ADVERTISEMENT

More free money! It pays to be poor.

Does that factor in all avenues of income?

And we all know there are some wealthy (re: see what trump paid?) that don't pay anywhere near what the rate would suggest they should pay. I wouldn't care if the rate went down if the loopholes for avoiding taxes were closed.

Big part of the discrepancy in taxes paid is caused by the big discrepancy in wages. If the gap between wages at the bottom and wages at the top wasn't so huge than there wouldn't be such issue. Address the wage discrepancy and much would be fixed. As it is, you have a few people whose toughest choice is deciding on what plane, yacht, or 4th house they want to purchase while many others are trying to figure out how they can afford to pay their rent for an apartment next month with their full time job (or 2 jobs).

Maybe if they made it so the highest paid person in a company can only make 10x the amount of the lowest paid person, there wouldn't be such issue.
It's based on Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), which is a taxpayer’s total income minus certain deductions. AGI includes income comes from wages, salaries, interest, dividends, retirement income, Social Security benefits, capital gains, etc., minus deductions.
 
Like the Secures Act from 2019 supported by both sides. No more stretch IRAs from inherited retirement account from parent. Now I have to liquidate the damn thing over the next 10 years. At 50 I'm at peak earnings years. Last thing I need right now is more taxable income.

Assuming this does not change, when I retire I plan to take 4 percent out every year whether I need it or not and gift it to my kids. Might as well get ahead of the curve of death with the 10 year clock.

So to be clear, you could delay until the required minimum distribution age, but are just concerned about leaving whatever your Stretch IRA has accumulated because in the event you and your spouse were to pass, it would be taxable for your heirs?

FWIW, I think changes like this are bullshit, and that's being modest. Changing the rules during the middle of the game has profound implications for many.

Of course, if you look at the losers we elect to Congress and then it becomes a lot more clear why they do what they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
people who earn between 200k and a million a year basically are the only people paying federal income taxes
Here's the breakdown which I forgot to link in my other post:


People making over $87,917 nearly 87 percent of all federal income taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
OK, how about Tesla? How about the personal computer? How about multi-billion dollar drug companies paying talent to develop a vaccine in record time?

I don't think many people would argue the space program hasn't advanced civilization. Billionaires have develped rockets cheaper that will take us farther. I would call that advancing the knowledge of civilization.

I suppose it depends on your definitition of advancing civilization, but I would venture to say most people think the space program does that.
I'm not sure about Telsa. We had electric cars before Tesla and Ford, etc. were already working towards it. Did Musk by placing such a big bet on electric vehicles speed up the timeline? That's an advance, but I guess I hesitate to call him a "but-for" cause of electric vehicle viability and that might be something that doesn't belong in a reasonable definition of "advancing civilization."

But I was thinking about companies and those who have become rich off of them that are a bit harder for you to defend. Tobacco companies, for example. Cartel leaders who are billionaires. Some part of the military industrial complex that makes a lot of money off of landmines or such. (Aside to IGW re another thread: not the leaders of investment companies like Vanguard, though--those people actually are advancing civilization by democratizing investment opportunities for all.)

My point is that, in my mind, a person's ability to make money does not necessarily correspond to that person's advancing civilization. For example, Fred Rogers didn't make much money (although I'm sure he made good money) but I think he and his show advanced society in a pretty big way, if by nothing more than by providing a role model for how people could treat other people. I think he advanced civilization more than a high frequency trader or Cheong Choon Ng, the inventor of the Rainbow Loom (whose damn tiny rubber bands I continue to find to this day in my couch cushions).

Another, older and more stark example might be Saul of Tarsus vs. Crassus in the Roman Republic and Empire. Both had an affect on Rome. But I think Saul's advancement of civilization was more pronounced and he had far, far less money (maybe it's not fair to compare like that across cultures, times, and economies).
 
Does that factor in all avenues of income?

And we all know there are some wealthy (re: see what trump paid?) that don't pay anywhere near what the rate would suggest they should pay. I wouldn't care if the rate went down if the loopholes for avoiding taxes were closed.

Big part of the discrepancy in taxes paid is caused by the big discrepancy in wages. If the gap between wages at the bottom and wages at the top wasn't so huge than there wouldn't be such issue. Address the wage discrepancy and much would be fixed. As it is, you have a few people whose toughest choice is deciding on what plane, yacht, or 4th house they want to purchase while many others are trying to figure out how they can afford to pay their rent for an apartment next month with their full time job (or 2 jobs).

Maybe if they made it so the highest paid person in a company can only make 10x the amount of the lowest paid person, there wouldn't be such issue.
The ultra-wealthy don’t receive wages. Their taxable income comes from gains.

FWIW, I agree there should be some discrimination testing regarding reasonable wages of top-echelon F500 company officials. . Disney fired all its American upper-middle income tech workers in 2015, replaced them with lower-paid East Asians, and gave the head shed outrageous mulit-million dollar bonuses. Big law suit went nowhere. Disney required the fired employees to train the foreign replacements in order to receive severance packages. From then I saw Mickey Mouse as a mercenary rat instead of a cartoon character. Disney has zero interest in social good. All their woke stuff is a crock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
So to be clear, you could delay until the required minimum distribution age, but are just concerned about leaving whatever your Stretch IRA has accumulated because in the event you and your spouse were to pass, it would be taxable for your heirs?

FWIW, I think changes like this are bullshit, and that's being modest. Changing the rules during the middle of the game has profound implications for many.

Of course, if you look at the losers we elect to Congress and then it becomes a lot more clear why they do what they do.
In general, spouses inheriting an IRA have the most leeway and can treat as their own and take the RMD over their life expectancy. So really if I die first my wife herself is not directly impacted. But the problem is snowballing for my kids.

But when she dies our kids will be expected to zero balance all inheteted retirement accounts by year 10. In our case, my company still offers a pension and as a teacher my wife gets one. It is a good problem to have (humble brag), but our various retirement accounts are somewhat gravy. So my thinking is start taking 4 percent out when we quit (like age 57) and then start gifting the kids each year at Christmas with any "leftover money".

I figure that way we can see them enjoy the money while at the same time not subjecting them to the 10 year pain crap we are going through. Hopefully that answers your question/makes sense. Like all things tax related, it us complicated and there are certain exceptions.
 
I agree, but at some level to accumulate that wealth one has had to have income. 1%ers make enough income that they own space programs, football teams worth close to a billion or more, paintings, racehorses, and estates that make up that 27% of total US ownership. Assuming a djinn didn't just grant them a wish, the tax code has not been an impediment.
The tax code shouldn’t be an impediment.
 
Covering pre-existing is big, and difficult. The debates here as ACA was debated centered around the idea you cannot have a system where someone can call from the back of an ambulance to get their heart attack covered. They need to pay in before, and after.

ACA has problems. The entire system does. IU Health just gave a $4 million plus donation to IU Medicine. IU Health is "not for profit".

The same people who argue drug companies are ripping us off with vaccines refuse to believe the rest of the medical industry is. Single payer would give the people a hell of a lot (alot :) ) of power in rates for services, medicine, everything. The power would shift from "you will pay what we want because we know you do not want to die (or whatever)".

I had to have a kidney stone blasted in January. The pre-insurance price was $24,000. My OOP with insurance was $5200. I was on the thing for 45 minutes, tops.

Now I could have elected to pass the thing and hope it passes, given it's size there was doubt. But anyone who has had stones knows that is not a good answer. But that amount seems absurd. I could hire both you and CO as attorneys for 45 minutes (barely) for my $5200. That doesn't include the amount my insurance paid.

But any attempt to discuss ways to improve this is totally stymied.
Marvin, you left out some really important numbers...that donation was $416 million, not $4 million!

And they still had over $800 million in 'profits' after that donation.
 
As far as medical costs go,

“On average, a doctor spends anywhere from $68,000 to $85,000 a year (about 14% of total revenue, or almost one-third of a primary care physician’s salary) on billing and insurance company issues.”​

 
As far as medical costs go,

“On average, a doctor spends anywhere from $68,000 to $85,000 a year (about 14% of total revenue, or almost one-third of a primary care physician’s salary) on billing and insurance company issues.”​

I don't know enough whether this is true, but have heard the billing efficiencies gained through Medicare would be a huge savings for healthcare providers. No idea if true.
 
“On average, a doctor spends anywhere from $68,000 to $85,000 a year (about 14% of total revenue, or almost one-third of a primary care physician’s salary) on billing and insurance company issues.”

The math tells me that the primary's salary would then be $230,000 or thereabouts. That's for a primary, not a specialist.

So we have to ask the Goldilocks question... too much, too little, or just right?
 
As far as medical costs go,

“On average, a doctor spends anywhere from $68,000 to $85,000 a year (about 14% of total revenue, or almost one-third of a primary care physician’s salary) on billing and insurance company issues.”​

That sounds reasonable. Basically one employee doing the billing. 14% of gross doesn’t sound out of line either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I read the other day that some Dem voters are pissed and flipping on the Dems and voting Repub because of the end of Tax Credit checks. Think how F'd up that logic is. The Dems gave them something but through no fault of their own couldn't keep giving it to them and now they're are pissed at the Dems.
Sounds like a shit ton of blue-collar Trump voters.
 
You have weird metrics for “better”. Obamacare has been an abject failure by every important metric.

You have normal sophistry when you pretend healthcare insurance dictates healthcare costs and outcomes. A bunch of your fellow posters fell for your bullshit. Be proud.
 
You have normal sophistry when you pretend healthcare insurance dictates healthcare costs and outcomes. A bunch of your fellow posters fell for your bullshit. Be proud.
huh? I’ve always posted about the importance of better health over better health insurannce.

But Obamacare was all about improving coverage and access. Not necessarily improving health. Obamacare has failed at its own objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The big lie . . . Trump does pay taxes. Just because he doesn't owe money at tax time does not necessarily mean he doesn't "prepay" some taxes.

If you prepay more than you owe, when you do file, you have been giving the government an INTEREST FREE loan.
Shame on me for believing his lie.
 
huh? I’ve always posted about the importance of better health over better health insurannce.

But Obamacare was all about improving coverage and access. Not necessarily improving health. Obamacare has failed at its own objective.
Texas two-step?

Why did you link data on higher costs and worse outcomes as evidence for worsening coverage and access?
 
The math tells me that the primary's salary would then be $230,000 or thereabouts. That's for a primary, not a specialist.

So we have to ask the Goldilocks question... too much, too little, or just right?
That's a tough one. I'd say just right to maybe too little. There's guys pulling $200k selling medical equipment with just a Bach from a directional school to doctors. Docs have years and years of tuition and lost income to recoup before they ever start making real money
 
Last edited:
I'm kinda like Mark (or how ever it was). I did not get the 3rd buy some votes paycheck (err stimulus check). But now they are making me take it (or purger myself on my tax return). It feels like YOU WILL TAKE THIS MONEY AND THANK US FOR IT YOU LITTLE BITC...
These are not people qualified to buy the brushes used by another person to clean the urinal's at my dog catching business.
Although the covid plandimic cost me a 40% loss of income, I don't need the money. But if this how they finally kill the best country in human history. I'll take my stipend and move on. ... I may start painting with a straw and doing crack. Seems to pay pretty well.
 
@TheOriginalHappyGoat if you still have any loans, no need to pay them any longer. Despite the highest GDP and wage growth rate in decades, borrowers don’t have to pay while Dems push for permanent forgiveness.

this is about as pathetic and disgusting as it gets, for a so-called “moderate”. I hope the fall is an even bigger onslaught.

Who called goat a "moderate"?
 
Did my taxes today. Wasn't expecting anything back, since our income is nothing more than our Social Security and my McDonald's level wages for the part time delivery job (and a smidgen of interest and dividends). In fact, my wages are so low that they don't even deduct any Federal Income Tax.

But lo and behold, Uncle Sam is giving me $1500 just for having a shitty part time job, with the Earned Income Tax Credit. Free fvcking money. Paid none in and get a nice chunk back anyway. What a country.

Seriously, something isn't right. Some might recall my consternation last year at getting all my Federal Income Taxes refunded last year. Now they're freaking paying me. Granted, I'm a poor bastard and can't afford to pay attention, but I'm okay and feel like I should have some skin in the game, even if it's a token amount. Last year paying zero bothered me; now I'm getting paid for breathing.

Just had to get that off my chest. Thanks to all, especially @JamieDimonsBalls and @mcmurtry66 . You guys are the best. Keep up the good work.
If you have grandchildren then give them a big hug and kiss. Tell them you are grateful to them because this free money will be put on them.
 
That sounds reasonable. Basically one employee doing the billing. 14% of gross doesn’t sound out of line either.

I have over the years linked a story about healthcare costs. Chattanooga, called "the buckle of the stroke belt" had the cheapest healthcare. Georgia (southeast or southwest) had the highest.

The reason was competition, Chattanooga had an unusually high number of unaffiliated doctors. That area of Georgia had one corporate provider.

Costs like this make it much harder for a an individual doctor or a small group to compete with the corporate.

Years ago I had a doctor whose group was in negotiation with Anthem. I asked him about it, he said it was a huge time suck meeting with Anthem, meeting with his group, going back to Anthem. They were dropped by Anthem for about a year. This was well before ACA, so much for "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".

Here is that article I love.


IF we had robust competition, maybe the competitive market would work. We do not, it isn't close, so IU Health has to explain a $400 million donation. If we do not have robust competition, and we do not, we need to have the thumb on the scale for the consumer because they are screwed.
 
Single payer disproportionately benefits those that use the healthcare system more though, particularly if they require specialty and/or hospital care. I'm already getting taxed up more than I feel like I get back from our government. If you switch to single payor healthcare, the feeling materially worsens.

No different than insurance. That's how it works. There are winners and losers.

Your feelz have no bearing on it.
 
I have over the years linked a story about healthcare costs. Chattanooga, called "the buckle of the stroke belt" had the cheapest healthcare. Georgia (southeast or southwest) had the highest.

The reason was competition, Chattanooga had an unusually high number of unaffiliated doctors. That area of Georgia had one corporate provider.

Costs like this make it much harder for a an individual doctor or a small group to compete with the corporate.

Years ago I had a doctor whose group was in negotiation with Anthem. I asked him about it, he said it was a huge time suck meeting with Anthem, meeting with his group, going back to Anthem. They were dropped by Anthem for about a year. This was well before ACA, so much for "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".

Here is that article I love.


IF we had robust competition, maybe the competitive market would work. We do not, it isn't close, so IU Health has to explain a $400 million donation. If we do not have robust competition, and we do not, we need to have the thumb on the scale for the consumer because they are screwed.
The stroke belt. Yikes that's awful. Moonpies and Calabash
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
No different than insurance. That's how it works. There are winners and losers.

Your feelz have no bearing on it.

oh you mean like insurance that I have the option to buy or not buy? Huh, interesting that you think feelz are the problem instead of government imposition.

newsflash… your health isn’t a right.
 
oh you mean like insurance that I have the option to buy or not buy? Huh, interesting that you think feelz are the problem instead of government imposition.

newsflash… your health isn’t a right.
Like your auto insurance you don't have?

Randy Newman should have changed the song from short people to poor people. "poor people got no reason to live" would be wildly today.
 
Like your auto insurance you don't have?

Randy Newman should have changed the song from short people to poor people. "poor people got no reason to live" would be wildly today.

There's a reason I called out JDB when I started this thread.
 
Like your auto insurance you don't have?

Randy Newman should have changed the song from short people to poor people. "poor people got no reason to live" would be wildly today.
So then why are we prolonging their “reasonless” lives? That’s the biggest part of the healthcare cost issue… funding Marks continuous health problems for the next 25 years.
 
Happy hour is lingering. I don't get your point re auto insurance
He said he doesn't have to pay for insurance, he has to pay for auto. And and sone of that cost depends on how safe other drivers are in his area, not entirely how safe he is.
 
So then why are we prolonging their “reasonless” lives? That’s the biggest part of the healthcare cost issue… funding Marks continuous health problems for the next 25 years.

Naw, that's not going to happen. I give myself ten years, tops. You'll miss me when I'm gone.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mcmurtry66
He said he doesn't have to pay for insurance, he has to pay for auto. And and sone of that cost depends on how safe other drivers are in his area, not entirely how safe he is.
I see. I was just thinking the purpose between the two insurance types are different. Auto is to protect others from your fault while health is to protect yourself
 
So then why are we prolonging their “reasonless” lives? That’s the biggest part of the healthcare cost issue… funding Marks continuous health problems for the next 25 years.
The terms health care and Health insurance are scam words, that actually mean, to prolong the inevitable. Even people with single payer, "they get it so much better then those eff'ing pub's in the USA" still DIE.
OH OH OH, I know, lets force 60% of an economy's $ to pay a profession that ALL OF THEIR PATIENTS DIE.
then saying.. Whew, I feel better. At least we tried. ... I'm Joe_hoopsier running for congress and I profit so you you.... die, slower.
 
  • Love
Reactions: NOT joe_hoopsier
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT