|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
I've been on a bit of a health kick lately spurred by recent debate here and so the "Obamacare" bit here caught my eye.... The examples here really don't seem all that horrible do they? Quote:
The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.
Ummm....this is the top point? The Jersey Shore folks will be crushed...
Quote:
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
Makes sense. Health savings are to pay for medically necessary procedures and medications are they not? Grabbing some Tylenol out of health dollars hardly seems necessary.
Quote:
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Well, its a health savings account....hence its for health. Looks to me that they're trying to ensure that Americans maintain health savings. (que cries of "I don;t need the gov't telling me what to do") If I'm to hazard a guess, it's likely because there have been too many cases of people blowing health savings and then needing them. But...just a guess.
Quote:
Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.
On the contrary, with more impetus to make generics, drug prices will likely drop.
Quote:
Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.
This is a little vague. How does it relate to health care?
Quote:
Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.
Or it will allow a tax rebate to employers for providing health insurance.
I respect the fact that many folks on here are against any type of universal healthcare but I admit, the opposition still confuses me. But it does make for some interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.
On the contrary, with more impetus to make generics, drug prices will likely drop.
I see that as a huge problem. The Name-Brand manufacturer has put up huge $$ in R&D of the drug. They are trying to recoup their investment. With generics able to vastly undercut them will make many companies unwilling to create new drugs.
With that type of thinking how can the medicines improve in the future?? This could possibly hamper the cure for AIDS, Cancer, Alzheimer..ect...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
I think there's a little truth and a fair amount of exaggeration in that argument.
So many of the drugs that get shuffled onto the market are simply re-hashes of existing drugs with a formula change so that they can get a new patent on it after the first has expired.
Most drugs that have a large impact are accidental discoveries anyway... and accidents will continue to happen.
The big important drugs that affect the things you cited, if they are worthwhile, will get the tax added and they will sell just fine.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
You would have to change the patent law for that to even be feasible. When a patent is granted for a drug, the inventor has exclusive rights for a predetermined period of time. They will sell it exclusively for that time period for whatever price the market bears. That is how they pay for the research and fund ongoing research.
This, in my opinion, is one of the risks we are taking with some of this new legislation. If it weren't fro places like the U.S., where there is an incentive to develop cutting edge technology, who exactly will? If you take the profit out of creating new drugs, the pharms will just produce existing drugs as cheaply as possible and sell them. Why bother getting FDA approval and paying some crew of overpriced braniacs to make something new?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
The reason is exactly what you describe Shadow. They have several years of exclusive rights to the drug. This gives them time to recoup. Plus, when their patent expires, they can still sell the drug but will need to lower the prices.
Is anyone here going to weep that big pharma is making a little less?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Even if they change the formula slightly the generic company can sell the drug under the old formula. So a new patent isn't going to matter that much.
Also, it can take many years to get approved by the FDA and a lot of times when it finally does there is only a few years left on the patent.
There are many companies out there that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year on AIDS, Cancer and Alzheimer. All I'm saying is some of these companies might back off some money if they feel the investment is no longer worthy. And that COULD mean the cures if there ever is one might take longer to develop.
Yes there will always be groups/companies researching because of grants and fundraisers and such, but some companies might not put in as much as they would without a tax hike.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Even factoring in approval time, since often companies start the process before they've even started trails, companies typically have an average of 8 to 10 years of exclusivity.
I don't think drug companies would back off R&D efforts because ultimately new drugs is what drives their profits. If they stop making new medications and getting those years of market monopoly in, they stop making money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
The reason is exactly what you describe Shadow. They have several years of exclusive rights to the drug. This gives them time to recoup. Plus, when their patent expires, they can still sell the drug but will need to lower the prices.
Is anyone here going to weep that big pharma is making a little less?
Again, with a lot of new drugs the FDA needs to approve it first. I believe there is a patent on a "pill for men" but the FDA has yet to approve it. In the article I read the patent has only a couple years left on it but a vast majority of the years they have been unable to sell it. So they have two options:
1) Raise the price for the remaining of the years which means we the consumers eat the tax hike.
or
2) Make less profit.
Which one do you think will happen????
As for how much they make, no I won't weep if they make less, but I won't really care if they make more. In fact I'd prefer it if they made more because it will probably mean they will invest more into the medical community if they do.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
So how does that create more impetus to create generics? Taking more money from the newer drugs via higher tax just takes more money out of my pocket. The pharms aren't going to cut their bottom line because of a tax. And if they are forced to charge less, the impetus will be to do less research.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
If the FDA hasn't approved it, then maybe this company has sketch clinical results. If the drug isn;t clearly effective, people won't use it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Actually, I realize I read that line wrong. I read it as there would be an additional tax on brand name drugs- not brand drug manufacturers.
