Repealing Obamacare

[riverman]

brining electricity to Appalachia?

They've gone back to coal

 

[dead247]

True dat

 

[barfo]

Why would the smaller states have their taxes go up?

Because they currently pay less than they would under your scheme. Obviously.

And why would the feds be precluded from spending California's tax revenues toward brining electricity to Appalachia?

Appalachia doesn't have electricity? Also, what does that have to do with anything?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Denny Crane]

Because they currently pay less than they would under your scheme. Obviously.



Appalachia doesn't have electricity? Also, what does that have to do with anything?

barfo

Obviously they would pay a tiny fraction of the massive amount of money the government spends.

The Appalachia concept is taking money from California and spending it outside California. You seem to think that wouldn't be permitted without an income tax.

 

[MarAzul]

You seem to think that wouldn't be permitted without an income tax

Perhaps this statement is overly generous.

 

[barfo]

Obviously they would pay a tiny fraction of the massive amount of money the government spends.

The Appalachia concept is taking money from California and spending it outside California. You seem to think that wouldn't be permitted without an income tax.

Denny, Denny, Denny.

You were talking about taxation. I was talking about taxation. I didn't say anything about spending, but now you are claiming I did?

You advocated for the feds taxing states based on their population. You don't seem to realize that states don't currently all contribute the same amount per capita, so your plan not only changes the way the tax is collected within a state, but also the total amount the state pays.

Poor states currently pay less tax per capita. If every state pays the same amount of tax per capita, then poor states are going to have to pay more than they do right now. Where will that money come from?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, Denny, Denny.

You were talking about taxation. I was talking about taxation. I didn't say anything about spending, but now you are claiming I did?

You advocated for the feds taxing states based on their population. You don't seem to realize that states don't currently all contribute the same amount per capita, so your plan not only changes the way the tax is collected within a state, but also the total amount the state pays.

Poor states currently pay less tax per capita. If every state pays the same amount of tax per capita, then poor states are going to have to pay more than they do right now. Where will that money come from?

barfo

You did talk about how the poorer states would suffer.

They would not.

The states can collect taxes how they see fit. Property tax would hit the so called rich proportionally.

All the Feds should do is collect 10% of its budget needs from California, and < 1% from Wyoming.

 

[barfo]

You did talk about how the poorer states would suffer.

They would not.

The states can collect taxes how they see fit. Property tax would hit the so called rich proportionally.

All the Feds should do is collect 10% of its budget needs from California, and < 1% from Wyoming.

There aren't a whole lot of rich people in West Virginia. Some, but not a lot. There are a lot of poor people. As a result, they pay an average of $4k per person to the federal government. The national average is $10k/person, so under your plan the state would need to start paying two and half times what they do now.

Where does WV get that money? I get that it is up to the state to decide that, but I'm not sure they are going to be excited about making that choice.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There aren't a whole lot of rich people in West Virginia. Some, but not a lot. There are a lot of poor people. As a result, they pay an average of $4k per person to the federal government. The national average is $10k/person, so under your plan the state would need to start paying two and half times what they do now.

Where does WV get that money? I get that it is up to the state to decide that, but I'm not sure they are going to be excited about making that choice.

barfo

You're fixated on income tax. That's your logic error.

 

[barfo]

You're fixated on income tax. That's your logic error.

Not at all. I'm asking you, where does the money come from, from WV? I'm not saying it has to be income tax. Whose turnip do you want to squeeze?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not at all. I'm asking you, where does the money come from, from WV? I'm not saying it has to be income tax. Whose turnip do you want to squeeze?

barfo

There are roughly 27,000 millionaires in W Va, if you insist on taxing the rich.

W Va's state budget is $4.3B. Their fair share (1.8M population out of ~330M nationwide) of the federal $4T budget is .5%, or ~$2B.

Their state tax could go up by ~50% across the board. So something like 4% -> 6% for the people in the income level you mentioned. But they'd pay no federal income tax rate of 15% on their income above $9,275 and up to $37,650, 25% above that, etc.

Their property tax would go up 50%, as would their sales tax and business tax, and so on.

That's just one scenario, but it sure looks like the people do much better this way than you claim.

Links:
http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires_household.htm





http://www.budget.wv.gov/executivebudget/Documents/Volume I - Budget Report 2018.pdf



http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-west-virginia.aspx





And barfo:

 

[barfo]

There are roughly 27,000 millionaires in W Va, if you insist on taxing the rich.

W Va's state budget is $4.3B. Their fair share (1.8M population out of ~330M nationwide) of the federal $4T budget is .5%, or ~$2B.

Thanks for the data... but $4T * 0.5% is $20B, not 2B.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Thanks for the data... but $4T * 0.5% is $20B, not 2B.

barfo

Fine, $20B.

It's their share.

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax

Massachusetts, in ratifying the 1787 Constitution, recommended the following: “That Congress do not lay direct taxes but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess, levy, and pay, their respective proportions of such requisition, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislatures of the States shall think best.” Statesmen from Massachusetts sought to save their fellow citizens from the pestilence and manipulation of federal tax collectors, and even suggested that this be part of a constitutional amendment. Other founding-era leaders across the nation expressed the same hope that the states would be given an opportunity to pay direct federal taxes and avoid federal tax collectors, something that happened with most direct taxes imposed before the Civil War.

Direct taxes are taxes imposed on people or property, whereas indirect taxes are taxes on conditional events such as retail sales. The U.S. Constitution granted Congress the power to impose direct or indirect taxes, except a tax on exports, so long as the indirect taxes were “uniform” and direct taxes were imposed within states in proportion to population. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2 stipulates: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers.”

(Goes on to explain that the feds used sales taxes to raise money, though the people rebelled - see Whiskey Rebellion.")

 

[barfo]

Fine, $20B.

It's their share.

It is their share, based on population. However, as I pointed out before, it's a whole lot more than the ~$8B they are paying now.

Might not be easy to get buy-in on that plan from WV and other states like it.

Let me say that I personally have no problem sticking it to Trump voters in the way you have proposed. Urban America subsidizes Rural America to a huge degree, and Rural America responds by whining about taxes and electing orange idiots. So if you want to raise their taxes tremendously, go for it!

I'm guessing that it won't happen, however.

barfo

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Denny Crane]

https://apnews.com/5474c6046670472a...:-Rand-Paul-to-vote-"yes"-on-health-care-vote

The Latest: Rand Paul to vote yes on health care vote

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccain-return-washington-crucial-health-care-vote-n786121

McCain to Return to Washington for Crucial Health Care Vote

 

[Shaboid]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccain-return-washington-crucial-health-care-vote-n786121

McCain to Return to Washington for Crucial Health Care Vote

What are the rules on congressional voting whilst having a nice little morphine drip?

 

[crandc]

McCain, with the best health care in the world paid for by taxpayers, returns to Washington to take health care away from millions of Americans. What happens when you sell your honor.

 

[Denny Crane]

What are the rules on congressional voting whilst having a nice little morphine drip?

The murderer Ted Kennedy had the exact same malady and they wheeled him out to cast procedural votes for ObamaCare.

 

[MarAzul]

McCain, with the best health care in the world paid for by taxpayers, returns to Washington to take health care away from millions of Americans. What happens when you sell your honor.

uh... It was the Democrat controlled Congress that exempted the Congress from the Obama care system. Obama, the pander in Chief, approved the exemption with his signature, putting the law into effect.

 

[MarAzul]

The murderer Ted Kennedy had the exact same malady and they wheeled him out to cast procedural votes for ObamaCare.

I seem to recall this, Yes, the image is clear.

 

[The Professional Fan]

Will someone please explain this a little more for me? I'm reading that the Senate voted on a debate about repealing Obamacare. Not actually repealing it? Now I'm confused. What's the net-net here?

 

[Denny Crane]

Will someone please explain this a little more for me? I'm reading that the Senate voted on a debate about repealing Obamacare. Not actually repealing it? Now I'm confused. What's the net-net here?

Several ideas for how to replace ObamaCare will get to be proposed, debated, and voted on.

NBC says the republicans are likely to do a "skinny repeal" in the end.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...nny-repeal-obamacare-tuesday-s-voting-n786296

The plan after those two votes is for senators to proceed to votes on a series of amendments to create what leadership has called a “skinny” repeal, which is a watered-down version of repeal with nothing to replace it.

The goal would be to eliminate Obamacare's individual mandate penalty, the employer mandate penalty, and the tax on medical devices. A broader repeal would also have ended Medicaid's expansion, get rid of or replace the Obamacare subsidies that help people purchase insurance and repeal more — or all — of Obamacare's taxes.

The Senate would then go to conference with the House of Representatives, where conferees would work out a final bill. Both chambers would then have to vote on the reconciled bill.
​

Without the mandates, ObamaCare is no more. What you have left is some government assistance for some to buy insurance.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh yeah, the whole notion that ObamaCare replace/repeal is dead is no longer operational.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

The murderer Ted Kennedy had the exact same malady and they wheeled him out to cast procedural votes for ObamaCare.

Wow, age has wreaked havoc on my memory......I must have forgotten that Ted Kennedy was tried for murder....let alone convicted. Of course, anti-Democrats would never accuse anyone without evidence, right? That just isn't done in Washington DC. We've heard so freaking much from Donald and his supporters (including those on this board) about what is "fair" treatment and what isn't, those folks would never stoop so low as to accuse anyone without concrete justification.....I mean, we all know that life is FAIR, correct???? Ted's misadventure was simply a nothing burger by Republican (and Denny) standards.....carry on......

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, age has wreaked havoc on my memory......I must have forgotten that Ted Kennedy was tried for murder....let alone convicted. Of course, anti-Democrats would never accuse anyone without evidence, right? That just isn't done in Washington DC. We've heard so freaking much from Donald and his supporters (including those on this board) about what is "fair" treatment and what isn't, those folks would never stoop so low as to accuse anyone without concrete justification.....I mean, we all know that life is FAIR, correct???? Ted's misadventure was simply a nothing burger by Republican (and Denny) standards.....carry on......

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/incident-on-chappaquiddick-island

CONCRETE JUSTIFICATION.

There was a corpse and everything.

 

[riverman]

Obama, the pander in Chief,

sedition!!!!!!

 

[MarAzul]

Wow, age has wreaked havoc on my memory......I must have forgotten that Ted Kennedy was tried for murder....let alone convicted. Of course, anti-Democrats would never accuse anyone without evidence, right? That just isn't done in Washington DC. We've heard so freaking much from Donald and his supporters (including those on this board) about what is "fair" treatment and what isn't, those folks would never stoop so low as to accuse anyone without concrete justification.....I mean, we all know that life is FAIR, correct???? Ted's misadventure was simply a nothing burger by Republican (and Denny) standards.....carry on......

You are right, the turkey was too fucking drunk to stay on the road, drove into the water, and left the lady to drown. Went to his pad to sleep it off and phone it in the next day.
Calling it murder might be letting him off the hook.