Supreme Court Decision on Obama's Health Care Law page 15

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

It’s my understanding that a family with one to two kids can actually get money back, even if they didn’t pay any in.

So let me just ask you out of curiousity—what rough dollar amount do you consider poor, and then middle class, for a family with two or three kids? I was serious when I said that some people who are seemingly raking in the dough consider themselves poor. I would be interested to see how you quantify this.

A flat tax would be my preference, with all paying a percentage of their income. Right now our taxes are technically unconstitutional and this is why.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay for the Debts and Provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

This means our current variable tax rates are unconstitutional and the Obamacare tax is illegal as it was supposed to have originated in the House and it actually originated in the Senate.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t think this has anything to do with religion.

Hey, I didn’t write it. I just saw it on CNN and thought it was interesting.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator.

What happened there?

A flat tax would be my preference, with all paying a percentage of their income.

That’s fine but it doesn’t really answer my question. Since everyone has a different opinion of poor, I was just wondering at what annual dollar amount you would consider a family of that size poor?

A “flat tax” is about as sensible as a “flat earth”.
When the TAXED INCOMES are closer in relationship to each other…..
THEN,,, okay.

The ONLY way to keep the “rich guys” from ending up w/ ALL OF THE MARBLES is to punch a few holes in their marble bag….by taxing the shit outta them,,,,at least what they can’t hide or exclude from the IRS.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

It’s my understanding that a family with one to two kids can actually get money back, even if they didn’t pay any in.

So let me just ask you out of curiousity—what rough dollar amount do you consider poor, and then middle class, for a family with two or three kids? I was serious when I said that some people who are seemingly raking in the dough consider themselves poor. I would be interested to see how you quantify this.

This ought to be reeeeeaaalllly interesting.

It’s been MY experience that those “middle-classers” that do the most bitching about how the “nanny-govt” is taking THEIR money and giving it to the lazy-ass, cheating, welfare fraud, etc. POOR…..well, these middle-classers USUALLY haven’t a clue about what “poor” is….and, for that matter, they don’t even have a reality grasp on what RICH is.

When it comes to socio-econ….these ppl haven’t “a clue”.
Even if given NUMBERS for reference…..I seriously doubt they could “do the math”.
Ignorance is a fine cheese to go w/ their “whine”.

Oh we do have an idea. I have been there. You always jump to conclusions and always come up wrong and uninformed. We (my family) have been so poor we didn’t know where our next meal would come from. I have gone without meals so my kids could eat, so don’t tell me I don’t know about being poor.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t think this has anything to do with religion.

Hey, I didn’t write it. I just saw it on CNN and thought it was interesting.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator.

What happened there?

A flat tax would be my preference, with all paying a percentage of their income.

That’s fine but it doesn’t really answer my question. Since everyone has a different opinion of poor, I was just wondering at what annual dollar amount you would consider a family of that size poor?

I know you didn’t write it. I think you are about as religious as I am. It is interesting and I hope the left doesn’t discount the power the religious right has.

According to a mod, my post has been clipped by the auto-remove program. He will fix it later I imagine. Karma???? :)

A flat tax would allow all to contribute to their country. Telling you what is poor could be anything. I do know what poor is though.

Originally posted by jhco50:

According to a mod, my post has been clipped by the auto-remove program. He will fix it later I imagine.

Ok, now this question:

Since everyone has a different opinion of poor, I was just wondering at what annual dollar amount you would consider a family of that size poor?

Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t think this has anything to do with religion.

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO W/ RELIGION. It has EVERYTHING to do w/ humanity….athiests are very compassionate. It’s the assholes that seem to have a problems w/ helping “those less fortunate”.

That aside, not all of the right are Bible Thumpers. I’m sure not.

NO….no one said they were. HOWEVER, per capita…the more radical (Bible-thumpers) are very heavily massed as GOP conservatives.

There is a faction of those on the right who vote republican because they don’t believe in abortion, gay marriage, and free contraceptives through the church,

Yeah, the GOP wanted to create a “smoke-screen” of putz-ass voters so the true mission (making the rich richer) wouldn’t be so easy to see. Besides, those Gay-bashers, “PRO”-lifers, gun-nuts, etc. had to have some place to hang out…..the rest of America was embarrased by them.

but they aren’t the entire republican party.

No shit, Sherlock. There are a whoooooole lof of “Republicans” who are MODERATE. BUT, they have now gotten lost in that smoke-screen and the nuts have taken over the asylum.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Oh we do have an idea. I have been there. You always jump to conclusions and always come up wrong and uninformed.

“Always?”

We (my family) have been so poor we didn’t know where our next meal would come from.

And that was…?

I have gone without meals so my kids could eat, so don’t tell me I don’t know about being poor.

He said you did, where?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

The ONLY way to keep the “rich guys” from ending up w/ ALL OF THE MARBLES is to punch a few holes in their marble bag….by taxing the shit outta them,,,,at least what they can’t hide or exclude from the IRS.

Let me post this a bit more direct because I assume you have not read it before.

The Top 10% of taxpayers (this includes the top 1%) pay 67% of the tax revenue that comes into the US treasury. The bottom 20%, those who we think are over taxed pay 3/10 of 1% of tax revenue. that leaves the middle class to come up with 32 7/10% in tax revenue.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

According to a mod, my post has been clipped by the auto-remove program. He will fix it later I imagine.

Ok, now this question:

Since everyone has a different opinion of poor, I was just wondering at what annual dollar amount you would consider a family of that size poor?

I cannot tell you that as the cutoff for poor moves every year. It doesn’t stay the same from year to year and I don’t know what it is considered this year.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

A “flat tax” is about as sensible as a “flat earth”.
When the TAXED INCOMES are closer in relationship to each other…..
THEN,,, okay.

The ONLY way to keep the “rich guys” from ending up w/ ALL OF THE MARBLES is to punch a few holes in their marble bag….by taxing the shit outta them,,,,at least what they can’t hide or exclude from the IRS.

Eliminate the tax loopholes and institute heavy fines for investing money overseas. Oh wait, all members of Congress exploit loopholes personally and invest overseas (on both sides). Serious tax reform is a pipe dream sadly. And taxing the shit out of anyone probably isn’t the greatest of solutions either.

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO W/ RELIGION. It has EVERYTHING to do w/ humanity….athiests are very compassionate. It’s the assholes that seem to have a problems w/ helping “those less fortunate”.

Moral issues =/= religious issues. A person can be religious but not be morally sound (like a priest who molests a child) just as a person who isn’t religious can be morally sound (like a compassionate atheist).

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

According to a mod, my post has been clipped by the auto-remove program. He will fix it later I imagine.

Ok, now this question:

Since everyone has a different opinion of poor, I was just wondering at what annual dollar amount you would consider a family of that size poor?

I cannot tell you that as the cutoff for poor moves every year. It doesn’t stay the same from year to year and I don’t know what it is considered this year.

Going off that, it varies where you are living. $30K would last far longer in Omaha Nebraska than it would in Manhattan or DC which makes it a bit ridiculous for the federal government to institute a national poverty level.

The Top 10% of taxpayers (this includes the top 1%) pay 67% of the tax revenue that comes into the US treasury. The bottom 20%, those who we think are over taxed pay 3/10 of 1% of tax revenue. that leaves the middle class to come up with 32 7/10% in tax revenue.

You’ve said this before, and it leads to another question: How much does the top 20% control?

Using this source, the answer is “around 93%” (table 1, financial wealth).

If you scroll down to table 6, you’ll see the distribution of income, where the top 20% earn 61.4% of the income.

Basically, it seems like you keep trying to indicate an unfairness, but it’s a lot less unfair than you’re trying to claim.

edit: I wish I checked to make sure my data matched more with the quote. I just noticed that you said top 10%, not top 20%. Regardless, you can scroll down to Figure 7 to see a distribution of taxes.

I said it three times to make sure Karma got it. Seems he hadn’t read it in the first two posts.

I am not trying to indicate an unfairness. All I want you fellas to realize is that everyone is paying income taxes and the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of it. I am not trying to tell you the wealthy should keep all of their money and everyone else pay taxes. Karma’s obsession with the wealthiest 1% is nothing more than regurgitating Obama’s mantra. He is repeating a democrat talking point and really cannot prove his point.

Of course the wealthiest people will take advantage of any loophole the government gives them, wouldn’t you? Like we have said several times, the politicians come up with these loopholes, not the businessman. These politicians take full advantage of their positions to create wealth for themselves.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I said it three times to make sure Karma got it. Seems he hadn’t read it in the first two posts.

Yeah, we totally believe you there.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I said it three times to make sure Karma got it. Seems he hadn’t read it in the first two posts.

