maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:24 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You never told me what the difference was between a family who makes 50k a year living in Houston and one who lives in NYC making 50k a year. Is there a difference?


Sure there is.

Does our progressive income tax system make any allowances for cost of living? Does the person in NYC pay the same income tax as the person in Houston?

How about Social Security? Do they both get the same check?


Who determines the cost of living in each state? How is this determined? Are you advocating that it is not important?


I am saying that it is no more or less important than how we charge income tax. We do not charge different income tax rates based on location, we should not charge different health insurance rates based on location.

Quote:

If that's true then I assure you that some will be forced to pay, but unable to afford it.


Oh, YOU assure me. How do you know? Are some people charged more income tax then they can afford to pay? What do these people do? Besides the average salary/income in NYC is quite a bit more than the average salary/income in Houston.

Quote:

Also, how will we charge people who post no income each year, who receive no paycheck - yet still use the system? What about people who don't file taxes?


If someone does not receive any pay/income, they would then qualify to be subsidized under Clinton AND Obama's plan.

Are you asking about people who don't file taxes but earn an income? We have laws in place to find/penalize these a$$holes.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:34 pm
Average salary per capita

New York = 40,507
Texas = 32,462


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:40 pm
Quote:

Oh, YOU assure me. How do you know? Are some people charged more income tax then they can afford to pay? What do these people do? Besides the average salary/income in NYC is quite a bit more than the average salary/income in Houston.


I'm sure that some are charged more income tax then they can afford to pay. But that's not really my argument.

My argument is that it is impractical to charge folks the same rate when they live in different areas and pay different amounts of money for literally everything in their lives.

Living here in the Bay area, my rent is probably higher then yours. My food is more expensive. My gasoline is probably more expensive. Does Illinois have state taxes? CA does. We have higher emissions standards, which require more upkeep on the cars. My utility bills are more expensive. Because rent for stores are more expensive, the prices of nearly all goods are higher. This directly leads me to having less money in my pocket then someone who makes the same amount as me elsewhere - and I can verifiably guarantee you that the wages for most jobs here, while a little higher, are not proportionally higher then they are in other places. Not even close.

So pardon me if it seems a little odd, that you would think someone who lived in two different places would be impacted the same way by a rise in their taxes - and that is what it will be under mandates, due to people's individual situation.

What if your employer currently provides you health care for free or for almost no money? How many families who currently pay not much for health care will be forced to start paying more, under a plan whose costs are neither understood nor proven? It would effectively cost me more money with each paycheck. I don't think that's very fair. That's the problem with mandates; it doesn't take people's individual differences into account. It won't take people's individual financial situations into account. What will be determined as 'rich enough' in one place won't suffice everywhere. You want universal health care? Fine. I want a special credit b/c of my residence in an expensive state. Multiply this by a whole heck of a lot of people and add it to the amount of the subsidies.

Well, is my company going to continue to pay for me under the new program? I don't know. What if other companies decide to cut their health program, but don't put that extra money into the pockets of their We don't know for sure. There are just so many unanswered questions about how this plan is going to work out, that it's difficult for me to think that buying into it is a good idea.

Let me ask ya: do you support Hillary's plan b/c you are a Hillary supporter, or because you honestly understand everything that goes into it? Every time I raise objections over the parts of the plan which are not spelled out - by her or anyone - such as exactly how or when the costs are going to drop, or other large problems, you just brush them off as if they are immaterial. They are not. I believe that you are exhibiting some of the same 'Messianism' that you accuse me or others of. You're not as interested in discussing the problems with your candidate, or her plan, as you are in slavishly defending something you passionately believe in.

I understand - trust me. I don't even blame ya. But don't pretend that we are any different. Let me be clear that I don't believe that Obama's plan is much better on any of these questions - but then again, we can wait to see if the efficiencies work before committing ourselves to something.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:50 pm
I don't passionately believe in Hillary.

What I believe in is healthcare for everyone. I believe in this issue for financial reason (not the short term that you are focused on, but long term), and for compassionate reasons (45 million w/o HC is unacceptable, 15 million would be too). Single payer would be optimal, but no one is offering that.

I DON'T understand everything that goes into her plan, but the way I see it is that it is identical to Obama's plan, but it covers everybody, which IS the BEST thing for America in the long run.

I understand how you could simply disregard this as Messianism for Clinton, but this is an issue that I feel strongly about, and have posted about frequently outside the Clinton/Obama context.



In regards to the cost of living matter, using your logic it would also make sense to take cost of living into account in regards to income taxes as well right?

If it's unfair for healthcare, then it's unfair for income taxes right?


