Obamacare regrets.......

[JustRalph]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/big-labor-obamacare-death-spiral-to-worker-pay-insurance-coverage/article/2545310

Union leader whines after supporting Obama........

[DJofSD]

Slash wages for the rank and file.

Let's talk about the union leadership and what they'll enjoy in the future.

[Clocker]

News Flash!!!

Union leader shocked that businesses will do what the law encourages them to do.

[Clocker]

From the article:

A national union that represents 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers charges in a new report that Obamacare will slam wages, cut hours, limit access to health insurance and worsen the very “income equality” President Obama says he is campaigning to fix.

Liberals have been whining for years about growing income inequality while ignoring the cause. The knee-jerk reaction is to blame it on greedy capitalists. They forget that before the growth of capitalism there was no middle class.

Perhaps now the light is starting to dawn. ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg. The primary cause of income inequality in a free market is big government. The tax and spend policies of the federal government, combined with an ever-increasing burden of bureaucratic regulations on small business, are killing off the middle class. Without a thriving middle class, the economy does not grow. That is why we are still slowly recovering from a recession that ended in 2009. And now ObamaCare is making it worse.

[jdhanover]

From the article:



Liberals have been whining for years about growing income inequality while ignoring the cause. The knee-jerk reaction is to blame it on greedy capitalists. They forget that before the growth of capitalism there was no middle class.

Perhaps now the light is starting to dawn. ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg. The primary cause of income inequality in a free market is big government. The tax and spend policies of the federal government, combined with an ever-increasing burden of bureaucratic regulations on small business, are killing off the middle class. Without a thriving middle class, the economy does not grow. That is why we are still slowly recovering from a recession that ended in 2009. And now ObamaCare is making it worse.

Well, this is one point of view. But I believe most economists would point to decades of lousy tax and govt policy, beginning with Reagan's trickle-down theory and govt spending priorities in all administrations since (including the current one). Core issue isnt big vs small govt...but rather what does govt spend (and collect) money on. THAT is where both parties have been awful and has caused the issues you cite. Much govt spending is not where it should be and the tax code is very tilted to the very wealthy. They contribute campaign cash, they get to set the rules. Its the way the system works unfortunately IMO

[davew]

How can Osamacares slash pay $5 on minimum wage hospitality workers that are most likely illegals because Americans don't feel like working so hard for so little when the Dems give you more for staying home working on your poetry?

Something does not add up with this guys complaint.

[Clocker]

But I believe most economists...

Such as?

Much govt spending is not where it should be and the tax code is very tilted to the very wealthy.

Where should the government spending be?

The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of taxes. How is that tilted in the favor of the rich?

[classhandicapper]

The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of taxes. How is that tilted in the favor of the rich?

They should work their asses off getting an education, work obscene hours, save their money, take risks with their capital ,and then be taxed every penny up until the point that government can ensure that everyone has the same income and savings as they do (except government leaders who are allowed to have more) :faint:

[DJofSD]

Yep, it's not about making sure there is a level playing field, a start with equal opportunity, it's now all about making sure every one is the same at the end of the game -- poor, destitute and with the government in total control.

Surf -> serf.

[classhandicapper]

Yep, it's not about making sure there is a level playing field, a start with equal opportunity, it's now all about making sure every one is the same at the end of the game -- poor, destitute and with the government in total control.

Surf -> serf.

Yep.

You lose me once you start trying to ensure equal results. It should only be about making sure opportunity is equal. After that, I don't care how much money some people make and accumulate. It would be nice if the rich gave more of their excess money to charities that reflect their own personal values, but IMO taxing them to promote the values of those in government (which sometimes run counter to the taxed) is also immoral.

[jwb]

Central / commercial banking, our debt based economy & INFLATION. It is "here", where all this begins, and ends. Without it, none of this would be possible.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws! "

[mostpost]

Such as?



Where should the government spending be?

The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of taxes. How is that tilted in the favor of the rich?

