Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Taxing health benefits
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Taxing health benefits; Here we go
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 8 2009, 12:29 PM (214 Views)
HoosierLars Jun 8 2009, 08:36 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 07:44 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 8 2009, 04:06 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 8 2009, 03:17 PM
thePhilosopher
Jun 8 2009, 02:28 PM
Guys, it is just a way to keep healthcare costs down. We've all seen what a great job the gov't does at keeping down costs. After all, they did subsidize college tuition, and that hasn't risen at all over the past couple of decades. We need to keep entitlement costs down by ADDING entitlement programs, like universal healthcare, and taxing people for things they aren't yet taxed on! Like soda, or trans-fats, or carbon, or their own health care!

/sarcasm
Good call Phil...the federal government always keeps costs down.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml

Quote:
 
Executive branch employment — 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department — is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year.
More overhead = less cost?????

Makes alot of fucking sense.........our government is fucking braindead!

Just another reason the government should keep its hands off of private businesses......they have no fucking clue what they are doing!
Maybe not....but let's examine what private industry has done of late as well. Seems to me that there have been an awful lot of businesses run into the ground by illogical short-sighted ventures.
Brum, Ron Paul supporters will argue that poorly managed companies will fail, and that a free enterprise system will outperform government run programs almost all of the time. What do you do when a government program eventually fails? What are we going to do when medicare and SS run out of money? It appears that the EU is moving back a bit toward the right, and I don't think we need to move any farther to the left. That's why there's almost no chance I will be voting for Democrats in 2010 and 2012. I think that makes me an "anti-Democrat" partisan hack.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 8 2009, 09:15 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 07:44 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 8 2009, 04:06 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 8 2009, 03:17 PM
thePhilosopher
Jun 8 2009, 02:28 PM
Guys, it is just a way to keep healthcare costs down. We've all seen what a great job the gov't does at keeping down costs. After all, they did subsidize college tuition, and that hasn't risen at all over the past couple of decades. We need to keep entitlement costs down by ADDING entitlement programs, like universal healthcare, and taxing people for things they aren't yet taxed on! Like soda, or trans-fats, or carbon, or their own health care!

/sarcasm
Good call Phil...the federal government always keeps costs down.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml

Quote:
 
Executive branch employment — 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department — is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year.
More overhead = less cost?????

Makes alot of fucking sense.........our government is fucking braindead!

Just another reason the government should keep its hands off of private businesses......they have no fucking clue what they are doing!
Maybe not....but let's examine what private industry has done of late as well. Seems to me that there have been an awful lot of businesses run into the ground by illogical short-sighted ventures.
this is true brum, however the MAJOR difference is that they aren't playing with taxpayer dollars....or at least they aren't until the government shows up forcing the taxpayer to bail them out. Anyway, when private business fails as it is supposed to, that is the risk the owners & shareholders voluntarily took...when the government makes jackass moves with our money, we were involuntarily duped.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 8 2009, 09:21 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Lars -- You can be anti-Democrat without be a partisan hack. My problem with you is that I feel you call out the democratic party and give the GOP a free pass.

I don't have a problem with letting poorly run businesses fall. But the precedent has been set...and it was a bipartisan effort in getting the bailout in place. Right now I am not confident that a DNC or GOP administration/congress will not make the same mistake again. Whenever a 'vital' corporation comes with hat in hand to the government, I feel that they'll leave with a hatful of money.

Side unrelated topic: why is it that income tax is always the tax of conversation while sales tax seems to get a pass? In the past twenty-five years, I believe the sales tax in Indiana has risen from 5% to 7%....a 40% increase. And with inflation, that's truly an even greater increase than 40% in adjusted dollars. If income tax did that, there would be a national revolt.
Edited by brumdog44, Jun 8 2009, 09:24 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 8 2009, 09:29 PM Post #19
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 09:21 PM
Lars -- You can be anti-Democrat without be a partisan hack. My problem with you is that I feel you call out the democratic party and give the GOP a free pass.

I don't have a problem with letting poorly run businesses fall. But the precedent has been set...and it was a bipartisan effort in getting the bailout in place. Right now I am not confident that a DNC or GOP administration/congress will not make the same mistake again. Whenever a 'vital' corporation comes with hat in hand to the government, I feel that they'll leave with a hatful of money.

Side unrelated topic: why is it that income tax is always the tax of conversation while sales tax seems to get a pass? In the past twenty-five years, I believe the sales tax in Indiana has risen from 5% to 7%....a 40% increase. And with inflation, that's truly an even greater increase than 40% in adjusted dollars. If income tax did that, there would be a national revolt.
Hey brum...this one's for you :fuckyou: SALES TAX.

I won't disagree with you on the idea that the RNC/DNC might make the same mistakes again, specifically regarding bailouts unless we have REAL campaign finance reform. As long as they know who "finds their lost remote", they will continue to pay them back with our money. The democrats just tend to want to punish innovation/hard work and reward the opposite more than the republicans IMO.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 8 2009, 09:43 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 09:21 PM
Lars -- You can be anti-Democrat without be a partisan hack. My problem with you is that I feel you call out the democratic party and give the GOP a free pass.
I think bg will agree that I was pretty tough on McCain. Also, I've had plenty of bad things to say about Bush, and how the Republicans did a poor job of governing from 2001-2004. I was thinking about that recently, and realized that 9/11 dominated the agenda from 2001 to 2004, the year when Democrats won back the Senate. During that same time period, we suffered through a stock market crash, that also took the focus off cutting the federal budget. And of course it's a fact that many republicans thought they could keep their jobs by increasing spending.

I think Obama's stunning rush to increase socialism has surprised you, and we might tend to agree more on the issues leading up to the 2010 election cycle. I will vote for Paul or his successor in 2012 if he has a real chance of winning and the republican candidate is another moderate like McCain.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boilergrad01 Jun 8 2009, 10:08 PM Post #21
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Lars,

The Republicans lost the congress in 2006. The country lost faith in the Bush administration in late 2005. The republicans lost their way during the Bush years and that enabled the 2008 election and the Obama administration. The American have little faith in Washington right now for good reason. Both parties are dominated by selfish power hungry nuts that do not care about the best interest of the republic only about winning elections. Local state and federal politicians do not do what they believe in or what they think is best for the country only what is best to keep the power. They raise money running for office then put the left over cash into a PAC and slowly siphen the money back to themselves. A house member makes around $171,000 a year but if they stay up there 10 years they have a net worth over 1million. They right books and siphen money from the pacs they create from winning elections. They then get big business to donate to the pacs and in return create wealth out of the position. Bottum line both parties have moral challenges and few in either party have what is best for the nation at heart.
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 9 2009, 03:26 PM Post #22
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 07:44 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 8 2009, 04:06 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 8 2009, 03:17 PM
thePhilosopher
Jun 8 2009, 02:28 PM
Guys, it is just a way to keep healthcare costs down. We've all seen what a great job the gov't does at keeping down costs. After all, they did subsidize college tuition, and that hasn't risen at all over the past couple of decades. We need to keep entitlement costs down by ADDING entitlement programs, like universal healthcare, and taxing people for things they aren't yet taxed on! Like soda, or trans-fats, or carbon, or their own health care!

/sarcasm
Good call Phil...the federal government always keeps costs down.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml

Quote:
 
Executive branch employment — 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department — is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year.
More overhead = less cost?????

Makes alot of fucking sense.........our government is fucking braindead!

Just another reason the government should keep its hands off of private businesses......they have no fucking clue what they are doing!
Maybe not....but let's examine what private industry has done of late as well. Seems to me that there have been an awful lot of businesses run into the ground by illogical short-sighted ventures.
Its actually pretty simple..........LET THEM GO BANKRUPT!

Telling you that companies are "to big to fail" is just a way to scare you into watching them line their buddies pockets.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 9 2009, 03:30 PM Post #23
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 09:21 PM
Lars -- You can be anti-Democrat without be a partisan hack. My problem with you is that I feel you call out the democratic party and give the GOP a free pass.

I don't have a problem with letting poorly run businesses fall. But the precedent has been set...and it was a bipartisan effort in getting the bailout in place. Right now I am not confident that a DNC or GOP administration/congress will not make the same mistake again. Whenever a 'vital' corporation comes with hat in hand to the government, I feel that they'll leave with a hatful of money.

Side unrelated topic: why is it that income tax is always the tax of conversation while sales tax seems to get a pass? In the past twenty-five years, I believe the sales tax in Indiana has risen from 5% to 7%....a 40% increase. And with inflation, that's truly an even greater increase than 40% in adjusted dollars. If income tax did that, there would be a national revolt.
Every time you get a raise, the income tax does go up.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 9 2009, 07:16 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 9 2009, 03:30 PM
brumdog44
Jun 8 2009, 09:21 PM
Lars -- You can be anti-Democrat without be a partisan hack. My problem with you is that I feel you call out the democratic party and give the GOP a free pass.

