quote:

No, because in a free market it is impossible for health insurance premiums to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford them. The implication would be that medical care is only provided to the wealthy, which is a reducto ad absurdum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
And when health insurance premiums after the $40k family has committed their finances, it won't bankrupt them?

No, because in a free market it is impossible for health insurance premiums to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford them. The implication would be that medical care is only provided to the wealthy, which is a reducto ad absurdum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas




You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden?

You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Altruistic appearances:
Reid, who wants to get a healthcare bill finished by Christmas, urged Republicans on the Senate floor to forego a debate on several conference reports this weekend in order to give Senators and staffers the weekend off.

Of course a shot at the powerless side of the aisle,most likely to garner bi partisan support.
"I understand the Republican leader doesn't want us to do health care. I appreciate that. He and I have different positions on that," said Reid. "I see no reason to punish everybody this weekend and I hope the minority will give strong consideration to the proposal that I've made."

A higher priority disclosed:
It turns out Reid has a 1,000 plus per plate fundraiser scheduled for Saturday in New Orleans, according to one local paper, which also reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, a key swing moderate in the health care debate, will also be in attendance.

Only self serving disclosure.

Sorry - no quotes from the delusional still believing what's going to come out of Congress will provide better care, more access, or cause premiums to go down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden?

You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money?

I doubt the first statement, but if it is true, its because half the fucking country doesnt pay any taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The second statement is clearly false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Um.. may wanna recheck your figures... the 100,000 pay range has already been paying

Maximum Taxable Earnings:

Social Security (OASDI only) 2008 - $102,000 and 2009 - $106,800

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310

and i havent heard a word about them going bankrupt

excuuuuuse me for rounding. 6% of 6800...4k extra taxes, no big deal. 6% of 200k (the range I put) 12k...very big deal, even to a 300k earner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden?

You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money?

I doubt the first statement, but if it is true, its because half the fucking country doesnt pay any taxes.

That's kind of my point: crying about "taxes are too high" doesn't help the majority of Americans anywhere near as much as fixing health insurance.

By the way, I misspoke in one respect. My data actually was for the median, not the average.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The second statement is clearly false.

What do you base that wild assertion on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes.

Given that you just two posts earlier admitted that most Americans don't pay anywhere near as much taxes as health insurance premiums in the first place, it seems to me that this is not exactly a big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Um.. may wanna recheck your figures... the 100,000 pay range has already been paying

Maximum Taxable Earnings:

Social Security (OASDI only) 2008 - $102,000 and 2009 - $106,800

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310

and i havent heard a word about them going bankrupt

excuuuuuse me for rounding. 6% of 6800...4k extra taxes, no big deal. 6% of 200k (the range I put) 12k...very big deal, even to a 300k earner.

To begin, 6% of $106,800 is $6,408.  You did, however, manage to get the second amount right.  Bravo Willbeur.  Though I'm not sure why a financial expert like you needs to round numbers.  Is it really that much harder to use 6.2%?

But I guess the lingering question is how 6% to someone making $106,800 is no big deal, while 6% to someone making $200,000 is a very big deal.

It would seem to me that 6% would impact the lower earner far more than the person who makes more.

But then again, I don't understand these complicated financial calculations as well as an expert like you does.

quote:

Yes, I misstated the first amount..but not in the way you think, because your math wasnt responding to the same issue I was.

We are talking about the impact of ADDITIONAL TAXES. Tazzy was quibbling over my rounding of $106,800 to 100,000, so I was pointing out that that difference is not a big deal. However 6% of the INCREMENTAL 200k taxed for a 300k salary is a big deal.

You are tripling his SS tax from 6k to 18k a year. His discretionary income after taxes (with typical itemized deductions) and typical 5% 401k contribution (about the only savings anyone is doing at that level) is around $140,000. Pull mortgage and real estate taxes out of that and your down to about 80,000. Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford.

<start the violins from the bleeding hearts who dont think anyone needs 68k to live on>

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.

It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.

quote:

Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Yes, I misstated the first amount..but not in the way you think, because your math wasnt responding to the same issue I was.

We are talking about the impact of ADDITIONAL TAXES. Tazzy was quibbling over my rounding of $106,800 to 100,000, so I was pointing out that that difference is not a big deal. However 6% of the INCREMENTAL 200k taxed for a 300k salary is a big deal.

You are tripling his SS tax from 6k to 18k a year. His discretionary income after taxes (with typical itemized deductions) and typical 5% 401k contribution (about the only savings anyone is doing at that level) is around $140,000. Pull mortgage and real estate taxes out of that and your down to about 80,000. Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford.

<start the violins from the bleeding hearts who dont think anyone needs 68k to live on>

LOL.... Damn, you cant even read can you.

allow me to remind you what you said..... fuck the allow, im gonna do it anyways...

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.

It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.

Per YOUR post, you stated those who paid SS taxes on incomes of 100K would go bankrupt. I stated ... THEY ALREADY ARE! AND THEY ARENT GOING BANKRUPT

Now, cant you keep a damn thing straight?

Now.. here is another bee for your bonnet...

quote:

Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford.

Like i should give a damn about something who has 80K left over while 1 in 6 households in this country cant put food on the table...

poor babies may not be able to take that summer vaca in the hamptons or that cruise next year... tsk tsk.

Go cry a fucking river some where else!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

money grubbers.

such a lovely comment from you at this time of year. hand outs indeed.