Which is exactly as it should be. That top 10% earns more than 50% of the annual income and controls 80% of the wealth. They should pay more than 70% of the taxes.

[NJ Stinks]

Which is exactly as it should be. That top 10% earns more than 50% of the annual income and controls 80% of the wealth. They should pay more than 70% of the taxes.

Don't bother Clocker with facts like the above, Mostpost. It doesn't fit his script. :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

Which is exactly as it should be. That top 10% earns more than 50% of the annual income and controls 80% of the wealth. They should pay more than 70% of the taxes.

So someone like Steve Jobs, from humble beginnings, who took it upon himself and made something of himself, should carry the burden of those who are UNWILLING?

I am glad to see the truth is finally coming out....those evil bastards who have succeeded should always pay (to borrow your words) MORE!

If they should pay MORE than 70% of the taxes, ...how much more????
You see, there is NEVER enough for you libs. If it was 80% you would still say they should pay MORE!

[TJDave]

So someone like Steve Jobs, from humble beginnings, who took it upon himself and made something of himself, should carry the burden of those who are UNWILLING?


So...what would you suggest we do with those Americans who, by your definition, are unwilling?

[thaskalos]

I got an idea...

Let's have the BOTTOM 10% of the income earners pay 70% of the taxes.

[newtothegame]

So...what would you suggest we do with those Americans who, by your definition, are unwilling?
You have no clue what my definition of unwilling is.....but, ask yourself this....since you have mentioned a few times that you have a few businesses, I will give it that you make more then myself.....
That being the case, I think YOU should pay more then you currently do...to me none the less since obviously you apparently have been afforded better opportunities then myself....
Would you like the address where you can start sending the checks????

[newtothegame]

I got an idea...

Let's have the BOTTOM 10% of the income earners pay 70% of the taxes.

Considering NO ONE here said that, I can see where that came from......:rolleyes:
This (your post) is exactly the dem playbook......(and that's not even to say youre a dem). But, say one thing and have it twisted to say something totally different.
Please show all of us where ANYONE said the bottom 10% should pay 70% of the taxes......(waiting)

[fast4522]

I got an idea...

Let's have the BOTTOM 10% of the income earners pay 70% of the taxes.

Your joking right??

Just like Federal spending now, out of control and sticking it the young to pay so an old socialist like yourself can die cheaper?
The ACA does what to the younger?

[HUSKER55]

just a thought, how about tracking down the theft by politicians and money siphoned off.

[JustRalph]

Which is exactly as it should be. That top 10% earns more than 50% of the annual income and controls 80% of the wealth. They should pay more than 70% of the taxes.

Horseshit! Everyone should pay a flat tax

Come up with a number and stick with it. Abolish the IRS

[PaceAdvantage]

So...what would you suggest we do with those Americans who, by your definition, are unwilling?Cater to them and make their already miserable lives as easy as possible through subsidies and welfare and whatever other freebies we can throw their way...and do this until the whole system finally seizes.

[HUSKER55]

Like your thinking Ralph, No one should ride for free :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

just a thought, how about tracking down the theft by politicians and money siphoned off.
Who is going to track down the theft by the politicians? The politicians themselves?

But then again, why not? After all...don't they already get to vote on whether or not they should get a raise in pay? :rolleyes:

We have a system of government which has run amok...ladies and gentlemen. The citizen is squeezed and squeezed until he has nothing left to give. The middle class has been obliterated, and, with the paychecks not keeping up with the rising costs of living, it is doubtful that this "middle class" will be resurrected anytime soon.

The politicians have an insatiable appetite to SPEND...and, instead of us realizing that this is the REAL problem...we are getting mad at our fellow citizens who have nothing more to give.

The truth is that the citizen is ALREADY taxed enough in this country. But even more is needed...because our state coffers are empty due to wide-spread government corruption and irresponsible spending. And here we are, asking all the WRONG questions. We are blaming our fellow citizens for not being more "successful" so they could pay more taxes...when what we SHOULD be doing is questioning why the states in this country are broke to begin with.

How the heck is a state like Illinois BROKE...when they have a thriving lotto and casino industry from which to draw obscene amounts of money? How had this God-forsaken state managed to make it during the pre-lotto and the pre-casino years?

An a**hole politician was on TV the other day...and he was asked why so many of our country's citizens were facing such bleak futures. "How"...this politician was asked..."do the people end up broke...even after a lifetime of hard work?"

And do you know what this a**hole politician's answer was?

"People don't plan to fail...they fail to plan"...he told the camera, while sporting a look laced with smug superiority.

WRONG...Mr. A**hole...that's not the reason at ALL!

The citizen DOES have a plan...and he works very hard to carry this plan to fruition. But, due to circumstances beyond his control, carrying out his plan has become an impossibility. How can the citizen carry out his plan...when you worthless SOBs in government have your arms in his pockets up to your elbows...and you are digging deeper and deeper, as time goes along?

How can he succeed...when it is YOU -- through your incompetence and your unscrupulouness -- who are keeping him mired in the sad state that he currently finds himself in?

The state has no money, ladies and gentlemen...and it has no power. Whatever money and power the state has it takes from its citizens...and the citizens suffer as a result.

It is the STATE that has become our enemy today. But we keep blaming the poor, hard-working citizen...who is working 60-hour weeks to feed, house and educate his kids. We blame him because he hasn't been able to be as successful as "Steve Jobs"...so he can satisfy the politicians unsatiable appetite for cash, without any problem.

[davew]

What, you didn't plan for the gov't to double your health insurance cost? neither did I , I guess I failed to plan for that possibility.

[JustRalph]

Great post Thask. I agree with much of it.

A couple of points.

Wisconsin has a State Budget surplus of a billion bucks

Texas has 8.8 billion surplus

Minnesota has a billion

Cuomo says New York has 2 billion "unspent funds" whatever that means. I am skeptical :lol:

The last I read, there are 19 States with surplus cash on hand. Walker and a few other Republicans are calling to cut taxes. It can be done.

Another point I would like to add.

The fact that there is almost no compound interest available today to the middle class is a travesty. 1% interest earners are losing money with inflation. Yet nobody seems to care.

I have a relative who likes to brag he's making 16% this year on his money. Lots in the market.....riding the wave. He's 40 years old and makes 200k a year in salary. His wife makes 200k. Total income last year of over 500k. They live in Houston. Another relative has 900k but is 70 yrs old. Desperately afraid of the market. Making less than 3% overall. In ultra safe hiding places.

The younger person is fond of asking why everybody else in the family can't do what he does? Make 16% on their money? He truly believes he's middle class.....

Btw, relative number 2 in this post put relative number one thru college...... :bang:

These banking rules and theories that we started using 20 yrs ago have killed the middle class and have hurt a huge portion of those Thask speaks of who had a plan and worked it. The rules changed on them.

Btw, Im just about the poorest person who sits down at Thanksgiving dinner when I go to Houston......

[Clocker]

Which is exactly as it should be. That top 10% earns more than 50% of the annual income and controls 80% of the wealth. They should pay more than 70% of the taxes.

According to you, those who make 50% of the income "should" pay more than 70% of the taxes. So what exactly is their "fair share"? And please explain why they "should". Please enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know.

Bonus question for extra credit: many high income earners already pay more than 50% of their income in various taxes. Is that "fair"? Why or why not?

[DJofSD]

"Fair means what I say it means. No more and no less."

[HUSKER55]

banks barely pay enough in savings to cover inflation.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but when the governmet issued bonds that paid a decent amount the banks had to compete for your money and savings were practical.

Not so today.

BTW, nice post thask

[Clocker]

banks barely pay enough in savings to cover inflation.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but when the governmet issued bonds that paid a decent amount the banks had to compete for your money and savings were practical.


The government doesn't set the interest rates on its bonds, the market does.

Interest rates are just another price of something in a free market. The interest rate is the price of money. Just like the price of gas or ground beef, it is subject to supply and demand. Right now, the demand for money is low (businesses are not interested in expanding) and the supply of money is high (the Federal Reserve keeps pumping money into the system). So the price of money is low.

