ADVERTISEMENT

More free money! It pays to be poor.

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.

Those Ukrainians are all going to die someday, so why do we care it is today?
 
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).
No other auto manufacturer before Tesla proved a totally electic vehicle would sell in the modern age. I don't know if you're old enough to remember when he started Tesa, but all the 'experts' predicted he'd fail. He has forced the auto industry into a paradigm shift. For those who think electric vehicles are a major part of 'saveing the environment', he has certainly helped advance civilization.

And no one is saying one has to be super rich to contribute to society. But putting down billionaires just because they are wealthy discounts the fact that many do major good with their wealth.

"a person's ability to make money does not necessarily correspond to that person's advancing civilization. " Well of course not. Who made that claim? I'm just pointing out that massive amounts of money - personal money - is usually required to make major advances. No one's saying all super-rich people do good with their money.
 
How old are you now? Ten years ain't long. You don't have enough spite in ya

I'm 67. No big problems, but I'm showing every one of those years and they've taken their toll. No way in hell I'll make it to 80. Hell, I'm not all that confident on Memorial Day. I'll try and drag it out as long as I can just to piss JDB off, but I have no desire to outlive my mind and body.
 
I'm 67. No big problems, but I'm showing every one of those years and they've taken their toll. No way in hell I'll make it to 80. Hell, I'm not all that confident on Memorial Day. I'll try and drag it out as long as I can just to piss JDB off, but I have no desire to outlive my mind and body.
You said you're skinny. That's a big deal. Keep getting in fights with people on here to keep your mind going and you'll be fine
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
I'm 67. No big problems, but I'm showing every one of those years and they've taken their toll. No way in hell I'll make it to 80. Hell, I'm not all that confident on Memorial Day. I'll try and drag it out as long as I can just to piss JDB off, but I have no desire to outlive my mind and body.
Tulsi will be hot for at least 15, 20 more years. You’re good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
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.

You don't HAVE to drive or use an automobile, but I digress.

Isn't auto insurance like the ACA and not really at all like single payor? You and I have an obligation to buy auto insurance. The government doesn't dictate coverage details, just that you meet some minimum threshold, right?
 
You've been an inspiration.

funny-animated-gifs-best-gifs-jon-voight-anaconda-creepy-face.gif
 
I'm 67. No big problems, but I'm showing every one of those years and they've taken their toll. No way in hell I'll make it to 80. Hell, I'm not all that confident on Memorial Day. I'll try and drag it out as long as I can just to piss JDB off, but I have no desire to outlive my mind and body.
I'm the same age you are. I'm making it my purpose in life to outlive you.

So, stay healthy, you old fart.
 
You don't HAVE to drive or use an automobile, but I digress.

Isn't auto insurance like the ACA and not really at all like single payor? You and I have an obligation to buy auto insurance. The government doesn't dictate coverage details, just that you meet some minimum threshold, right?

Isn't having a minimum threshold the same as dictating coverage details? No one would stop someone from buying extra insurance on either side.
 
No other auto manufacturer before Tesla proved a totally electic vehicle would sell in the modern age. I don't know if you're old enough to remember when he started Tesa, but all the 'experts' predicted he'd fail. He has forced the auto industry into a paradigm shift. For those who think electric vehicles are a major part of 'saveing the environment', he has certainly helped advance civilization.

And no one is saying one has to be super rich to contribute to society. But putting down billionaires just because they are wealthy discounts the fact that many do major good with their wealth.

"a person's ability to make money does not necessarily correspond to that person's advancing civilization. " Well of course not. Who made that claim? I'm just pointing out that massive amounts of money - personal money - is usually required to make major advances. No one's saying all super-rich people do good with their money.
I can agree with that (and yes, I'm old enough, thanks for asking though!). And I can get behind the idea that many, many entrepreneurs in a capitalist society are, in fact, advancing society as they make money.

But taxing them disproportionately doesn't equal putting them down, in my mind (aka finding them morally reprehensible just because they have a lot of money). I missed that as part of your earlier point, I guess. I thought this issue was more along the lines of-- we can admit individuals or corps are doing good by satisfying needs and still reasonably ask "Is there a point where we want to limit the economic power of an individual or a firm in our society?"

I recognize, though, that we have to be careful because when politicians have the ability to ask the question above, they use that as a cudgel and it is very prone to political grandstanding and use to curry votes with those who don't understand the issue. So maybe, as rule utilitarian, you'd say in a democracy we have to limit the ability of elected officials to makes these decisions.
 
You don't HAVE to drive or use an automobile, but I digress.

Isn't auto insurance like the ACA and not really at all like single payor? You and I have an obligation to buy auto insurance. The government doesn't dictate coverage details, just that you meet some minimum threshold, right
I've never thought about it before, but would nationalizing auto insurance be so wrong? Would that turn a bunch of auto accident lawyers into essentially workers comp lawyers? I think a lot do both anyway? MCM, thoughts?
 