I don't have a problem with letting poorly run businesses fall. But the precedent has been set...and it was a bipartisan effort in getting the bailout in place. Right now I am not confident that a DNC or GOP administration/congress will not make the same mistake again. Whenever a 'vital' corporation comes with hat in hand to the government, I feel that they'll leave with a hatful of money.

Side unrelated topic: why is it that income tax is always the tax of conversation while sales tax seems to get a pass? In the past twenty-five years, I believe the sales tax in Indiana has risen from 5% to 7%....a 40% increase. And with inflation, that's truly an even greater increase than 40% in adjusted dollars. If income tax did that, there would be a national revolt.
Every time you get a raise, the income tax does go up.
If you are talking about teacher pay, that's not true. Increase in teacher salary has not kept up with inflation or state economic growth, therefor keeping the tax rate at 5% should produce more of an increase in state funds than does an increase in teacher salary....and by a wide margin.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 9 2009, 07:31 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
aaron -- this is not meant as a defense to taxing health benefits, just meant to show that both parties seem to be more of the same.

You do know that Reagan floated the same idea back in 1984, don't you? The idea he floated was taxing insurance benefits over $2100, a plan that seems to be similar to DNC's plan of taxing money over a certain benefit amount.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 9 2009, 08:23 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 9 2009, 07:31 PM
aaron -- this is not meant as a defense to taxing health benefits, just meant to show that both parties seem to be more of the same.

You do know that Reagan floated the same idea back in 1984, don't you? The idea he floated was taxing insurance benefits over $2100, a plan that seems to be similar to DNC's plan of taxing money over a certain benefit amount.
yes, I am aware of Reagan's plan in 84'. To be honest with you, if our taxation was a little more under control and fair, I wouldn't even be against taxing health benefits as income....in our current state, however, it is just another tax that I think should be unnecessary.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 10 2009, 12:47 PM Post #27
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 9 2009, 07:31 PM
aaron -- this is not meant as a defense to taxing health benefits, just meant to show that both parties seem to be more of the same.

You do know that Reagan floated the same idea back in 1984, don't you? The idea he floated was taxing insurance benefits over $2100, a plan that seems to be similar to DNC's plan of taxing money over a certain benefit amount.
Isnt that the same plan that Hillary proposed and Obama pissed all over it during the campaign?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 10 2009, 09:08 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 10 2009, 12:47 PM
brumdog44
Jun 9 2009, 07:31 PM
aaron -- this is not meant as a defense to taxing health benefits, just meant to show that both parties seem to be more of the same.

You do know that Reagan floated the same idea back in 1984, don't you? The idea he floated was taxing insurance benefits over $2100, a plan that seems to be similar to DNC's plan of taxing money over a certain benefit amount.
Isnt that the same plan that Hillary proposed and Obama pissed all over it during the campaign?
Could be....when Hillary opens her mouth, I usually turn the channel.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hoosierinhogville Jun 10 2009, 09:37 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,812
Group:
Members
Member
#155
Joined:
February 11, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 10 2009, 09:08 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 10 2009, 12:47 PM
brumdog44
Jun 9 2009, 07:31 PM
aaron -- this is not meant as a defense to taxing health benefits, just meant to show that both parties seem to be more of the same.

You do know that Reagan floated the same idea back in 1984, don't you? The idea he floated was taxing insurance benefits over $2100, a plan that seems to be similar to DNC's plan of taxing money over a certain benefit amount.
Isnt that the same plan that Hillary proposed and Obama pissed all over it during the campaign?
Could be....when Hillary opens her mouth, I usually turn the channel.
Funny...so did Bill.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 10 2009, 10:23 PM Post #30
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
hoosierinhogville
Jun 10 2009, 09:37 PM
brumdog44
Jun 10 2009, 09:08 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 10 2009, 12:47 PM
brumdog44
Jun 9 2009, 07:31 PM
aaron -- this is not meant as a defense to taxing health benefits, just meant to show that both parties seem to be more of the same.

You do know that Reagan floated the same idea back in 1984, don't you? The idea he floated was taxing insurance benefits over $2100, a plan that seems to be similar to DNC's plan of taxing money over a certain benefit amount.
Isnt that the same plan that Hillary proposed and Obama pissed all over it during the campaign?
Could be....when Hillary opens her mouth, I usually turn the channel.
Funny...so did Bill.
Actually, if she had opened her mouth once in a while around him, he wouldn't have looked for another one.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:45 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy