Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[briansd1]

flu, that $1 billion non-cash charge that AT&T is taking does not cost them anything right now. It’s actually an advantage because it’s saving them immediately $350 million in taxes (assume 35% tax rate).

It’s like depreciation on a rental property. You take a depreciation write-off to reduce your income this year. It’s not costing you any cash.

Sure, in the future you have to spend money to maintain your property, but immediately, that depreciation deduction has no real economic impact.

[Ricechex]

[quote=briansd1]flu, that $1 billion non-cash charge that AT&T is taking does not cost them anything right now. It’s actually an advantage because it’s saving them immediately $350 million in taxes (assume 35% tax rate).

It’s like depreciation on a rental property. You take a depreciation write-off to reduce your income this year. It’s not costing you any cash.

Sure, in the future you have to spend money to maintain your property, but immediately, that depreciation deduction has no real economic impact.[/quote]

Oh, Brian what are we to do with you? Living with rose colored glasses.

[Ricechex]

[quote=briansd1]flu, that $1 billion non-cash charge that AT&T is taking does not cost them anything right now. It’s actually an advantage because it’s saving them immediately $350 million in taxes (assume 35% tax rate).

It’s like depreciation on a rental property. You take a depreciation write-off to reduce your income this year. It’s not costing you any cash.

Sure, in the future you have to spend money to maintain your property, but immediately, that depreciation deduction has no real economic impact.[/quote]

Oh, Brian what are we to do with you? Living with rose colored glasses.

[Ricechex]

[quote=briansd1]flu, that $1 billion non-cash charge that AT&T is taking does not cost them anything right now. It’s actually an advantage because it’s saving them immediately $350 million in taxes (assume 35% tax rate).

It’s like depreciation on a rental property. You take a depreciation write-off to reduce your income this year. It’s not costing you any cash.

Sure, in the future you have to spend money to maintain your property, but immediately, that depreciation deduction has no real economic impact.[/quote]

Oh, Brian what are we to do with you? Living with rose colored glasses.

[Ricechex]

[quote=briansd1]flu, that $1 billion non-cash charge that AT&T is taking does not cost them anything right now. It’s actually an advantage because it’s saving them immediately $350 million in taxes (assume 35% tax rate).

It’s like depreciation on a rental property. You take a depreciation write-off to reduce your income this year. It’s not costing you any cash.

Sure, in the future you have to spend money to maintain your property, but immediately, that depreciation deduction has no real economic impact.[/quote]

Oh, Brian what are we to do with you? Living with rose colored glasses.

[Ricechex]

[quote=briansd1]flu, that $1 billion non-cash charge that AT&T is taking does not cost them anything right now. It’s actually an advantage because it’s saving them immediately $350 million in taxes (assume 35% tax rate).

It’s like depreciation on a rental property. You take a depreciation write-off to reduce your income this year. It’s not costing you any cash.

Sure, in the future you have to spend money to maintain your property, but immediately, that depreciation deduction has no real economic impact.[/quote]

Oh, Brian what are we to do with you? Living with rose colored glasses.

[afx114]

Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[afx114]

Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[afx114]

Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[afx114]

Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[afx114]

Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[briansd1]

Ricechex, so explain to me how I’m wrong and how AT&T earnings are being affected immediately in a tangible way when the Health Care Bill has not even been implemented yet.

All you can do is, in a Reganesque way, interject empty expressions that have no substance at all. There you go again. It was just so predictable.

[briansd1]

Ricechex, so explain to me how I’m wrong and how AT&T earnings are being affected immediately in a tangible way when the Health Care Bill has not even been implemented yet.

All you can do is, in a Reganesque way, interject empty expressions that have no substance at all. There you go again. It was just so predictable.

[briansd1]

Ricechex, so explain to me how I’m wrong and how AT&T earnings are being affected immediately in a tangible way when the Health Care Bill has not even been implemented yet.

All you can do is, in a Reganesque way, interject empty expressions that have no substance at all. There you go again. It was just so predictable.

[briansd1]

Ricechex, so explain to me how I’m wrong and how AT&T earnings are being affected immediately in a tangible way when the Health Care Bill has not even been implemented yet.

All you can do is, in a Reganesque way, interject empty expressions that have no substance at all. There you go again. It was just so predictable.

[Author]

Posts