I've never thought about it before, but would nationalizing auto insurance be so wrong? Would that turn a bunch of auto accident lawyers into essentially workers comp lawyers? I think a lot do both anyway? MCM, thoughts?
Any thing that would get rid of “only buy what you need,” Flo, and Mr. Mahem would be an improvement.

I have always thought that there should be no obligation to buy liability coverage. Everybody would then insure themselves through UM-type policies.
 
I've never thought about it before, but would nationalizing auto insurance be so wrong? Would that turn a bunch of auto accident lawyers into essentially workers comp lawyers? I think a lot do both anyway? MCM, thoughts?
Many do both. And yes it would convert them. But there are other issues like property damage etc. And WC is slow as shit. But it's still private insurance, obviously. I doubt you want to deal with the gov when trying to get your car repaired, or even get a BI settlement. If the injuries aren't serious insurance cos are fast. Faster than the gov. Hell the worst part of resolving a pi claim is if there's ERISA or Medicare. And Fed WC claims? Forget it. Postal worker gets hurt you can't even find a lawyer to take it. Insurance F's around you have vexatious refusal and third party claims. Gov forget it. Pound sand. Gov would just make things worse
 
Last edited:
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.
Since you feel so bad and think it's wrong here's a link to donate to the federal debt. :)

 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I think the 0% is the path. Forgiveness creates other issues, people should pay back exactly what they received. But if people fall behind, interest can be added in as a penalty.
So does that count as income? If I borrow money from a bank and they forgive the loan I have to claim that as income.... I think. :) Should we forgive mortgage loans when people get in over their head?
 
So does that count as income? If I borrow money from a bank and they forgive the loan I have to claim that as income.... I think. :) Should we forgive mortgage loans when people get in over their head?

If those mortgage loans had exorbitant costs and had interest set up so that all you could ever do was pay the interest and still find yourself going backwards, then yea something should be done.
 
I can agree with that (and yes, I'm old enough, thanks for asking though!). And I can get behind the idea that many, many entrepreneurs in a capitalist society are, in fact, advancing society as they make money.

But taxing them disproportionately doesn't equal putting them down, in my mind (aka finding them morally reprehensible just because they have a lot of money). I missed that as part of your earlier point, I guess. I thought this issue was more along the lines of-- we can admit individuals or corps are doing good by satisfying needs and still reasonably ask "Is there a point where we want to limit the economic power of an individual or a firm in our society?"

I recognize, though, that we have to be careful because when politicians have the ability to ask the question above, they use that as a cudgel and it is very prone to political grandstanding and use to curry votes with those who don't understand the issue. So maybe, as rule utilitarian, you'd say in a democracy we have to limit the ability of elected officials to makes these decisions.
I wasn't addressing taxation at all. I'm saying the depiction of them all as greedy bastards that deserve to be punished for their wealth by taxing their already taxed wealth is not accurate.

I'm sure you're old enough to remember the 'luxury tax' - I believe it was under Clinton? Boats and yacht makers and other luxury goods manufacturers were going out of business because those consumer rebelled at the idea of a tax targeting them.

What gets lost in all this 'tax the rich' talk is the reality of lost jobs. Like it or not the rich create a lot of jobs. Not all of them, but enough to make a real difference in local economies.

There is no limiting of the ability of Congress to tax. One Congress may pass that law, but the next will pass a new law, and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
So does that count as income? If I borrow money from a bank and they forgive the loan I have to claim that as income.... I think. :) Should we forgive mortgage loans when people get in over their head?
Federal student loans forgiven are not counted as income and are not taxed. Private loans and other debt would likely be reported - I say likely because I'm sure there are some loopholes to get around that.

I agree with the 0% interest on student loans too and I'm seeing a lot of support for that from the younger generation. I'm actually in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and my loans should be forgiven in the next two years. Even if the gov ends the forgiveness program, they will have to grandfather everyone currently in the program because most of those enrolled will have balances higher than when they entered.

Overall, I've paid less than what I would have in a standard repayment plan, but I kind of wish I hadn't entered and just paid the loans off, which I would have by now.
 
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.

Basic Qualifying Rules​

To qualify for the EITC, you must:

 
The basic difference between the poor and the rich is passive income. With ETFs and micro investment, there’s no excuse for being poor.
 

Basic Qualifying Rules​

To qualify for the EITC, you must:


Based on that I would have qualified my entire life. This is the first time TaxAct said I was eligible.
 
Based on that I would have qualified my entire life. This is the first time TaxAct said I was eligible.
Well if you qualified in the last three years, it’s my understanding you can do 1040X’s and reap your just rewards. But I’m nothing more than an average Joe with two eyeballs and two thumbs when it comes to taxes.

EDIT: According to this, you can file 1040-X’s electronically only for the last three years. I haven’t found any limitation or not beyond that. You could ask at the library. They usually have people helping with taxes voluntarily there.

I have no idea how long this EITC has been available.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the 0% interest on student loans too and I'm seeing a lot of support for that from the younger generation.
Well sure, I'm sure you'd see a lot of support for 0% interest on mortgages also from a wide range of people.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT