RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care

RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 1:48:27 PM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 I don't see how it is low though. Most of them are paying like 35% to 40% over all isn't it? Over what????Income tax, state and federal, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, capital gains tax,....please define your terms. I guess compared to us. We pay nothing if we make under 30k. After all the subsidies. Then after that, it's just 4%. You are a lying sack of shit. I have posted the true tax that those in that third world shithole called Singapore pay. Anyone who knows how to use google can see clearly what a lying sack of shit you are. But for them, I remembered their tax rate, they start taxing people who just makes 6k per annum or something. In any country with a sales tax you start paying tax on the most minimum of purchases. I can't imagine people earning so little being able to afford taxes. Looking at the other thread about Millionaires leaving Germany, so they are losing money on taxes from high income group! US needs to encourage more rich folks to migrate to the US, and then have less tax loopholes for them, so that, they can use that money to fund their health program! Just googled and look. This is just Federal Tax Rate, and it's damn high! Haven't included their individual state income tax on top of that yet! Since all states are different, hard to calculate that, but that's still alot! $0—$13,250 10% $13,251—$50,400 $1,325 plus 15% of the amount over $13,250 $50,401—$130,150 $6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400 $130,151—$210,800 $26,835 plus 28% of the amount over $130,150 $210,801—$413,350 $49,417 plus 33% of the amount over $210,800 $413,351—$441,000 $116,258.50 plus 35% of the amount over $413,350 $441,001 or more $125,936 plus 39.6% of the amount over $441,000 One more reason I point out so often that Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 1:56:20 PM)
ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Point 1) Yes, people may pay income taxes on part of their social security benefits if they exceed certain income levels. However, what appears as a deduction on workers' paychecks is only half of the required social security tax. The other half is paid by their employer and does not appear on the workers' paychecks. I would take exception to the characterization that the employer is paying half of the employees tax. The part that the employer pays is part of the employees compensation. Therefore it is the employees money and not the employers money. The employee never sees any part of the money that is paid into the tax system so to call half of it his and the other half the employer is less than accurate.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:19:45 PM)
You have some very strange notions Ken. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Single payer insurance would be payment to the state, thus both creating a monopoly and putting insurance out of busness within the sttate. Actually, it doesn't. It does not create a monopoly. Having a single-payer system does not eradicate private healthcare - it compliments it. Private healthcare (such as you have now) still thrives for those that want to pay extra for it. That's exactly how it works for everywhere there is socialised healthcare - the private (insurance-based) healthcare still makes a good living alongside social healthcare. You have to get the notion of "insurance" out of your head for single-payer systems. Everyone pays a standard rate for total coverage regardless of age, pre-existing conditions or any other factors. There is no tayloring of what is covered either; men pay for women's problems just as women pay for men's problems - it's all one melting pot. Everyone pays whether you use the system or not; there are no discounts or 'no-claims' bonuses for not using it. Equally well, there is no co-pay or other expenses (apart from prescription charges) for a single-payer system. And sure, some will use it more than others just because their mentality is such they want to get their money's worth. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I wonder if this might be a RICO violation. I also wonder if the state then would maintain control over the health care decisions of the people, People get to choose whether to use social or private healthcare when they get sick. The healthcare providers don't make decisions for the people. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey how much pay health care officials and institutions can make within the state, Every position within the healthcare system has a pay scale just like it does already. The only difference I know of is that social healthcare providers usually work within agreed limits whereas in the private sector they can charge what the hell they like to anyone prepared to pay the price. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I would consider this does meet the requirements of ACA. Would this include worker comp medical issues since the state is the sole payer? Usually, socially-provided thealthcare is more universal and encompasses most medical issues whereas the private insurance companies often put restrictions on what they cover. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey What about elective procedures, where do they fall into the mix? Elective proceedures are no different to any other medical proceedure. If your single-payer system covers it - it's covered just like all other conditions. What I suspect will happen is much the same as what happened to Obamacare - it'll end up being a fudged insurance-based system rather than true single-payer. In a single-payer system, no insurance companies, or their exorbitant profiteering, is involved in decisions or the running of the system.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:26:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Point 1) Yes, people may pay income taxes on part of their social security benefits if they exceed certain income levels. However, what appears as a deduction on workers' paychecks is only half of the required social security tax. The other half is paid by their employer and does not appear on the workers' paychecks. I would take exception to the characterization that the employer is paying half of the employees tax. The part that the employer pays is part of the employees compensation. Therefore it is the employees money and not the employers money. The employee never sees any part of the money that is paid into the tax system so to call half of it his and the other half the employer is less than accurate. That may be true for the US but not for many other countries. For instance, we have a basic income tax paid by the employee. The 'social security tax' as it was called is often divided into two (almost equal) parts. Half paid by the employee, the other half paid by the employer. The employer part is not from the employee salary - it is paid by the employer in addition to the employee salary and is not the employees money at all.