If the economy ever starts growing, businesses will want to expand, the demand for money will increase, and interest rates will rise.

[mostpost]

You lose me once you start trying to ensure equal results
I do not know a single liberal who thinks everyone should be paid the same. On the other hand, I do not know a single conservative who doesn't think that is the goal of all liberals.

Income inequality is an unfortunate term. Income fairness would be better. The personwho delivers bread to your local grocery should not be paid as much as the person who bakes the bread. The person who bakes the bread should not be paid as much as the person who supervises several bakers and the person who supervises should not make as much as the owner of the bakery.

The question is not should all these people be paid the same; the question is what should the relationship be between their respective salaries.

[JustRalph]

I do not know a single liberal who thinks everyone should be paid the same. On the other hand, I do not know a single conservative who doesn't think that is the goal of all liberals.

Income inequality is an unfortunate term. Income fairness would be better. The personwho delivers bread to your local grocery should not be paid as much as the person who bakes the bread. The person who bakes the bread should not be paid as much as the person who supervises several bakers and the person who supervises should not make as much as the owner of the bakery.

The question is not should all these people be paid the same; the question is what should the relationship be between their respective salaries.

What about the excessive government regulation that causes the guy delivering the bread to be required to have multiple licenses, CDL etc to deliver the bread?
The extra insurance etc? He should be paid more than the baker every day.

[davew]

I do not know a single liberal who thinks everyone should be paid the same. On the other hand, I do not know a single conservative who doesn't think that is the goal of all liberals.

Income inequality is an unfortunate term. Income fairness would be better. The personwho delivers bread to your local grocery should not be paid as much as the person who bakes the bread. The person who bakes the bread should not be paid as much as the person who supervises several bakers and the person who supervises should not make as much as the owner of the bakery.

The question is not should all these people be paid the same; the question is what should the relationship be between their respective salaries.\

You forgot about all the people who do nothing except eat the bread.

[mostpost]

So someone like Steve Jobs, from humble beginnings, who took it upon himself and made something of himself, should carry the burden of those who are UNWILLING?

I am glad to see the truth is finally coming out....those evil bastards who have succeeded should always pay (to borrow your words) MORE!

If they should pay MORE than 70% of the taxes, ...how much more????
You see, there is NEVER enough for you libs. If it was 80% you would still say they should pay MORE!
Unwilling to do what? Be a computer genius who invents a new computer? Right, everyone can do that. It's a shame that so many are unwilling to do it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Unwilling to do what? Be a computer genius who invents a new computer? Right, everyone can do that. It's a shame that so many are unwilling to do it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm sure there will be a lot more of those now that we have put an end to job lock and given people the free agency to follow their passion.

[mostpost]

Horseshit! Everyone should pay a flat tax

Come up with a number and stick with it. Abolish the IRS
Your first word accurately describes your next sentence. The flat tax is a horse$*%# idea. It's a big tax cut for the wealthy and a tax increase for the poor and middle class. After the flat tax is applied to incomes the rich have more money than before and the poor have less.

If we abolish the IRS who collects the flat tax and who prosecutes those who don't pay? Just once try to think before you post.

[Clocker]

The personwho delivers bread to your local grocery should not be paid as much as the person who bakes the bread.

Do you have some objective criteria on which to base this decision, or is that what the voices in your head told you? How can you possibly presume to make such a statement with zero information about the jobs, the skills required, the demand and supply of labor, and thousands of other factors?

How do you know what "fair" and "should" mean? Why is your concept of what "should" be any better than that of anyone else on the planet? By what authority or assumption of superiority do you presume to have the knowledge to make such proclamations for everyone?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[davew]

Do you have some objective criteria on which to base this decision, or is that what the voices in your head told you? How can you possibly presume to make such a statement with zero information about the jobs, the skills required, the demand and supply of labor, and thousands of other factors?

