortgage interest deduction and property tax deduction was always the key to being satisfied with our tax situation after we got married. I remember getting an automatic bump in my paycheck (marriage benefit) which meant more take-home pay, and when we bought our first house (no children at the time), the mortgage interest and property tax deductions essentially nullified our tax bill.

So many variables....its a bit nutty how complicated and different tax situations vary from household to household.

[chad3]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

When I heard about some potential legislation to place more tax burden on single people without kids recently, I flipped my lid. The US tax system is so unfairly balanced right now, and it is pushing me out of the middle class into poverty.

Almost 1/4 of my gross incomes goes directly to state and federal taxes. And I only make 43K. My net take home ends up being 30K. The system punishes my demographic because we are single with no kids. My GF made close to 100K last year, and she was taxed nearly 25K. Again, 1/4 of the income.

Maybe the government looks at it that we are getting to keep three fourths of our hard earned money without dealing with the expenses of kids. Screw that. A married couple has the benefit of a dual income. They are the ones I see with the nice houses, the garages full of stuff. I am in my 40s, and can't afford a house. I've never owned a lawnmower because I've never had my own yard.

Yes, kids are expensive, but I believe a dual income more than makes up for that especially with all the tax breaks. But the government wants to take more away from me to help familes? Why should I be punished because I was a responsible adult and didn't engage in risky behavior or poor parenting? I have a friend on FB who has a new kid every year. He now has 7 kids. He was bragging about his big tax refund and how his family would get to enjoy a nice cruise. Does he really deserve a break and not me?

I'm all for everyone paying their fair share. So if I have to fork over 25% then everyone should have to do the same.

Republicans block all tax cuts for middle class people like you.

Senate Republicans Block Middle Class Tax Cut
Obama: Republicans blocking middle-class tax cuts - CSMonitor.com

But at the same time the republican CEO politicians in Washington give CEO's lower tax rates than Americans like yourself.

Mitt Romney Made $42 Million, Paid Less Than 14 Percent in taxes - ABC News
Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11% - Forbes

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

That isn't a fair share. Fair share means everyone pays whatever the liberal wants them to pay.

The poor disadvantaged people who have kids when they're teenagers and then work at Walmart for 20 years without ever developing any marketable job skills need to be supported so they'll continue voting for Democrats. The Democrats need that money from somewhere. You're it.

If our country had any sense, we would develop a new welfare program where recipients must perform some kind of community service or volunteer work in order to get their check. I bet ppl would leave the system in droves, (screw that, I'll go work for a living) contributing more tax money and paying out less in welfare.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by chad3

Republicans block all tax cuts for middle class people like you.

Senate Republicans Block Middle Class Tax Cut
Obama: Republicans blocking middle-class tax cuts - CSMonitor.com

But at the same time the republican CEO politicians in Washington give CEO's lower tax rates than Americans like yourself.

Mitt Romney Made $42 Million, Paid Less Than 14 Percent in taxes - ABC News
Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11% - Forbes

And I seem to recall when Bush actually gave me an extra tax refund. More money in my pocket. That was a good year.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Flat tax... zero exemptions... zero deductions.... zero credits.... everyone pays an equal percent... done, no complaining, no whining, nothing....

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

If our country had any sense, we would develop a new welfare program where recipients must perform some kind of community service or volunteer work in order to get their check. I bet ppl would leave the system in droves, (screw that, I'll go work for a living) contributing more tax money and paying out less in welfare.

As a hard-leftie, I agree with this.

Then again, I'm only a liberal extremist to the neocons. I don't think most sane people in the country would have an objection to "community service for welfare" scenario. There are plenty of dirty lots and streets around my area for derelicts to clean. I'm all for it.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

When I heard about some potential legislation to place more tax burden on single people without kids recently, I flipped my lid. The US tax system is so unfairly balanced right now, and it is pushing me out of the middle class into poverty.

Almost 1/4 of my gross incomes goes directly to state and federal taxes. And I only make 43K. My net take home ends up being 30K. The system punishes my demographic because we are single with no kids. My GF made close to 100K last year, and she was taxed nearly 25K. Again, 1/4 of the income.

Maybe the government looks at it that we are getting to keep three fourths of our hard earned money without dealing with the expenses of kids. Screw that. A married couple has the benefit of a dual income. They are the ones I see with the nice houses, the garages full of stuff. I am in my 40s, and can't afford a house. I've never owned a lawnmower because I've never had my own yard.

Yes, kids are expensive, but I believe a dual income more than makes up for that especially with all the tax breaks. But the government wants to take more away from me to help familes? Why should I be punished because I was a responsible adult and didn't engage in risky behavior or poor parenting? I have a friend on FB who has a new kid every year. He now has 7 kids. He was bragging about his big tax refund and how his family would get to enjoy a nice cruise. Does he really deserve a break and not me?

I'm all for everyone paying their fair share. So if I have to fork over 25% then everyone should have to do the same.

hmmm really.......

then you need a new tax person

earn 43k
std ded 6100
personal exemption 3900
total taxable income 33k
tax...on 33k BEFORE any write offs 4500
if you had any contrabutions to a 401k, pesion etc.....writeoff

most states income taxes range from 2% to 8% with a dozen states having ZERO income tax...and hawaii, cali and NJ having the HIGHEST tax at the top bracket of 12/11/9%


most people making 45k or less pay nearly zero in taxes

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

As a hard-leftie, I agree with this.

Then again, I'm only a liberal extremist to the neocons. I don't think most sane people in the country would have an objection to "community service for welfare" scenario. There are plenty of dirty lots and streets around my area for derelicts to clean. I'm all for it.

Well, they would like mandatory community service for most everyone, starting in school. Just to get people involved in the community. Exempted would be the elderly and disabled, and welfare recipients with children.

I'm sure the conservatives would also give mom a break. Everyone else can get to trash pick-up duty for the common good. Especially those low-income single people who pay a quarter of their meager wages so welfare mom can have a smart phone and middle class family of six can take a Euro vacation.