Termyn8or -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery US pays far lower taxes than most developed western nations. Americans like to pretend it's not so. It is. Yes, but they get something for their money. Like not having to pay ten grand a year in health care premiums and ten grand a year in deductibles. Also, if they get sick they don't lose their house. T^T

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:47:31 PM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 this has some of that information: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally True on the whole but not even in the same zip code with the whole truth.

Termyn8or -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:51:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Real0ne it worked great when I was a child before gubmint mobsters stuck their fingers in the pie. My father was the sole breadwinner paid all the family medical bills out of pocket with change left over. Not today, not now that the only way you can get medication is through the medical cabal with your permission slip from a doctor and its become a bandaid industry rather than curing disease hypocratic profession.[/color] Your memory is faulty. Don't be so sure. I remember when people used to pay their own medical bills. A doctor visit was $20, not the copay, the whole bill. One worked out of his house near my Grandparent's house and you could walk there without crossing a major street. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Greta75 I do feel like US taxes are insane. With that kind of tax you guys are paying. It should technically cover medical insurance as well. US just sucks at budgeting and using their taxpayers money wisely! All one need do to understand the why of it is to look at our military budget. That's another thing that ought to change. We needn't be defending all these other countries instead of our own. Now if they had to maintain their own effective military, what would become of their tax rate ? They would probably have plenty of trouble paying for universal healthcare. T^T

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:58:31 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 The 'social security tax' as it was called is often divided into two (almost equal) parts. Half paid by the employee, the other half paid by the employer. The employer part is not from the employee salary - it is paid by the employer in addition to the employee salary and is not the employees money at all. You are missing my point. If we call what it cost the employer to employ a worker is the total amount of money it cost the employer that is the total compensation for the employee...thus the employee's money and not the employers. How one wishes to keep the books is what ever it is.

Termyn8or -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 2:59:46 PM)
quote: I would take exception to the characterization that the employer is paying half of the employees tax. The part that the employer pays is part of the employees compensation. Therefore it is the employees money and not the employers money. The employee never sees any part of the money that is paid into the tax system so to call half of it his and the other half the employer is less than accurate. Same reason they started the income tax deduction. Used to be people sent in their return with a check. But then "they" figured that if the people never saw the money they would not miss it. T^T

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:00:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Yes, but they get something for their money. Like not having to pay ten grand a year in health care premiums and ten grand a year in deductibles. Also, if they get sick they don't lose their house. T^T Yup

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 The 'social security tax' as it was called is often divided into two (almost equal) parts. Half paid by the employee, the other half paid by the employer. The employer part is not from the employee salary - it is paid by the employer in addition to the employee salary and is not the employees money at all. You are missing my point. If we call what it cost the employer to employ a worker is the total amount of money it cost the employer that is the total compensation for the employee...thus the employee's money and not the employers. How one wishes to keep the books is what ever it is. Didn't miss the point at all. For some companies, their portion of social security tax can be refundable or written off against other taxes. It is entirely separate from what it costs the company to employ someone. If it were part of the employee's money, they would be paying tax on it but they don't.

Termyn8or -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:03:25 PM)
quote: The employer part is not from the employee salary - it is paid by the employer in addition to the employee salary and is not the employees money at all. Yes it is their money. So are UI and comp premiums. This is all money that could be going into the employees' pocket but it does not. T^T

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:06:48 PM)
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Real0ne it worked great when I was a child before gubmint mobsters stuck their fingers in the pie. My father was the sole breadwinner paid all the family medical bills out of pocket with change left over. Not today, not now that the only way you can get medication is through the medical cabal with your permission slip from a doctor and its become a bandaid industry rather than curing disease hypocratic profession. Your memory is faulty. Don't be so sure. I remember when people used to pay their own medical bills. A doctor visit was $20, not the copay, the whole bill. One worked out of his house near my Grandparent's house and you could walk there without crossing a major street. T^T Gasoline was .30 cents a gallon and the minimum wage was .90 cents an hour. Work twenty minutes and get a gallon of gas. Now the minimum wage is about 9.00 per hour and gasoline is $3.00 a gallon...still twenty minutes for a gallon of gas. That $20 bucks for a doctors visit is the same twenty hours of labor today at $200. It is just that old phoques like us get 'sticker shock' when we get the bill.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: The employer part is not from the employee salary - it is paid by the employer in addition to the employee salary and is not the employees money at all. Yes it is their money. So are UI and comp premiums. This is all money that could be going into the employees' pocket but it does not. T^T So if you are hired for $10k a year, that's what it costs the employer to hire you. That's what they can claim as employment costs and are discounted from profit taxes. The extra government tax of $1k is, and never was, part of the employee's salary.

