[no_such_reality]

[quote=flu][quote=livinincali]I think the problem is we’re paying a room full of education experts to come up with with new reading assignment that are more politically correct every year. Why can’t we use the reading assignments from last year or 5 years ago. The basics of reading comprehension and math haven’t changed in centuries.[/quote]

Ding ding ding…

Winnar![/quote]

I’ll refer you to another thread were the reference to “supposed” to look towards diversity was mentioned. In hiring in the higher ed system, the diversity question is a first and foremost hiring point.

That said, I must be part of the radical agenda, because my wife and I bought “Bad Kitty Christmas”. There’s a passing reference to a lesbian couple in the book, we didn’t think anything about it. Take a look at the reviews, the 1 stars are pretty uniform in the issue being the same sex partnership.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]Ooooookkkkk, and what does Obamacare have to do with health ed curriculum in schools, or is this just pure, unlubricated trolling?[/quote]

Flu was saying the general lack of financial awareness wasn’t going to be his kids problem.

That’s blatantly wrong, as evidenced by the chronic number is people, on both sides, that end up surprised at the financial cost of anything.

It may be elsewhere that I’ve snarked about it being their problem because misinformed people vote, in large numbers.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=flu]
Oh well, not my problem and not my kid’s problem I guess.[/quote]

Are you sure? You’re obviously not reading the news reports about the Pro-Obama supporters getting upset because their policy got cancelled, or their policy price jumped…

[no_such_reality]

What’s the underlying concern again?

the OP will need to explain if their child ask why the child in the story has two mommies or two daddies instead of a mommy and daddy like them?

or the Op will need to explain why the child in the story needs to be adopted? What’s adoption?

or the OP will need to explain why the parents in the story are adopting?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter][quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]So…you’d finally agree with me that the fairest sort of tax system would tax ALL income at the same progressive rates?[/quote]

No the fairest tax system would tax all income like dividends. A flat rate.

Make $10,000, pay 15%, or $1500.
Make $100,000 pay 15%, or $15000.
Make $1,000,000 pay 15% or $150,000.

Then just provide a back credit to poverty level.[/quote]

Depends on what one would call “fair.” A flat tax is patently regressive.

Assuming everyone needs $100,000 in order to live at a particular level (just picking a number, not saying it’s true), then the person making close to that number will not be able to amass wealth in the same way that a person with $2MM in disposable wealth can, yet they will be taxed at the same rate.

Unless you exclude the first, say, $100K or $150K of income, a flat tax will be unnecessarily regressive and damaging to those who work for a living since those who “earn” more than a certain level make most of their money from investments.

So…the fairest tax is one that taxes ALL people’s income at the SAME, progressive rates. That way, everybody is taxed the same.[/quote]

That’s mindless double babble. Same progressive rates, meaningless words meaning nothing.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Of course, they always try to hire the most qualified candidates, but they do so with an eye toward diversity…just as all employers are supposed, to do.

They specifically try to avoid the appearance of a “Good Ol’ Boys’ Club,” as they should.[/quote]

No one should be SUPPOSED to hire towards diversity. Everyone should hire most qualified while striving to be as colorblind as possible.

Hiring towards diversity is institutionalized racism.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ocrenter]
btw, not counting surgeries, over 90% of the hospital inpatient service at any given time is devoted to the 80+ population. lot’s of them frequent bounce backs.[/quote]

How’s that compare to say, UK, France, Germany?

Also, what’s the split on surgery versus other visits?

There’s great irony that Americans scream about socialized medicine, yet scream bloody murder at the hint of touching medicare.

I don’t understand why Politicians simply don’t just look at someone screaming socialism and say, what do social security is? Medicare?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]So…you’d finally agree with me that the fairest sort of tax system would tax ALL income at the same progressive rates?[/quote]

No the fairest tax system would tax all income like dividends. A flat rate.

Make $10,000, pay 15%, or $1500.
Make $100,000 pay 15%, or $15000.
Make $1,000,000 pay 15% or $150,000.

Then just provide a back credit to poverty level.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=EconProf]I’m surprised so many people on this site want to go whole hog into single payer. I guess the government has done such a good job rolling out Obamacare, they should now take over 100% of health care.[/quote]
Government run health care systems are unwieldy, bureaucratic, inefficient, and burden to the tax payer. Privately run health care is ruthless, discriminatory, and financially ruinous. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to put up with government bureaucracy, than be turfed out onto the street completely destitute.[/quote]

Even without Obamacare, you wouldn’t be able to keep your insurance for long, companies are simply getting priced out. Once you’re not part of a corporate, no questions ask coverage, your ability to carry coverage is highly dispersed. You end up with a lot of exclusions and basically catastrophic coverage that still costs a sizeable amount and you basically front the first $10,000. And that’s just for you. You need to carry a separate plan for your family.

And there isn’t a fix for insurance. Anything that limits their ability to exclude people, would actually result in higher increases than the obamacare plans. At least on the Obamacare, they know they’re getting to spread it across some of the healthy people.

Take a good look at what your company plan is really costing a month for the company to provide.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ocrenter]Bottomline, we need to figure something out before the Baby Boomer generation hits 80+. The first of that generation are already in their late 60’s. So we got about ten years before the bomb explodes.[/quote]

The biggest health savings we’ll get is by getting people covered and into care instead of spiraling until they cannot be ignored.

And we need seriously change our end of life care expectations. AKA death panels.

[no_such_reality]

Tesla still on fire.

Literally.

Tesla reports 3rd vehicle fire and other complaints. Shares slip another 9%.

At the rate Tesla’s are burning, if they were regular cars, I’d be seeing a vehicle fire every day on my commute to and from work.

[no_such_reality]

So basically, just double the Medicare wage tax from 1.45% to 2.9% and provide medicare to every single person.

Total expenditures if run through medicare would be around $1.8 trillion assuming 0% savings from medicare providing.

Or better yet, just put a flat 2% tax on AGI on all income filers and provide medicare to everyone, use the excess to provide the subsidy to low income.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=jeff303][quote=flu]
But it does make me wonder. If someone is at/near the threshold. Let’s say they earned exatly $450k instead of $449k, their entire capital gains is taxed 5% more than if they earned an $1000 less…. If that’s the case, lol……Ouch…[/quote]

So you’re suggesting this higher rate may not be marginal? That would just make no sense at all, but I tried searching and couldn’t find anything to confirm or refute that notion.[/quote]

Both are marginal. Both affect the excess but the wording on the $450K one is pretty convoluted as the

[quote]20 (b) 20-PERCENT CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR CERTAIN
21 HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.—
22 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section
23 1(h) is amended by striking subparagraph (C), by
24 redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as sub-13
MAT12564 S.L.C.
1 paragraphs (E) and (F) and by inserting after sub-
2 paragraph (B) the following new subparagraphs:
3 ‘‘(C) 15 percent of the lesser of—
4 ‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net cap-
5 ital gain (or, if less, taxable income) as ex-
6 ceeds the amount on which a tax is deter-
7 mined under subparagraph (B), or
8 ‘‘(ii) the excess of—
9 ‘‘(I) the amount of taxable in-
10 come which would (without regard to
11 this paragraph) be taxed at a rate
12 below 39.6 percent, over
13 ‘‘(II) the sum of the amounts on
14 which a tax is determined under sub-
15 paragraphs (A) and (B),
16 ‘‘(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital
17 gain (or, if less, taxable income) in excess of the
18 sum of the amounts on which tax is determined
19 under subparagraphs (B) and (C),’’.[/quote]

[no_such_reality]

Unfortunately that $450k threshold isn’t a problem yet although we’re still striving forward and hoping to have that problem in the

[no_such_reality]

Minor nit. That $250k isn’t on gains it’s on any income. So if you’re a two wage earner family with $250k of w2, every penny of capital gains gets the surcharge.

Second nit, if you’re over that $400k number your capital gains do not go from 15% to 20%. They go from 18.3% to 23.8%. That obamacare surtax applies

[Author]

Posts