Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeah, I found that page, too, but it doesn’t address anything about general medical care. Prescriptions, vision, screenings . . . Those are not what I need coverage for.
Thanks for checking, though.
[quote=”pranaspakeywest”]
Ok,now the Rainbows. THE friggin RAINBOWS!!!!……..[/quote]Yup, they never end, do they? Life’s a bitch.
Uh-huh. So if income and other taxes are not used to pay for infrastructure, how do you suppose the asphalt streets you use to get to the bridges you use to cross the rivers were paid for? And if all the taxes that are collected go to the bankers then it “follows” that the police and firefighters are all bankers, right?
Are you off your meds?
So, this isn’t a new tax after all but just a new (if questionable) means of assessing an existing tax. That was certainly worth getting all worked up about.
[quote=”loraine”] Because, you see, I am unemployed. I know what it’s like. Touche.
You have a great day in sunny Costa Rica, and I will continue to pay my taxes and my bills…my fair share. God bless![/quote]
Hmmm . . . I guess I don’t get it. If getting “a” job is so easy for each of the millions of unemployed, why are [u]you[/u] still unemployed? Why have you not gone out and gotten “a” job?
And, as for paying my taxes and bills, I’m right along there with you. So what’s you point?
Actually, there [b]is[/b] a legal reason why one cannot name names in public. In Costa Rica, libel and slander are [b]criminal offenses[/b] for which one could go to (a very unpleasant) prison.
Here, sadly, truth is no defense. Your builder could put your roof on upside down and refuse to correct the mistake, but if you go public and defame his reputation, even if he suffers no loss, you could still end up in the hoosegow.
If you search this discussion forum, you’ll find mentions of unpleasant encounters with builders and others, but you won’t find any names. “Mum”‘s the word.
In a Senate committee hearing on a jobs bill back in the late 1970s, Senator Hubert Humphrey said it best. “We’re not going to let people starve, so we might as well have clean streets as dirty ones.” Makes a great deal of sense. It’s a position I’ve always agreed with.
Despite your conviction, loraine, a flat tax is, by definition, [b]un[/b]fair in that it imposes most heavily on the poor who can least afford it. Who is most adversely affected: the famiy living on 78% of $200,000 or the family living on the same 78% of $20,000?
Now, in your spare time, why don’t you actually go out into the community and join the legions of job seekers, whether you’re employed, retired or whatever, just to see what it’s like. Let’s see you compete with five of the unemployed for every available job. When job seekers exceed jobs available by a factor of five, the likelihood of any individual being hired is pretty slim. Go try and let us know how you do.
[quote=”waggoner41″][loraine wrote] If you personally were in a deficit position, would you charge up your credit cards to continue to live as you desire or would you cut back on your spending to make ends meet? [/quote]
And waggoner41 replied, “That is precisely why the middle class carries so much debt. Everyone wants to keep up with the Joneses and own the newest of whatever is on the market rather than planning a budget and sticking to it.”But it’s more than that, waggoner. While loraine’s position is understandable, if painfully superficial, it simply doesn’t work in the real world. If you actually put loraine’s theory into practice in your personal life, you would, for example, not eat on days when you had no cash. And you would quit your job rather than repair the car you depend upon to get to it if you were likewise out of cash. Of course, either being too weak to do your job or not showing up at all have their own (obvious) implications.
It is a fact which should be beyond the need of stating that [b]one cannot live for tomorrow if one does not live today[/b]. Some things cannot be postponed. Try not eating or not fixing the car for a while and see what happens.
Deficit spending is sometimes unavoidable whether it’s governmental or private.
The further question, for which I’m confident sprite and loraine have a glib answer, is just what of that awful government spending you’d like to see eliminated. Next time you fly to Costa Rica, ask yourself whether you’d rather do so without the publicly funded airport, the government supervision of aircraft maintenance, or air traffic control. Myself, I don’t care if you opt out of all three, but only on days when [u]you[/u] fly. Me? I’ll pay my taxes to maintain the roads so I’m not driving across people’s lawns to get to the airport.
One could, of course, argue that we should eliminate all governmental support for human beings. So make the argument, loraine and sprite. Let’s hear your arguments in favor of eliminating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, family support for active duty service members, SSI for the disabled. I’m confident you can make a convincing argument but what you cannot do is make such an argument without at the same time exposing your total lack of conscience.
It is [b]absolutely NOT true[/b], loraine, that 50% of Americans pay no federal tax. What 50% of Americans do not pay is [b]federal INCOME tax[/b]. They still pay all the payroll taxes that everyone else who earns up to about $103,000 per year pay. Those who earn over that $103k threshold pay no additional payroll taxes. So the burden of payroll taxes, which are the flat taxes you so admire, fall most heavily on the poorest and exempt the richest.
Too, bear ion mind that rich and poor alike all pay the flat sales and use taxes that states and municipalities impose and the flat-rate state income taxes.
Any flat tax will, by its very nature, impact most heavily upon the poorest. Think about this . . . Any person, rich or poor, can only benefit from about 2,500 calories per day regardless of the source, whether that’s rice and beans or beluga caviar.
If you tax someone making (say) $20,000 per year at a flat rate of 22% (what Steve Forbes flat tax would actually require), they’re left with $15,600 to spend on food and other necessities. If you tax a person making (say) $200,000 per year at that same rate, they have $156,000 left to meet their caloric and other needs.
Do you see how a flat tax benefits the rich at the disadvantage of the poor? Whose needs are better met under the flat tax scenario, the rich or the poor? Which would you rather be?
Well, I followed the links Scott posted and I didn’t find anything that related to medical insurance. If someone else finds something, please post it here.
[quote=”maravilla”] this is a perfect example of why one needs to learn spanish to function properly in this country. [/quote]
This is also a perfect example of why my father, when I was very young, taught me not to scream [b]”OUCH”[/b] ’til I was hurt.
“Somebody had a meeting about something or another that I don’t understand, so I’m gonna go haywire!”
Give me a break . . .
If you didn’t understand what the meeting was even about, why in God’s name did you get yourselves all worked up over it?
Don’t you have enough to keep yourself busy organizing the international challenge to FACTA? When’s that meeting? And will it be conducted in a language you speak?
I’m not sure just what qualifies as a “pig breeder” in Costa Rica, but you can bet that, if there are 6,500 of them, most don’t breed a pig every six months.
