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.
2010 was my worst year, as I paid 3X my normally high income tax. It was a ***** earning so much!
you need to hire someone, if you paid 3x what you normally paid you need to fire yourself or your accountant someone is doing a terrible job planning your taxes.
Senate Democrats were engaged in a highly contentious debate throughout the fall of 2009, and the political life of the public option changed almost daily. The debate reached a critical impasse in November 2009, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who usually caucuses with the Democrats, threatened to filibuster the Senate bill if it included a public option.
you need to hire someone, if you paid 3x what you normally paid you need to fire yourself or your accountant someone is doing a terrible job planning your taxes.
I have deductions, carried forward losses and write offs as well. But one huge one time gain yielded a bunch of income.
2010 was my worst year, as I paid 3X my normally high income tax. It was a ***** earning so much!
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart
you need to hire someone, if you paid 3x what you normally paid you need to fire yourself or your accountant someone is doing a terrible job planning your taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
I have deductions, carried forward losses and write offs as well. But one huge one time gain yielded a bunch of income.
Why not do what large corporations do? Or at the least, hire a battalion of accountants? Don't forget the army of lobbyists to negotiate 'economic rent-seeking' deals. Folks working in the FIRE sector are, generally speaking, another resourceful group, they're used to the 'one huge one time gain' although it's every year - bonuses & CEO pay packages are structured with these in mind.
You may not be able to pull off the 'tax payer bail out' schtick if your business suffers for whatever reason even overreaching the 'moral hazard' boondoggle but that's mostly because you chose the wrong profession to begin with. Just think what you'd be entitled to if you had spent 40 years in the financial-investment-real estate sector instead of diligently working at healing folks as an internist with 40 years of experience.
(For budding medical professionals, the 'loan forgiveness' program is still available. America will always need & benefit from having good professionals in place to assist healing. Although, who knows how long that will last, meaning the program to assist medical professionals entering non-profit employment.)
We can have national single-payer healthcare that covers everyone if we do one simple thing: implement a 25% VAT tax like many Scandinavian/European countries already have.
Here's how we get to that percentage...
Looking at the costs to the Fed Gov for national health care for all, a liberal think tank, Urban Institute, has projected that it will cost the Fed Gov an additional $3.2 trillion per year ($32 trillion over 10 years) as costs are shifted away from employers, individuals, cities, and states, and onto the Fed Gov.
Quote:
"The increase in federal expenditures would be considerably larger than the increase in national health expenditures because substantial spending borne by states, employers, and households under current law would shift to the federal government under the Sanders [Medicare for All] plan. Federal expenditures in 2017 would increase by $1.9 trillion for acute care for the nonelderly, by $465.9 billion for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare, and by $212.1 billion for long-term services and supports.
In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026. The increase in federal spending is so large because the federal government would absorb a substantial amount of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and households."
At the current annual US consumer spending level of $11.7 trillion, a 25% national VAT tax will raise $2.93 trillion in tax revenue. Almost enough, currently, to pay for single payer national health care for all. Adjust the VAT tax rate up or down as needed according to actual health care costs.
So... Is everyone on board with that? For paying a 25% VAT tax on everything, we get single-payer health care for all.
you need to hire someone, if you paid 3x what you normally paid you need to fire yourself or your accountant someone is doing a terrible job planning your taxes.
Not necessarily. Sometimes tax events are triggered unexpectedly. For example, for all the whining and complaining some do about how the rich get so many tax breaks, the opposite is actually true. Most deductions are phased out at higher income levels. That's why the effective tax rates rise on an exponential curve as income increases.
Top 1%: 27.16%
Top 5%: 23.61%
Top 5-10%: 13.73%
Top 10-25%: 10.37%
Top 25-50%: 7.48%
Bottom 50%: 3.45%
See the huge drop off in the effective tax rate from the top 5% to the top 5-10%? It's about a 10 percentage point difference. That 5%-ish level is where most tax deductions are phased out.
And there's not a damned thing an accountant can do about it. It's tax code.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 06-19-2017 at 07:31 AM..
Healthcare. Why should my employer and I be forced to subsidize Wall Street?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
As part of my compensation when I work, I receive employer sponsored health insurance. My employer pays part of the premium that would otherwise come to me in the form of wages or other benefits, or kept by him to invest as he saw fit, to a for profit insurance company that is publicly traded on Wall Street.
I also pay part of the insurance premium, using my wages that I would otherwise spend, donate or invest elsewhere. My employer must offer this benefit in order to remain competitive in terms of attracting competent employees. It is even mandated to a certain degree, depending on your state and the size of your company.
Now, why should we be forced to buy this product from a for-profit corporation that in turn does business with huge for-profit hospital corporations, and restricts my use of practitioners to their contracted panels?
Can anyone please explain to me why the public option in Obamacare, where my employer could have paid premiums into a Medicare for everyone type system instead of subsidizing some other CEOs multi million dollar salary, was shot down?
Here's why:
The GOP insists that you have too much and Wall St bankers/brokers/shysters have too little.
Getting rich off the backs of the poor and working class is what America is all about. It's what America has always been about.
How is that so? They can choose to spend their money, or not. Why do they choose to spend their money in a way which results in others getting rich?
And if you mean wages, well... it's a global economy, therefore global wage arbitrage applies. If you want to earn more, make your skill sets/services more valuable/convenient than your competitors.
This isn't rocket science. No one owes you anything. It's on you to forge your own destiny.
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.
Just think what you'd be entitled to if you had spent 40 years in the financial-investment-real estate sector instead of diligently working at healing folks as an internist with 40 years of experience.
Healthcare. Why should my employer and I be forced to subsidize Wall Street?