How do you know what "fair" and "should" mean? Why is your concept of what "should" be any better than that of anyone else on the planet? By what authority or assumption of superiority do you presume to have the knowledge to make such proclamations for everyone?

Inquiring minds want to know.

mostly opinion on which union stronger.....

[Clocker]

mostly opinion on which union stronger.....

By his criteria, the Teamsters would not be allowed to negotiate for an hourly wage for its drivers equal to or greater than the prevailing wage for union bakers.

[Clocker]

He should be paid more than the baker every day.

And if he isn't, the Teamsters are gonna be picketing that bakery so fast it'll make your head spin. :p

[mostpost]

According to you, those who make 50% of the income "should" pay more than 70% of the taxes. So what exactly is their "fair share"? And please explain why they "should". Please enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know.

Bonus question for extra credit: many high income earners already pay more than 50% of their income in various taxes. Is that "fair"? Why or why not?

In the first place there is a big difference between saying that a certain group pays 70% of all taxes and saying that an individual in that group pays 70% of his or her income in taxes.

Your friends at the Heritage Foundation put the cut off for the top 10% at $116,623.

A person earning that annual income with no dependents, using only the standard deduction and exemption pays 21.6% of his income in federal income taxes. Using the same criteria, a person earning $500,000 pays 30.9%, while a person earning $1,000,000 pays 34.9% of his income. All of those numbers are a far cry from 70%.

I am not going to answer your question about someone who pays more than 50% of their income in various taxes. Tell me what various taxes includes. When you say many high income earners I expect you are referring to individuals. Don't give me statistics on a group. Does various taxes refer to federal income tax, state income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax, state, county and municipal sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, cigarette tax or all of the above and then some?

[Clocker]

I am not going to answer your question about someone who pays more than 50% of their income in various taxes.


http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/31055171.jpg

[tucker6]

Your first word accurately describes your next sentence. The flat tax is a horse$*%# idea. It's a big tax cut for the wealthy and a tax increase for the poor and middle class. After the flat tax is applied to incomes the rich have more money than before and the poor have less.

If we abolish the IRS who collects the flat tax and who prosecutes those who don't pay? Just once try to think before you post.
A flat tax in combination with all the incentives and breaks the govt gives lower incomes groups should allow for enough progressive scale that you seek. No??

[tucker6]

Your friends at the Heritage Foundation put the cut off for the top 10% at $116,623.


How was that number derived exactly? Seems low for a household. Frankly for a single person as well.

[mostpost]

Do you have some objective criteria on which to base this decision, or is that what the voices in your head told you? How can you possibly presume to make such a statement with zero information about the jobs, the skills required, the demand and supply of labor, and thousands of other factors?

How do you know what "fair" and "should" mean? Why is your concept of what "should" be any better than that of anyone else on the planet? By what authority or assumption of superiority do you presume to have the knowledge to make such proclamations for everyone?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Why are you so totally clueless? I was responding to another totally clueless poster who believes that all liberals think that everyone should be paid the same no matter what their job. My response was not about comparing particular jobs; it was an acknowledgement that some jobs are worth more than others.

But, yes, I do think that being a baker requires more skill than driving a delivery truck and considering the working conditions-time of day and heat from the ovens etc-it is a more difficult job.

[mostpost]

How was that number derived exactly? Seems low for a household. Frankly for a single person as well.
Frankly, I don't know. I googled "Top 10% pay 70% of taxes" and that was one of the results. I thought it was low too.
ETA: Here's the link
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

[tucker6]

But, yes, I do think that being a baker requires more skill than driving a delivery truck and considering the working conditions-time of day and heat from the ovens etc-it is a more difficult job.
Pay is also based on risk as well as skill (and a whole lot more). Who has the riskier job from a mortality standpoint, the baker or the driver? Who has the greater likelihood of injury, the baker or the driver?