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:09:45 PM)
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or ORIGINAL: thompsonx All one need do to understand the why of it is to look at our military budget. That's another thing that ought to change. We needn't be defending all these other countries instead of our own. Now if they had to maintain their own effective military, what would become of their tax rate ? They would probably have plenty of trouble paying for universal healthcare. T^T Who are we defending them from?

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:14:13 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 So if you are hired for $10k a year, that's what it costs the employer to hire you. That's what they can claim as employment costs and are discounted from profit taxes. The extra government tax of $1k is, and never was, part of the employee's salary. There are individual differences but a broad rule of thumb is if you hire someone for five dollars an hour which is $10,000 per year it will cost the employer $20,000. Here that entire amount is tax deductible for the employer. That is why I said that it is really part of the employees compensation and not some sort of "gift" from the employer.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 3:41:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 So if you are hired for $10k a year, that's what it costs the employer to hire you. That's what they can claim as employment costs and are discounted from profit taxes. The extra government tax of $1k is, and never was, part of the employee's salary. There are individual differences but a broad rule of thumb is if you hire someone for five dollars an hour which is $10,000 per year it will cost the employer $20,000. Here that entire amount is tax deductible for the employer. That is why I said that it is really part of the employees compensation and not some sort of "gift" from the employer. You're right - it's not a "gift" from the employer. It's a government tax. The money is never seen by the employee. To lump government taxes as part of the employee income or cost is a misnomer. If you are hired for $10k a year gross - that's what it costs the employer. Period. If what you say is true (and I don't know enough about US taxes to argue the point), that the whole cost is deductable, I'd better tell my friend in NC because he can't deduct that government tax from his operating profit account that he pays federal tax on.

Greta75 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 10:59:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You are a lying sack of shit. I have posted the true tax that those in that third world shithole called Singapore pay. Anyone who knows how to use google can see clearly what a lying sack of shit you are. Thompson, I think you don't understand the difference between tax and a forced retirement savings account means. You keep bringing up the amount we contribute to our retirement savings acccounts as tax. Do you know it's like a bank account, where we can log in and look at how much money is in our retirement account and monitor it's progress anytime, we can also use the money inside to invest in stocks market to grow it better, and also it earns 4% interest every year if we simply choose to leave it to earn the interest inside, to grow our money for retirement. You are always complaining that the CPF is tax. But you don't seem to understand what tax means. So let me explain to you as idiot proof as possible. The difference between Tax and a Retirement Savings account is, one it is 100% your money for your usage. Tax is money for government usage. Get it? Our government cannot touch the money inside our Retirement savings account that you keep claiming it's tax. Our Income Tax Rate is all Transparent HERE, so it's clearly much cheaper than what US citizens are paying. But on top of that, there is a compulsory contribution of 20% to our Retirement Savings Account that earns you 4% interest, and will be used to fund your retirement from 65 yrs old onwards. The money inside the Retirement Savings Accounts can be used for, mortgage for your roof, your children's education and your medical insurance and life insurance and mortgage loan insurance and medical care too. And you can use the money for investments in unit trusts or buying stocks and shares. If you die before you finish the money inside. Your children or wife will inherit 100% of what's left inside. So the 20% is definitely not tax. On top of that, the employer has to contribute on their end an additional 16% of your salary, on top of what they paid you, to your Retirement account too. So you'll have more than just 20% of your salary inside. And the account takes care of retirement/medical/children's education/your own further education/mortgage/insurances. That's pretty good use of your money. All the essential basic things. We are treated like children, so the government hold hostage of 20% of our salary every month to make sure that, that money is only spent on meaningful things, and not like splurge it on holidays and other stupid things. But in many ways, if they didn't do this, I think many people who have not bothered to save for retirement and end up having nothing in the end. I like our system alot. It makes sense. Kinda empowering each individual to use their own money to take care of themselves. And also making sure they spend it wisely.

Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 11:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Wonder how it is going to be paid for? Well you know, when it comes to insurance, the more widely you spread the risk the fairer the premiums become for everyone, and if you take profit out of the equation then you get the lowest premium cost possible in the bargain, all of which would seem to make single payer pretty much a no-brainer. But for it to actually work you have to balance the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two. That would require a bureaucracy to administer, with all the associated additional costs, which will predictably expand until they consume any gains. And since there is no bureaucratic element at all existing in corporations, we can see where the edge lies there, as evidenced by the US' most expensive system in the world by 50 % above the next-most.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625