And in regards to the price going up, you keep forgetting about the costs going down (I know, I know, there's no absolute proof), the rollback of Bush's tax cuts, etc.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:52 pm
Cyclo,

One of the consequences of the California factors you listed is that businesses that are able to choose the location of their offices and employees, generally try hard to avoid California and other like states. Eventually the cumulative economic effects of this induce state governments to reduce expenditures & taxes and often silly regulation of business activity. Unfortunately that hasn't yet happened in California, so business flight continues.

Your utility bills are high because apart from very expensive wind turbines (which produce very little power) there have been almost no power plants constructed in the state for several decades, even though power consumption has grown significantly. California is now a major importer of electricity produced east of the Sierras. State attempts to regulate and outsmart the industry under former governor Davis ended in a fiasco that cost the state huge sums. Eventually this too will harm economic activity in the state.

The end result is that the only people who can afford to live here will be those who made their wealth in other, more enlightened places. It will all become an extended Marin county.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:12 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Cyclo,

One of the consequences of the California factors you listed is that businesses that are able to choose the location of their offices and employees, generally try hard to avoid California and other like states. Eventually the cumulative economic effects of this induce state governments to reduce expenditures & taxes and often silly regulation of business activity. Unfortunately that hasn't yet happened in California, so business flight continues.

Your utility bills are high because apart from very expensive wind turbines (which produce very little power) there have been almost no power plants constructed in the state for several decades, even though power consumption has grown significantly. California is now a major importer of electricity produced east of the Sierras. State attempts to regulate and outsmart the industry under former governor Davis ended in a fiasco that cost the state huge sums. Eventually this too will harm economic activity in the state.

The end result is that the only people who can afford to live here will be those who made their wealth in other, more enlightened places. It will all become an extended Marin county.


George, a few points.

1st, the 'business flight' is countered by two things: First, because California is so damned nice a climate to live in, people want to live here despite the high costs. It isn't as if we couldn't have chosen to live somewhere cheaper. Second, there's a lot of money here, as people who move from other places to be in the nice climate bring their money with them. So there's always going to be a sizable base from which to build business. I think that is why you see so many businesses who have not in fact left California, even though to you Republicans it should have been obvious long ago that they all should have. I guarantee that their economists and analysts can do the math as well as we can.

2nd, you know I'm a nuclear proponent. A few modern plants here in CA - which can be located far enough away from majorly populated centers to help allay irrational fears from my fellow, yet older, environmentalists (who apparently have no clue how much uranium coal plants release!) - would fix us right up.

And it wasn't just Davis who caused the energy problems. Enron - remember them? - specifically manipulated the problems into happening. With the blessing of some of those in the WH. But I'm sure you don't need me to explain any of that to you.

3rd, I moved here - and I am making money here. And I live here. So it seems like not everyone will match up with your estimation of a permanent Marin county.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 05:59 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Cyclo,

One of the consequences of the California factors you listed is that businesses that are able to choose the location of their offices and employees, generally try hard to avoid California and other like states.


LOL Is that why California, if it were an independent country, would have the seventh largest economy in the world?
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 06:22 am
Ticomaya wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Citizens OUGHT to be earning a "living" wage, but no, they're forced to work in the gulags, of Wal-Mart USA, that pays meager wages and forces its' employees to supplement their income with Food Stamps and Medicaid, so they can buy more Chinese Goods, because NOTHING is made in the US, anymore! It's ALL in China and India! YOU act in a neutral fashion, like you're TOLD! In America, we fight, for our rights!
Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Cool Cool :wink:



Huh?

Name one person "forced" to work at Wal-Mart (a/k/a "the gulag").

Name one person in America who is not permitted to seek work elsewhere.

Name one person who is not allowed to further their education or to otherwise acquire the skills that would qualify them for employment at a job that might pay them more than McDonalds.

Name one person who is prevented from following their entrepreneurial urges to start their own business and become self-employed.


Name one.

Re-read my post. Also, where are the manufacturing and industrial jobs, that were unionized? Do you read the newspapers, watch Bill Moyers? You won't find this information on your sing-song news media. I don't have to NAME anyone! Just visit your local Wal-mart and find one item, that says Made In the USA and get back to me!
Cool Cool
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:52 pm
Crazy or possible?

Quote:
Obama has shown a willingness to consider positions that depart from the party line. Take the case of race-based admissions programs: Though Obama supports them, he seems open to changing them so that they are based on socioeconomic criteria. Last May he said on ABC's This Week: "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed." If admissions programs were class-based, they would no longer distinguish and divide by race. You could even say they would transcend race.