[tucker6]

Frankly, I don't know. I googled "Top 10% pay 70% of taxes" and that was one of the results. I thought it was low too.
Thanks for the link. I don't think I'm rich and I earn more than that and I'm a single guy. :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

But, yes, I do think that being a baker requires more skill than driving a delivery truck and considering the working conditions-time of day and heat from the ovens etc-it is a more difficult job.

Working in a bakery is more difficult than working for FedEx or UPS? God love you Most.

[mostpost]

Pay is also based on risk as well as skill (and a whole lot more). Who has the riskier job from a mortality standpoint, the baker or the driver? Who has the greater likelihood of injury, the baker or the driver?

Why are we getting into a discussion of which jobs should be paid more or less? That was not my intention in my original reply. My intention was to state that income equality does not mean equal incomes. In spite of what you conservatives think us liberals believe.
ETA: That is my answer to all of you who insist on beating this dead horse.

[Clocker]

Why are you so totally clueless?

You made an unqualified statement that a baker should make more than a truck driver, and I'm the one that is clueless? :D

[thaskalos]

And what KIND of baker should make the most money?

Clearly...the baker of cakes and other sweets should make more than the baker who only bakes bread, and such.

There is obviously more "skill" needed in baking cakes...and there is also a greater margin of error present there...

[tucker6]

And what KIND of baker should make the most money?

Clearly...the baker of cakes and other sweets should make more than the baker who only bakes bread, and such.

There is obviously more "skill" needed in baking cakes...and there is also a greater margin of error present there...
How dare you pigeon hole bakers by product type. There's a special hell for people like you. ;)

[mostpost]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/31055171.jpg
I can use the same image regarding the fact that you will not answer the questions I asked right after the quote you posted.

[davew]

Frankly, I don't know. I googled "Top 10% pay 70% of taxes" and that was one of the results. I thought it was low too.
ETA: Here's the link
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

I think he clueless cuz he believes whatever he sees or hears as gospel as long as he agrees with it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

And what KIND of baker should make the most money?

Clearly...the baker of cakes and other sweets should make more than the baker who only bakes bread, and such.

There is obviously more "skill" needed in baking cakes...and there is also a greater margin of error present there...

....the tart and the torte are no easy feat either

[tucker6]

I think he clueless cuz he believes whatever he sees or hears as gospel as long as he agrees with it.
Can I have a translator in English please in aisle 5?

[ArlJim78]

I don't know how I missed this thread, it's hilarious. even to the point of breaking down baker skill level by product.

[tucker6]

....the tart and the torte are no easy feat either
I've always enjoyed the tart. :lol:

[ArlJim78]

....the tart and the torte are no easy feat either
or a souffle

[Clocker]

It appears that Hispanics (http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/12/obamacares-too-expensive-for-ya-cancel-your-cable-peasant/) may have some regrets about voting for Obama too.

On March 6, 2014, President Obama conducted a town hall meeting with Spanish-language media regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. He was asked about the concerns of many Latinos that the law is simply too expensive. He suggested that some families may be spending too much on cable television or cell phones, and not enough on health insurance.

[FantasticDan]

^Actually, what he said is that the person in question may not be prioritizing buying health insurance for his family because everyone is currently healthy. And instead the person in question chooses to spend the money on cable, cell phones, etc.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dear Leader, looking out for his flock like a concerned parent.

Was he wagging his finger while he was scolding them on what they should and shouldn't be spending their money on?

[Clocker]

Dear Leader, looking out for his flock like a concerned parent.

Was he wagging his finger while he was scolding them on what they should and shouldn't be spending their money on?

A good leader doesn't need to wag his finger. His attitude of moral authority is all it takes.

[Tom]

Why are we getting into a discussion of which jobs should be paid more or less? That was not my intention in my original reply. My intention was to state that income equality does not mean equal incomes. In spite of what you conservatives think us liberals believe.
ETA: That is my answer to all of you who insist on beating this dead horse.

It is you have not been paying attention.....we have been arguing that all along.You have missed the boat, once again.

[FantasticDan]

Was he wagging his finger while he was scolding them on what they should and shouldn't be spending their money on?See for yourself:

56xE-sogSTM