Obamacare watch...Supreme Court Decision

kokonut said:
A wet dream since you espoused such positive things about having a nearly non-existent tax burden, lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, and other things. You held them up like a trophy. That's a definition of a liberal wet dream.
Click to expand...

:giggle:

Yeah, I saw that too.
 
Foxrac said:
I think it will rather to be social difference because majority of republicans are from rural that has high number of poverty than in urban.

If you work at low paying job so your federal tax should be 10% but if your husband has more income than you do so that why federal tax is 33%, also you are married too - jointly.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify; neither of us makes very much but because we're self employed we pay 33%. We also pay income tax on our retirement pensions.
 
Reba said:
:laugh2:

Not even close! Not even half that. Not even half of half that.
Click to expand...

That's not laugh matters because chart shows fact.

It looks like you are doing wrong with tax returns or bad tax preparer.

Does FICA tax include in 33%?
 
Foxrac said:
That's not laugh matters because chart shows fact.

It looks like you are doing wrong with tax returns or bad tax preparer.

Does FICA tax include in 33%?
Click to expand...
Yes, FICA's included in that 33%

Don't forget, we pay the employer's share plus the employee's share.

For example, if I got paid $3,000 for a good month of work, I would write a check for $1,000 to the IRS.
 
Reba said:
Yes, FICA's included in that 33%

Don't forget, we pay the employer's share plus the employee's share.

For example, if I got paid $3,000 for a good month of work, I would write a check for $1,000 to the IRS.
Click to expand...

Oh, I got it now.

I'm apologized about made huge mistake because I haven't question you about FICA tax included in percent.
 
So what if people have Medicare for insurance do they still have to buy health insurance?? I was surprised the court upheld this. I do not like the idea of making health insurance mandatory...
 
Foxrac said:
It is depending on situation and the court disagree with you.

Driving while drinking is serious matter and some of my friends got killed in nasty accident that hit by drunk drivers. I had seen many drunk drivers around on road in here.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a needed and a necessary law for driving under influence (DUI) and for driving when intoxicated (DWI) but would you rather the federal government have control over these laws or each individual state? For the government to take over means there are no state rights, which is actually what Washington today wants. With the Supreme Court decision the government had taken over the insurance industry. Is this something you want? I sure in hell don't want this.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
So what if people have Medicare for insurance do they still have to buy health insurance?? I was surprised the court upheld this. I do not like the idea of making health insurance mandatory...
Click to expand...

No, if you have Medicare so you are good to go.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
So what if people have Medicare for insurance do they still have to buy health insurance?? I was surprised the court upheld this. I do not like the idea of making health insurance mandatory...
Click to expand...

What I'm having a hard time understanding is the point that people with no personal income (i.e. a wage) nor any personal wealth can be taxed, according to S.C.
this includes the great number of people whom are totally reliant on entitlements for themself and others. Would the S.C. and/or the government demands that part of this entitlement funds go to health and life insurance first before the funds can be spent on the likes of junk food, cell phones, cigs., booze, etc.?
IMO, those hard workers whom have deductions from their hard earn paychecks are being double taxed....once for themself and once for those whom don't earn a damn dime by themself.
 
rolling7 said:
Yes, there is a needed and a necessary law for driving under influence (DUI) and for driving when intoxicated (DWI) but would you rather the federal government have control over these laws or each individual state? For the government to take over means there are no state rights, which is actually what Washington today wants. With the Supreme Court decision the government had taken over the insurance industry. Is this something you want? I sure in hell don't want this.
Click to expand...

What happen if state doesn't have DUI/DWI laws?

Every states have to follow federal regulation if they want receive federal highway funding, even they can refuse but they will lose the federal highway funding.

The state rights isn't in danger.
 
rolling7 said:
What I'm having a hard time understanding is the point that people with no personal income (i.e. a wage) nor any personal wealth can be taxed, according to S.C.
this includes the great number of people whom are totally reliant on entitlements for themself and others. Would the S.C. and/or the government demands that part of this entitlement funds go to health and life insurance first before the funds can be spent on the likes of junk food, cell phones, cigs., booze, etc.?
IMO, those hard workers whom have deductions from their hard earn paychecks are being double taxed....once for themself and once for those whom don't earn a damn dime by themself.
Click to expand...

That's VERY silliest post ever that I had seen.

No health insurance = 1% tax

Can't afford to buy health insurance = tax waived but you will covered under Medicaid or Medicare
 
whatdidyousay! said:
So what if people have Medicare for insurance do they still have to buy health insurance?? I was surprised the court upheld this. I do not like the idea of making health insurance mandatory...
Click to expand...

no
 
rolling7 said:
What I'm having a hard time understanding is the point that people with no personal income (i.e. a wage) nor any personal wealth can be taxed, according to S.C.
this includes the great number of people whom are totally reliant on entitlements for themself and others. Would the S.C. and/or the government demands that part of this entitlement funds go to health and life insurance first before the funds can be spent on the likes of junk food, cell phones, cigs., booze, etc.?
IMO, those hard workers whom have deductions from their hard earn paychecks are being double taxed....once for themself and once for those whom don't earn a damn dime by themself.
Click to expand...

did you forget about exemption? I find it puzzling that you're not capable of understanding that people below poverty level would not be taxed.
 
Jiro said:
did you forget about exemption? I find it puzzling that you're not capable of understanding that people below poverty level would not be taxed.
Click to expand...

His brain is already FRIED.
 
Jiro said:
did you forget about exemption? I find it puzzling that you're not capable of understanding that people below poverty level would not be taxed.
Click to expand...

I do understand it. My point is that these folks you speak of are spending the entitlement not to pay THEIR tax (as the S.C.opinion stated) but are spending the funds on foolish pleasures. Should not the government and the S.C.require that these folks get less in their pocket because the government will pay these folk's tax with that money?
My question to you would be: Why would a person with absolute no personal earnings be concern about "exemptions"?
 
Foxrac said:
His brain is already FRIED.
Click to expand...

Yes, Foxrac. It is fired up to seak the truth and make the truth known.
To bad you can not understand this. Perhaps you bed to step back and let others educate you about this subject. Personal knowledge, which I have tons of due to life experience, is something you have very little of. First step: Learn to respect your elders.
 
Back
Top