SCOTUS Upholds Affordable Care Act!

Oh, and it's easy to say 2% cap gain increase in nothing when you have no skin in the game (don't know if that is true or not). I have skin in the game and I don't appreciate other people putting their hand in my pocket. I earned it, I risked it, I want to keep it!

Aww Beesie you are fortunate to be surrounded by lots of honest people. Perhaps they've never heard of Swiss bank accounts, the Cayman islands, the Bernie Madoffs of the world. Down here in Tx, all the little business men hire help but tell them they aren't employees, they are independent contractors and so the business man pays no employee taxes or SS. Submitting your taxes at the end of the year is considered a joke by these folks. They toss the 1099 's. Why do I know this, because my DH picked up some part time work with one of these scumbags and learned real quick from the other guys how they handle it. So we filed our taxes and ended up paying all the taxes the employer should have paid. Making the earnings minuscule and a waste of time.



Interestingly the accountant who helped us straighten it out indicated its accepted practice down here..."everybody does it". Just pay the penalty and move on. Or, wink, wink, toss the 1099.



Believe me when I say dodging taxes is the sport of kings and serfs in the US. Those with more money hire staff to pull it off.



And like Mr Madoffs and his kin, sometimes the courts catch them.



But this doesn't have lots to do with the ACA so I need to let this issue go for another thread somewhere else.

I'm currently broke (although hoping that situation changes soon).  But I've never envied anyone for their wealth.  All of the high-income earners and business owners I've known work very hard for their money.  They devote practically their entire lives to their company or to attaining more and more wealth, and they don't spend very much time with their loved ones.  It's not a life I would want, to be honest.  I am thankful that they do it so that the rest of us can have employment.

With that said, there are good and bad in all groups.  There are good and bad businesspeople, and the gov't should not be bailing out the bad ones.

But, besides bankers and CEOs, etc., there are many other people in the high-income bracket:  Doctors, engineers, farmers, pilots, etc.  Most are probably trying to do an honest job.  And most people don't start out wealthy; they may start out broke and gain wealth later.  Those who are born wealthy - well, their parents worked hard to pass the wealth along.  Other people hit big one year, and that's it.  Or sometimes people have to dip into a 401k to pay bills, and they're hit with a higher tax rate for that year.  (I have personal experience with that.)  When the taxes are raised, it's raised on all of these people, not just the people so many love to hate.

The top earners already pay the bulk of the taxes.  The ones that everyone dislikes will always find a loophole. 

OK, I did't want to get into this either but I want to try to put in my 2 cents worth.

First, on why corporations are not investing.

Corporations have made record profits since 2008 - they have a record amount of money sitting i doing nothing.  The reason they are not putting that money back into businesses is not, as Republicans try to claim worries about uncertainly in regulation, but for lack of demand.  If people were buying, business would fall over themselves to provide the goods and services that people wanted.  But since demand is down, businesses are holding back.  And the way the wealth is now being distributed in this country exacerbates the problem. I don't remember which rich person said it, but when all of the money is congregated in a few people and everyone else is not doing as well, then there will not be sufficient demand to drive the economy.

In other words, if I earned ten million a year, I would not buy enough stuff to drive the economy.  I'd maybe buy a new luxury car, take a vacation, buy a new guitar, maybe some other luxuries and invest the rest.  Even if I bought luxury items, I'd still only be buying food for one family.  I'd still only be buying gas for one trip at a time.  If 100 people, though, earned 100,000 - they would buy 100 cars, take 100 vacations, maybe buy 100 guitars.  They's be buying food for 100 families, gas for 100 trips etc. They might not be buying "luxury" items, but they'd be buying a lot more stuff that one person would.  That's why the trickle down theory doesn't work. Congregating wealth at the top does not result in more jobs or more businesses, because a few ultra rich people cannot create the volume of demand needed to drive the economy.

On investment taxes:

Let's be clear what we're talking about.  The 15 percent capital gain tax is only on the sale of long-term capital gains.  Those investments have to be held for at least a year, and the tax is on the gain, i.e. if I bought IBM at 100 and sold it for 200, I'd be taxed on the gain, the 100. However, the tax schedule now in effect allows hedge fund managers and people like Romney, who are actually earning income from sales of long-term capital gains - to be taxed as if they had sold a long-term capital gain.   in other words, they're gaming the system.  