OBAMA'S OPPORTUNITY
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:04 pm
teenyboone wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Citizens OUGHT to be earning a "living" wage, but no, they're forced to work in the gulags, of Wal-Mart USA, that pays meager wages and forces its' employees to supplement their income with Food Stamps and Medicaid, so they can buy more Chinese Goods, because NOTHING is made in the US, anymore! It's ALL in China and India! YOU act in a neutral fashion, like you're TOLD! In America, we fight, for our rights!
Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Cool Cool :wink:



Huh?

Name one person "forced" to work at Wal-Mart (a/k/a "the gulag").

Name one person in America who is not permitted to seek work elsewhere.

Name one person who is not allowed to further their education or to otherwise acquire the skills that would qualify them for employment at a job that might pay them more than McDonalds.

Name one person who is prevented from following their entrepreneurial urges to start their own business and become self-employed.


Name one.

Re-read my post. ...


Right ... I must have read, "they're forced to work in the gulags, of Wal-Mart USA" out of context.

Quote:
I don't have to NAME anyone! Just visit your local Wal-mart and find one item, that says Made In the USA and get back to me!
Cool Cool


From this I presume you are railing about the items on the shelves at Wal-Mart being made in countries other than the US. How is that relevant to your claims that "Citizens OUGHT to be earning a "living" wage, but no, they're forced to work in the gulags, of Wal-Mart USA"?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Laughing no worries man, no worries.

I'm sure you could find a picture worse then that. Right?

Cycloptichorn


I'm sure there are others more qualified than myself who are hard at work doing that very thing. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:11 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Laughing no worries man, no worries.

I'm sure you could find a picture worse then that. Right?

Cycloptichorn


I'm sure there are others more qualified than myself who are hard at work doing that very thing. :wink:


I guess they are just biding their time 'till the right moment.

I'm happy that we already have a winner on our side.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm happy that we already have a winner on our side.

Cycloptichorn


Maria Shriver?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm happy that we already have a winner on our side.


[shakes head]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:31 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm happy that we already have a winner on our side.


[shakes head]


The photo of McCain hugging Bush is a winner, Ma. C'mon.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm happy that we already have a winner on our side.


[shakes head]


The photo of McCain hugging Bush is a winner, Ma. C'mon.



Sorry, I thought you were referring to the democratic primary.


The first thing I thought of when I saw that picture, was Bush thinking "Heh, heh, who's your daddy Johnny? C'mon, say it." With Bush's arms outstretched like that, it looks like McCain submitting to the king's rule.

I like McCain though, this picture is just too funny.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:35 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm happy that we already have a winner on our side.


[shakes head]


The photo of McCain hugging Bush is a winner, Ma. C'mon.


Sorry, I thought you were referring to the democratic primary.

The first thing I thought of when I saw that picture, was Bush thinking "Heh, heh, who's your daddy Johnny? C'mon, say it." With Bush's arms outstretched like that, it looks like McCain submitting to the king's rule.

I like McCain though, this picture is just too funny.


Yes - it shows that the straight talk express really is a bunch of BS. And it's hard to tie someone closer to Bush then a picture like that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:38 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes - it shows that the straight talk express really is a bunch of BS. And it's hard to tie someone closer to Bush then a picture like that.

Cycloptichorn


Yes ... if he embraces the man, they obviously share the same views on all of the issues.

Similarly, because Obama doesn't place his hand over his heart, it's clear he does not love his country.

It's true .... pictures are worth a thousand words.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:40 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes - it shows that the straight talk express really is a bunch of BS. And it's hard to tie someone closer to Bush then a picture like that.

Cycloptichorn


Yes ... if he embraces the man, they obviously share the same views on all of the issues.

Similarly, because Obama doesn't place his hand over his heart, it's clear he does not love his country.

It's true .... pictures are worth a thousand words.



I wouldn't extrapolate either picture out that far....I find them both funny.




And could someone add "Obama" to the spellcheck for pete's sake.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes - it shows that the straight talk express really is a bunch of BS. And it's hard to tie someone closer to Bush then a picture like that.

Cycloptichorn


Yes ... if he embraces the man, they obviously share the same views on all of the issues.

Similarly, because Obama doesn't place his hand over his heart, it's clear he does not love his country.

It's true .... pictures are worth a thousand words.


Nah - it's because Bush slimed him in 2000 with the black child rumors in order to win the nod. McCain almost quit the party. And now McCain's hugging him. But he'll be back to hating him by election time. And then probably back to loving him.

The straight talk express is on a circular track, with multiple different stops along the way.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 436
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 08/08/2025 at 02:10:49