I am not trying to indicate an unfairness. All I want you fellas to realize is that everyone is paying income taxes and the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of it. I am not trying to tell you the wealthy should keep all of their money and everyone else pay taxes. Karma’s obsession with the wealthiest 1% is nothing more than regurgitating Obama’s mantra. He is repeating a democrat talking point and really cannot prove his point.

Of course the wealthiest people will take advantage of any loophole the government gives them, wouldn’t you? Like we have said several times, the politicians come up with these loopholes, not the businessman. These politicians take full advantage of their positions to create wealth for themselves.

Agreed. Obama is just using the rich as a scapegoat for his failed stimulus packages. Many of those “less than fortunate” people pay very little in taxes and it’s the middle class and the rich that bares the burden. Not to mention capable working people soak unemployment benefits and abuse other entitlement programs.

Originally posted by jhco50:

A flat tax would be my preference, with all paying a percentage of their income. Right now our taxes are technically unconstitutional and this is why.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay for the Debts and Provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

This means our current variable tax rates are unconstitutional…

Uniform: Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying. Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.

e.g. amounts picked at random

All people earning more than $10,001 and than $20,000 p.a. pay 20% income tax on those earnings
All people earning $20,001 — $200,000 p.a. pay 30% income tax on those earnings above $20,000 up to $200,000
All people earning in excess of $200,001 p.a. pay 40% income tax on those earnings above $200,001

Standard deductions apply for each child in a family, etc.

Exactly the same in character, conforming to the single principle that tax payers contribute per their ability to pay. Applies to everyone… is, therefore, by definition uniform and not unconstitutional.

---

Welfare: In each of the dictionaries I checked the first entry was always to the effect of “Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.”

Accordingly a tax raised (however it is described) to benefit the health of the citizens of your nation is not only constitutional but a requirement laid down by your constitution (based on the section you quoted above).

Many of those “less than fortunate” people pay very little in taxes and it’s the middle class and the rich that bares the burden.

Yeah, the rich are really poor. Wait, what kind of shitty argument is that?

The middle class may be in a bad position tax-wise, though I don’t know the details. Could never be worse than the poor if there is a similar system as here, though (progressive tax rate).

Guys (< which includes Gals), I’m gonna have to do some “mulit-posting”,,,,your posts since I slept are quite numerous.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

It’s my understanding that a family with one to two kids can actually get money back, even if they didn’t pay any in.

So let me just ask you out of curiousity—what rough dollar amount do you consider poor, and then middle class, for a family with two or three kids? I was serious when I said that some people who are seemingly raking in the dough consider themselves poor. I would be interested to see how you quantify this.

This ought to be reeeeeaaalllly interesting.

It’s been MY experience that those “middle-classers” that do the most bitching about how the “nanny-govt” is taking THEIR money and giving it to the lazy-ass, cheating, welfare fraud, etc. POOR…..well, these middle-classers USUALLY haven’t a clue about what “poor” is….and, for that matter, they don’t even have a reality grasp on what RICH is.

When it comes to socio-econ….these ppl haven’t “a clue”.
Even if given NUMBERS for reference…..I seriously doubt they could “do the math”.
Ignorance is a fine cheese to go w/ their “whine”.

Oh we do have an idea.

WE ? Are YOU now the official spokesperson for The Bitching Middle Class w/o a Clue ? Jake-0, it is exagerations (spelled: HYPERBOLE) like this—among a huge amount of other forms—that brings me to say: I’ll NOT call YOU a liar. I will say that much of what YOU say is difficult to believe. There is a subtle difference there…..one which I’m gonna say that—as ya’ve ‘proven" often here about your ability to grasp subteties—I doubt ya’ll pick up on and whine about how I’m calling YOU “names” (liar).

It is ludicrus for YOU to know—in any reasonable form,,,,other than your own “legendary” mind—just what kind of idea the huuuuuge numbers of middle-classers have.

I have been there.

Really? “There” is where? When YOU aren’t exagerating…..YOU are presenting VERY vague information that contributes extremely little to a resonable point on the issue.

You always…

ALWAYS ? Are YOU able to grasp just how truly ignorant this form of presentatin is? This is what children do: BUT mom, EVERYONE is going to the mall,,,,,you ALWAYS say no to things I wanna do//have.

….jump to conclusions and always come up wrong and uninformed.

Well, at least according to YOU. AND, from YOUR “behavior” on this forum, I’d say this is YOUR “attitude” about most of what those in disagreement w/ YOU.

We (my family) have been so poor we didn’t know where our next meal would come from. I have gone without meals so my kids could eat, so don’t tell me I don’t know about being poor.

Sorry, while I won’t say ya’re lying…I won’t even say I don’t believe ya. I will, however, say that I think YOU—per usual—could be EXAGGERATING just a weeeebit on this.

PLUS, unlike the TRUE POOR, I seriously doubt YOU thought this was a forever situation. For the poor,,the ones I’m talking about and know a goodly number of them (business experience & volunteer service),,this is a continuous, no hope, bleak, no future situtation. A HUGE DIFFERENCE THERE.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Originally posted by jhco50:

A flat tax would allow all to contribute to their country. .

ALL do “contribute”…. (obviously there are those that don’t,,,for various reasons…good & bad) it’s called WORKING. AND, they work for wages that are soooooo fucking PATHETIC that taxing them (income…they already pay property, sales, etc. taxes—depending on the state, county, city they live in) is tantamount to punishing them for being poor and lacking the POWER-OF-REPRESENATATION to speak for them to those who are the very ones that fuck them over…..& over & over.

What part of ""the rich get richer and the POOR GET POORER"" do YOU not understand. Do YOU think this is some kind of “urban myth”? There is little difference in this MEGA situation (the entire lower//lowest class) than that of the school bullying which we can grasp as an understanding.

Most (a bunch?) of the mega-rich (1%ers) have a disease called SUPER-DUPER GREED. They will squeeze every last drop of “disposable income” from the poor they can and yet still allow them a pathetic capacity to keep working and slightly contributing to consuming products….the middle-class is supposed to to this.

Jake-0, why do YOU so desperately “cling” to YOUR concept of our socio-econ situation? Even when YOU are able to admit….. (just below)

Telling you what is poor could be anything. I do know what poor is though.

Well, ya sortta “admitted” a somewhat shift for ya on this.
BUT THEN, ya totally fucked it up by a hypocritical reversal of what your “knowledge” on BEING (constantly?) poor is.
I’m gonna be “generous” w/ ya and say: YOU, for once, recognize the limitations of YOUR anecdotal offerings.

Originally posted by NathanIsOurBoss:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Right wing wank.

Why do you hate poor people and wish to fellate the rich? Surely it makes sense for the rich to pay more, ‘cuz they fuckin’ have more. I am guessing you’ve never been poor, bro, you’ve never had to scramble for every check and make a choice between food for the week or heating to keep you from freezing. I am guessing that you’ve never been injured to the point where you couldn’t work and required healthcare which cost money you didn’t have. Well, the latter never happened to me, because I live in a country with national health care. I could have died or have ended up thousands in the hole without a home or job, but the socialist national health care system saved me. I now am able to support myself. That’s what it is all about, it is about providing people with a safety net to catch them if they fall and to get them back on their feet. It gives people a sporting chance, rather than determining your right to live based on the shrapnel in your back pocket. I can’t imagine a reason to be against socialist policy unless you hate poor people.

Damn, Nathan….YOU are quite the “wordsmith”. I have to “borrow” the: fellate the rich…lol. Your post has litterally put a lump in my throat….for several reasons.

Here they are,,,,not in any particular order based on any particular sense of relevance//importance.

One: YOU hit the nail right on the head. YOU said much more “eloquently” what I tried to do so in a couple of posts above. THIS: I can’t imagine a reason to be against socialist policy unless you hate poor people. …..is this issue in a nutshell. It compares to what twilight_Ninja & I brought up about WWJD.

Two: YOUR situation, when compared to that of JohnRulz’s, is soooooo poignant that it should be held up by Obama EXACTLY as the GOP held up joe the plumer.

I have been wanting to comment on John’s situation, but I just couldn’t (or SHOULDN’T) do it. I battle depression. “Brain-meds” help correct the “chemical-catastrophe” going on up there. Stress & anger don’t help…adrenaline (and others) are “strong” in me. PLUS, due to a couple of fucked-up open heart surgeries….the second one left me w/ a massive sternal//heart staff infection that required 5 days of induced comma & paralysis while they performed multiple surgeries to cut away the infected tissue.

I could tell ya a whoooole lot more about “health care”—both personal & what I’ve gleaned from other ppl & readings—that would make ya scared stiff to see a doc or go to a hospitral. I will say this tho: DO NOT GO INTO A HOSPITAL w/o some form of “advocate” there (nearly?) 24/7….esp. if ya’re NOT going to be fully cognizant ALL OF THE TIME. Hell, just having someone help ya “double-team” defend yourself ain’t a bad idea. I was supposed to have an MRI and they took my roommate instead.

While I probably shouldn’t even be on this forum since I (typically?) post only on threads that involve volital (emotionally?) strong societal issues. YET, the fool I am (my wife is my “sponsor”), I can’t help but join the other fine ppl (w/ their extrodinary fine minds) in leaning my shoulder against the huge “wheel-of-ignorance” America seems so imbued w/ ATM.

I had to “ignore” John’s post….there is just far too much “on my plate” ATM for me to address a situation this close to me. Yeah, I don’t really “know” John….BUT, I do know some very “good” things about him,,,due to what he posts. Most of what I deal w/ on a daily basis (now) is discussion-in-general w/ the public: Speakng to groups, “stumping” for candidates, etc. which involves ONLY talking about the “plight-of-the-poor” in a most-general way….an emotional level I can handle.

BUT, I thank YOU Nathan, for posting this emensely strong comparative to John’s situation—not only because of its succinct difference, but because it has given me an opportunity to share my great compassion for John in particular and the thousands upon thousands who have similar plights. I hope this (maudlin?) “expose” of my personal life might give some here a weeeebit of “insight” as to why I “behave” as I do. I’m MOST certainly NOT fishing for sympathy//“pity”.

ONCE AGAIN…..A huuuuge THANK YOU for your post, Nathan.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

A “flat tax” is about as sensible as a “flat earth”.
When the TAXED INCOMES are closer in relationship to each other…..
THEN,,, okay.

The ONLY way to keep the “rich guys” from ending up w/ ALL OF THE MARBLES is to punch a few holes in their marble bag….by taxing the shit outta them,,,,at least what they can’t hide or exclude from the IRS.

Eliminate the tax loopholes and institute heavy fines for investing money overseas. Oh wait, all members of Congress exploit loopholes personally and invest overseas (on both sides). Serious tax reform is a pipe dream sadly. And taxing the shit out of anyone probably isn’t the greatest of solutions either.

I totally agree w/ ya on this. I want to add a “dirty little secret” that was recently exposed by 60 Minutes

If this doesn’t make ya shit yer pants…then ya just don’t understand how corupt (on both sides….true) our Congress has become,,,,,due mostly to: BUT,,,but…all the other guys are doing it. Ya gotta break some eggs (rules) to make an omelett (good for the folks back home). Ya gotta learn to “play ball” w/ this corupt system or ya’ll be sent packing (for home) and won’t be able to do shit for those ya represent…..hell, I’ll be able to toss ’em a bone every now & then….a bone from the table of the super-rich (which I actually represent).

Originally posted by issendorf:

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO W/ RELIGION. It has EVERYTHING to do w/ humanity….athiests are very compassionate. It’s the assholes that seem to have a problems w/ helping “those less fortunate”.

Moral issues =/= religious issues. A person can be religious but not be morally sound (like a priest who molests a child) just as a person who isn’t religious can be morally sound (like a compassionate atheist).

I’m not sure, but I think that is what I said…..at least INTENDED to get across. I probably should have inserted: It’s the assholes {who have NO MORALS other than abject selfishness} that seem to have…..

Originally posted by jhco50:

A flat tax would be my preference, with all paying a percentage of their income. Right now our taxes are technically unconstitutional and this is why.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay for the Debts and Provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

This means our current variable tax rates are unconstitutional and the Obamacare tax is illegal as it was supposed to have originated in the House and it actually originated in the Senate.

No. The phrase is “uniform throughout the United States”. That is, you can’t say that people in New York should pay less income tax than people in Nebraska. Because you know that New York would try to pass that if they could, justifying it with the higher cost of living.

As far as the “originating in the Senate” thing, according to Wikipedia, the Senate actually got around this by taking a totally unrelated House bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members and “amending” it… by taking out everything in the bill and putting in the health care bill. I’m not quite sure why they didn’t just do that with, you know, the health care bill that was passed by the House.

Originally posted by donseptico:

Accordingly a tax raised (however it is described) to benefit the health of the citizens of your nation is not only constitutional but a requirement laid down by your constitution (based on the section you quoted above).

Excuse me, but it says “The Congress shall have the power”, not “The Congress shall be required”. Furthermore it is debatable whether this actually WILL benefit the health of our citizens, whether the money is better spent on other things, etc. Are you seriously claiming that Congress HAD to pass this bill? Has Congress been in violation of the Constitution since the 1700’s by not passing it? That seems like a very silly argument.