Medicare

[Jiro]

The point is, it's not a "gimme" attitude as you stated.

I'm not referring to retirees. Only those irrational bunch with self-entitlement attitude.

But at least you do have roads. How would your current commute be without any roads or overpasses or bridges or traffic lights?

I'd be delighted! no traffic jam and I'd have a blast. I don't think anything can beat this kind of commute

Maybe for parts of the journey but for most of the trip the trucks use interstate highways.

right. all thanks to Eisenhower. a perfect example why we all gotta split in and share a burden for the good of this country and its well-being.... such as PPACA.

They should have sent a copter for my SIL when he had his accident. He had an hour-long ride on bumpy roads in an ambulance, without pain killers. It was very bad.

Of course, copters can't land everywhere, and they're not available everywhere. That also brings up another federal agency--the FAA.

yea oh well.

If our taxes didn't pay for transportation infrastructure, no one (including you) would have a choice.

that's ok. I make do. Adapt and people in other countries have it worse and they ain't complaining anyway. Like I said - I don't expect much in return. Are you?

Without the infrastructure, almost no one could travel.

that's why we all gotta pay our share and share a burden.... all for more reason why we should support PPACA. Without proper health care and preventative care for majority of Americans, we would be in trouble.

It's not reasonable to believe that private services can cover everything.

why not? almost everything is privatized. Our tolls, prisons, security, commerces, defense contractors, customer service, etc. are privatized. Government's their biggest client.

I think the Federal government is involved in too many things but I also believe that there are some functions (as enumerated in the Constitution) that only the Federal government can and should do.

I agree.

Even the privileged can't defend the entire country. Do the privileged have a fleet of ballistic submarines? Do the privileged have nuclear weapons? Do the privileged have war ships? Do they have squadrons of fighter and transport aircraft?

these war machines are designed and built by companies owned by privileged people. Many countries in the world are using our defense contractors to provide security, to assist in drug war, to train a military, and to serve as consultant/meditator/negotiator for hostage situation.

I never said that it was. I do expect the government to keep its word and use it for what was promised.

don't we all? that's why I don't expect much from them.

I don't know to what "line" you're referring. I'm in no hurry to get Medicare, that's for sure.

it's a metaphor. a soup line during Great Depression.

I never said anything about not liking what the Army has (whatever it is you're referring to).

again - a metaphor for "you just make-do with what we have for you."

As much as I boost Blackwater (I still prefer that name), they obviously can't provide our country with national defense.

not very concerned about it. there are millions of armed citizens including me who are ready to defend this country together with our soldiers. all I can say to foreign invaders - good luck!

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Yamamoto

 

[Reba]

not very concerned about it. there are millions of armed citizens including me who are ready to defend this country together with our soldiers. all I can say to foreign invaders - good luck!

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Yamamoto

You still don't get it. We don't want to let any foreign invaders land on our shores, fly over our country, or send bombs and missiles to our cities. A good national defense would prevent anything of the enemy even touching our shore or air space, much less being in range of any armed civilians. Who wants them coming to our neighborhoods? I don't want to see the whites of their eyes before getting rid of them.

I don't care how well armed you are; you can't shoot down a missile with what you have. You can't protect our shipping lanes with what you have.

 

[Jiro]

You still don't get it. We don't want to let any foreign invaders land on our shores, fly over our country, or send bombs and missiles to our cities. A good national defense would prevent anything of the enemy even touching our shore or air space, much less being in range of any armed civilians. Who wants them coming to our neighborhoods? I don't want to see the whites of their eyes before getting rid of them.

I don't care how well armed you are; you can't shoot down a missile with what you have. You can't protect our shipping lanes with what you have.

still not concerned. when's the last time we've actually had a foreign invasion? Pearl Harbor?

 

[TXgolfer]

I'm not referring to retirees. Only those irrational bunch with self-entitlement attitude.

Actually, you said...

I trust that the system will improve itself to be less flawed.

The amount of money I leave in a system would be a trifle compared to my retirement fund.

Then I said...

Glad you have a plan....many don't. Also, most people consider 12.4% of their income (10.4 currently) to be a significant amount of money and would want it back...If you don't that is your right. *shrug*

then you said

ah.... that gimme gimme gimme attitude....

So you were talking about retirees.....at least at one point.

 

[Reba]

still not concerned. when's the last time we've actually had a foreign invasion? Pearl Harbor?

The reason we haven't been invaded is because we have a strong national defense. Duh!

 

[Jiro]

The reason we haven't been invaded is because we have a strong national defense. Duh!

yes because we have been paying taxes despite of many people who are too poor or too greedy to pay for taxes.

we all share a burden for the sake of national security... so why not another burden for the sake of this country's well-being? at this current rate, I don't think we'll have much of a strong national defense if our nation is too fat and sick to protect ourselves but since PPACA has finally passed.... looks like my confidence has been restored back!

one for all, all for one...

 

[Jiro]

So you were talking about retirees.....at least at one point.

again - "irrational bunch with self-entitlement attitude".

As you said.... "Also, most people consider 12.4% of their income (10.4 currently) to be a significant amount of money and would want it back."

if it's currently 10.4%... but they want 12.4%... sounds like gimme gimme gimme!

 

[TXgolfer]

again - "irrational bunch with self-entitlement attitude".

You say that now...

As you said.... "Also, most people consider 12.4% of their income (10.4 currently) to be a significant amount of money and would want it back."

if it's currently 10.4%... but they want 12.4%... sounds like gimme gimme gimme!

Wow! You really have no understanding of how this works do you? The Feds withhold 12.4% annually to put toward social security. 6.2% paid by the employee....6.2% paid by the employer. For the years 2011 & 2012 the employee contribution is reduced to 4.2% (hello borrowing against SS) thus, "currently 10.4%" total. Self employed people like Reba and I (formerly) pay both halves of that burden. So, yeah most people would consider throwing away 12.4% of their lifetime income to be silly. But if you don't that is your choice.

 

[Foxrac]

You say that now...

Wow! You really have no understanding of how this works do you? The Feds withhold 12.4% annually to put toward social security. 6.2% paid by the employee....6.2% paid by the employer. For the years 2011 & 2012 the employee contribution is reduced to 4.2% (hello borrowing against SS) thus, "currently 10.4%" total. Self employed people like Reba and I (formerly) pay both halves of that burden. So, yeah most people would consider throwing away 12.4% of their lifetime income to be silly. But if you don't that is your choice.

That's part of life so quit being whine.

 

[Frisky Feline]

 

[Jiro]

You say that now...

Wow! You really have no understanding of how this works do you? The Feds withhold 12.4% annually to put toward social security. 6.2% paid by the employee....6.2% paid by the employer. For the years 2011 & 2012 the employee contribution is reduced to 4.2% (hello borrowing against SS) thus, "currently 10.4%" total. Self employed people like Reba and I (formerly) pay both halves of that burden. So, yeah most people would consider throwing away 12.4% of their lifetime income to be silly. But if you don't that is your choice.

A reduction of 2% tax rate is part of Tax Relief Act of 2010.... which is why you and Reba are paying 10.4% instead of 12.4%. a modest tax cut.

For self-employment, well yea you're both employee and employer but hey... you get to do a heck lot more tax deductions than an employee like me. You're basically saving more money if you do it right and get clever with it.

 

[Foxrac]

With a reduction of 2% tax rate, that's a part of Tax Relief Act of 2010.... which is why you and Reba are paying 10.4% instead of 12.4%.

For self-employment, well yea you're both employee and employer but hey... you get to do a heck lot more tax deductions than an employee like me. You're basically saving more money if you do it right and get clever with it.

It looks like TXgolfer had bad tax preparer so that why he didn't get any saving.

 

[Jiro]

It looks like TXgolfer had bad tax preparer so that why he didn't get any saving.

No. He knows money very well. Just that he's obfuscating the issue

 

[TXgolfer]

A reduction of 2% tax rate is part of Tax Relief Act of 2010.... which is why you and Reba are paying 10.4% instead of 12.4%. a modest tax cut.

Ah good, so you get it now....except of course that the employed also get this temporary cut. I doubt you understand the concept of how this is in fact a type of loan.....so we will just skip that.

Edit to add.... suffice to say, they are counting on that 2% being recovered at some point. Charities and financial planners would be put in jail for similar dealings.

For self-employment, well yea you're both employee and employer but hey... you get to do a heck lot more tax deductions than an employee like me. You're basically saving more money if you do it right and get clever with it.

Depends...for some it is better not to itemize.

 

[TXgolfer]

No. He knows money very well. Just that he's obfuscating the issue

Not really, retirees pay that money in. 12.4% of lifetime earnings is alot of money to some. Now if you want to cut off freeloaders....I am all for that.

 

[Jiro]

Ah good, so you get it now....except of course that the employed also get this temporary cut. I doubt you understand the concept of how this is in fact a type of loan.....so we will just skip that.

It's not that I don't understand. It's how you perceive it. I, of course, see it differently.

Edit to add.... suffice to say, they are counting on that 2% being recovered at some point.

gimme gimme gimme!

Charities and financial planners would be put in jail for similar dealings.

and? why are you talking about it? it's very simple - you break the law, you go to jail.

Depends...for some it is better not to itemize.

in your case..... you have a much wider latitude than a regular employee when it comes to itemizing. You flying around... eating out... hotel... your car.... all or mostly itemized

 

[Reba]

...Self employed people like Reba and I (formerly) pay both halves of that burden. So, yeah most people would consider throwing away 12.4% of their lifetime income to be silly. But if you don't that is your choice.

Correct. Hubby (TCS) and my daughter also do the same.

Our Federal taxes are about 33%.

 

[Reba]

That's part of life so quit being whine.

If we had a Fair Tax (consumption tax) that you don't like, would you like me to tell you the same thing?

 

[Reba]

A reduction of 2% tax rate is part of Tax Relief Act of 2010.... which is why you and Reba are paying 10.4% instead of 12.4%. a modest tax cut.

For self-employment, well yea you're both employee and employer but hey... you get to do a heck lot more tax deductions than an employee like me. You're basically saving more money if you do it right and get clever with it.

You're kidding, right? We get no more tax deductions than anyone else. We have business expenses that are calculated in but they hardly make a dent in the tax burden.

For every $1,000 of expenses, maybe it knocks off $10 from the taxes. Big deal. We never get refunds; we get a bill from the IRS every year.

If by clever you mean dishonest or unethical, no we don't do that.

Our only deductions we get are the same that anyone can get, such as for charitable giving. Even that makes a teeny difference in taxes.

 

[TXgolfer]

gimme gimme gimme!

So now the government has the gimme gimme gimme mentality.... I see. That's quite a switch you made there.

and? why are you talking about it? it's very simple - you break the law, you go to jail.

That's the way it should be.....but government gets to make different rules for themselves.

in your case..... you have a much wider latitude than a regular employee when it comes to itemizing. You flying around... eating out... hotel... your car.... all or mostly itemized

If I were currently in business, yes I would most likely benefit from itemizing.