And for the most part, the retirees are living on interest income and dividend income, not the sale of long term capital gains.  When BP pays a dividend to you - and , by the way, that dividend has already been taxed as corporate income as well - you are going to pay the regular income rate on that dividend, i.e. 33 percent or whatever your personal rate may be.   If you buy corporate bonds, which also can be risky, that 3 or 4 percent you earn is taxes as if you were out digging ditches. The majority of middle class people will only have one capital asset to sell in their lives: that would be their home. There are exemptions in the tax code for capital gain on the sale of a home.

Let's take this analogy a little further: if it's risking  money that we want to reward, then we should tax gambling earning at 15 percent as well.  After all, the person putting her money to risk at a casino, is much more likely to lose it than a person investing in a company.  However, gambling income is taxed the same as regular income, 33 or so percent.

And let's also talk about rewarding risky investments.  The reason people buy higher risk investments instead of say C.D.s which pay less than one percent, is because they think they can earn ten percent instead of 1 percent.  In other words, people buying stocks are willing to put their capital at risk in order to get a better return than they would get with a safer investment.  They are, in short, gambling that they will make more money through higher risk than they would have made if they had chosen a safer investment.  The potential for a higher return is the reward.  We do not need to give a further incentive through the tax code.  

My husband hasn't taken a day off for the past three months, and not because he enjoys it. If he did not work like this, he would lose his job, our insurance, our home, etc.  He works 15 hours a day, and our income, which is a generous one, is taxed at the highest rate.  I am a progressive, and I do not begrudge it.  I do not, however,see why my husband working his life out should be taxed at a higher rate than someone who has decided to gamble on stocks and made it lucky, or even worse, the hedge fund managers who helped to cause this recession by their own reckless behavior.

 The 15 percent capital gains tax is a boom to the wealthy class and to hedge fund managers.   At the present time, when so much wealth is concentrated in so few people, I do not think it unfair for us to return to the tax code of the 1990s - when the economy and the country were thriving.

Insurance is NOT a universal human right.

Patmom, I guess a lot of other Countries disagree with you, thank goodness!

We are talking avout universal healthcare, are we not?  But you're right Insurance should be eliminated and the whole thing should be run by the Government.  Cut out the middleman.  They make enough on home and auto insrance to keep them comfy womfy.  Greedy money mongers that they are!

Oh and lets not forget Life Insurance, STD and LTD, mortgage insurance, pet insurance.  The true definition of isurance is legalized mafia, and that is my opinion.

Way to go Athena and Blue....we had a civilized conversation going on until you two showed up.

I'm lucky in that my settings significantly limit what I can read here. But I agree with Blue and Rosemary.

Mardi - what did you find uncivilized in Blue's and Athena's posts?



Patmom - I am old enough to remember cash payments for office visits and blood tests. Back then, catastrophic illness was covered by 'major medical' insurance.



Since then, insurance companies grew to the primary health care gateways they are now - a virtual takeover. As insurance companies inserted themselves and their costs into every facet of healthcare, the cost of medical care increased primarily because of 1) insurance company overhead, including fraud and 2) providers' insurance administration costs.



It's clear that insurance companies add tremendous cost and inefficiencies to health care delivery. That's why I am not a big ACA fan. However, the thought of 30 million newly insured cheers me no end. EVERYONE should have access to health care.



Single payer would be the best and most cost effective solution but I know many are against it. For those of you who do not believe that health insurance (and by extension, health care) is a basic human right and find a single payer option untenable, what do you suggest?



US citizens pride themselves on being a largely Christian nation, a nation of achievers, wealth, and opportunity. Denying health care to millions smacks of selfishness and greed. What a shame.

No offense, Alexandria. I am speaking to the overtly political and vocal Christians.

Well, I have a very low opinion of insurers that deny coverage based on a fabricated pre -existing condition or otherwise make their policyholders' lives hell, so I will go along with the legalized mafia statement. And Athena pointed out the fallacy of saying 'only a small percentage are uninsured' - whatever the number, millions facing bankruptcy or worse because they cannot or will not get health insurance is a significant societal problem.