If additional tax were to be placed on brand name drugs, the price would raise which would make generic drugs more attractive to consumers. But, you may say, then generic firms will increase their prices. True, some may....but once its gone generic, there will still be someone who will price themselves in as the lower cost provider.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
Not to derail this discussion, but if people wouldn't take an ineffective drug, how do you explain the HUGE market for instant weight loss pills? People will buy virtually anything if the commercial is good enough.
now, taking advertising away from the pharm industry? I could get behind that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
It means we will have to rely on government research and grants for new drugs, which in turn comes from the tax payer which in turn raises the budget and taxes. So they either ram it up the behinds of those that want/need the drugs the private companies profit from, or they ram it up the behinds off all of us to pay for those that want/need it when the government funds it. We really should just give up and collect all our neighbors paychecks and divvy them up evenly amongst the neighborhood. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Unfortunately, weight loss pills are often classified as "herbal" or "naturopathic" medications and, as such, do not have to meet the same stringent standards as pharmaceuticals.
But you make a good point...there's a sucker born every minute. How else do you explain Steeler fans?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
If the FDA hasn't approved it, then maybe this company has sketch clinical results. If the drug isn;t clearly effective, people won't use it anyway.
The drug has been proven many time but it's a new drug and the FDA requires more testing and time to see possible long term side effects. Which is smart but again it eats up the patent time.
If they want to start the patent expiration time from when it's approved then fine but the tax hike will be eaten by the consumer, not the company. So really it is a tax hike to the people that want/need the drug.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
It means we will have to rely on government research and grants for new drugs, which in turn comes from the tax payer which in turn raises the budget and taxes.
So they either ram it up the behinds of those that want/need the drugs the private companies profit from, or they ram it up the behinds off all of us to pay for those that want/need it when the government funds it.
We really should just give up and collect all our neighbors paychecks and divvy them up evenly amongst the neighborhood.
I believe that system is referred to as Charlieism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
If the FDA hasn't approved it, then maybe this company has sketch clinical results. If the drug isn;t clearly effective, people won't use it anyway.
The drug has been proven many time but it's a new drug and the FDA requires more testing and time to see possible long term side effects. Which is smart but again it eats up the patent time.
If they want to start the patent expiration time from when it's approved then fine but the tax hike will be eaten by the consumer, not the company. So really it is a tax hike to the people that want/need the drug.
Drugs still have an average exclusivity time of 8 to 10 years. That's alot of cash. Unfortunately, people will always pay more for new drugs that haven't gone generic.
What you guys need is a good public drug plan.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
As far as the generics go, market competition is what keeps them inexpensive. Without the R/D overhead, it becomes a supply and demand relationship. Any tax on that side would just pull directly from the consumer, be it an insurance company or individual.
The problem with overpricing new drugs (especially with the intent of making older ones more desirable) is so counter to what medicine should be about. Driving people away from advancement, and subsequently reducing the benefit of creating newer better medicines, is a very dangerous approach.
It doesn't end with drugs either. Very quietly, in the background, a lot of major medical equipment manufacturers are getting hit very hard. Reduced reimbursement creates less demand for a competitive edge. When less hospitals are able to pay for the latest and greatest diagnostic equipment, companies like Toshiba and GE pull back resources from R/D to maintain margins.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
I respect the fact that many folks on here are against any type of universal healthcare but I admit, the opposition still confuses me.
I'll tell you why i Oppose it. I am against Universal Health care because I do not want to pay for someone else insurance.
you see most of the people here and in other places that "complain" about the cost of a hospital visit.
just recently...a family complained a vaccine was 900+ dollars for their kid and they cried "thats too much money to pay"
Well lets see here:
It didn't cost them too much to:
1. Drive that nice 35,000+ SUV
2. How bout that nice 1700+ plasma HDTV and surrond sound stereo system sitting in their living room
3. How bout every member of the family that has a lap top
they got money for that, but they got no money to pay a doctor bill...how convenient....
I still hold 90% of the people in this country that compalin about the cost of medical care have the money to pay for their own they just choose NOT TO
the new SUV, the HDTV, the surround sound speakers, etc PROVE THIS POINT.
they just don't want to spend their money on something that isn't a gadget...its not convenient...they can afford a 120 dollar a month cell phone bill...1440 dollars a year...but they can't pay for a vaccine..the vaccine is not the rip off the cell phone bill is
MOST AMERICANS ARE HYPOCITES! Yes my own countryman are hypocrites...if they can afford Cash for Clunkers, if they can afford a to drive a new SUV, if they can afford a cell phone, if they can afford an HDTV, THEN THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY THEIR OWN DARN MEDICAL BILLS
sorry for the caps but it ticks me off and im just tired of this stupid entitlement ideology.....these people are not entitled to jack squat but what they earn on their own.
like i said..95% of these people could pay their own bills, they choose not too...because its not convenient..they got money for the new Iphone though right!..however can't afford a hospital visit...hypocrites in the finest...I have yet to see a hospital that won't take payments...you have no problem peeing money down the drain on a cell phone, or satellite tv, or anything else you can think of right? pay your own darn medical bills then
(the you is not directed at "you" just the tense of the sentence)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Fair enuf KOB but by the same token, isn't it also paying your own health care?
Here's how I see it..... Right now, I really am not paying my health care and am just paying into the system. This is because I have not made use of the health care system for quite awhile (knock wood).
However, I know its there if I need it. Everyone does. I don't need to worry on whether or not the insurance company will try to weasel out of it. I don't need to worry about a sudden rise in my premiums and being left without.
It's there. It's been there in the past, its here now and it will be there in the future.
I pay into the system and when something happens, I don't need to worry about it- whether its a sprained ankle or a brain hemmorage. Really, at the end of the day, its no different than insurance...its just run through my taxes.
I'd be interested to see if, at my salary, US tax+medical would be less than Canadian taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.
Ummm....this is the top point? The Jersey Shore folks will be crushed...
No, it is not the top point.. it is a point though. Now it's tanning, next it will be salt, then caffeine, then transfats, then red dye.. I'm sick and tired of social engineering through the tax code... at least until such time as they figure out a way to tax stupidity.. at that point our government will begin paying for itself.
Quote:
Quote:
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Well, its a health savings account....hence its for health. Looks to me that they're trying to ensure that Americans maintain health savings. (que cries of "I don;t need the gov't telling me what to do") If I'm to hazard a guess, it's likely because there have been too many cases of people blowing health savings and then needing them. But...just a guess.
If we are all going to be required to have such great health insurance and we'll be fined, imprisoned, and stoned to death if we don't all get government approved health insurance.. then why do I need a health savings account?
Quote:
Quote:
Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.
This is a little vague. How does it relate to health care?
For a long time the IRS has been allowed to determine if a financial transaction had any substance or if it was only done to serve as a way of avoiding taxes.. I'm not sure how this concept has changed but the IRS has been able to look into these types of activities for a long time.
Quote:
Quote:
Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.
On the contrary, with more impetus to make generics, drug prices will likely drop.
Cracks me up.. this whole thing was supposed to save us so much money and not require any new taxes.. what is this about the 4th new tax that will passed on to the people just in this one little discussion? They act like the big pharmaceutical companies are just going to suck it up and pay this tax out of their profit... out of the goodness of their hearts I suppose..  Ain't going to happen.. you and I and our insurance companies are going to have this tax passed on to us.. good plan. 
Quote:
I respect the fact that many folks on here are against any type of universal healthcare but I admit, the opposition still confuses me.
Why does it confuse you? Let me help you... spend a couple hours and look up our social security plan and how that started and how it is working today.. then look up medicare.... then look up public housing... welfare... public education... roads and infrastructure... look up ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is run by our federal government then sit back, have a drink and ask youself... "WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH WOULD I WANT THESE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR MY HEALTHCARE?"
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quick, legitimate question- not meant to be a cut or anything, just curious....
When was the last administration you had trust in?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
My answer? Reagan... and I was under 18 in age and didn't have much of a clue.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Question.... Are there seperate income taxes for state and federal? Am trying to figure out what the difference in tax is? According to the "1040 form", I'm at a 25% tax rate. Does that include both state and federal?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
No, that is just Federal.
You file a separate form(s) for your State and Local taxes, depending on where you live.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
My first ever vote was for Reagan and I trusted him... had some trust in Bush I but wasn't overly excited... absolutely did not like Clinton when he took office but actually liked him more when he left (personal issues aside)... liked W but he wasn't anywhere near the person I thought I voted for.. voted for him again because John F'n Kerry is an even bigger idiot... voted for McCain even though I was less than enthused but Obama has been everything I feared he would be X2... Going back a bit in history, my favorite President in recent memory would have been John F. Kennedy, which is probably why he was the first "neo-con".. that term was created for him.  (probably not a lot of democrats know that... ) Mostly though, I'm extremely disappointed in congress. The President is one person.. maybe I should expect that person to be the best of the best but I don't.. and in reality, I think 500 people who are supposed to be qualified to represent us on a more personal level should be more reasonable and responsible than any one individual.. and they have failed and continue to fail miserably. and the last congress I trusted, was Newt Gingrich's in the mid 90s.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Got it.....
So, with very rough calculations, it appears that at my current salary I'd net $6,000 more a year.
What's your average health insurance run per month or year?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
I pay $2800 a year for me and my kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
I think I pay like $100/month or something like that.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
K, well I have a tyke so I'll use FreeAgent's number.... So at the end of the day, I'm $3,200 off for the year. That's pretty significant. I guess significant enough that I'd be reluctant to change as well if I was born south of the border. There's obviously more to it as insurance plans differ and whatnot in what they cover, what they don't yadda yadda yadda plus the other bits that our socialist utopia provides. But in the spot I'm in right now, an extra $266 a month certainly wouldn't hurt- but I'm happy to pay it for the overall security.
Last edited by CanadaDawg; 09/08/10 01:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Between my portion and the companies portion I think around 3-3.5k a year for the wife and I.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Quote:
an extra $266 a month certainly wouldn't hurt- but I'm happy to pay it for the overall security.
That makes one of us.
I'm actually guessing at that $100 as I honestly don't know what I pay, I'm pretty certain that I pay much less... but I do know that have some really good coverage.
Round your $266 up to $300 and we can call that close enough.... and no, I'm not willing to pay that much extra to get the same damn thing - or less. That is not even getting into the increased Gov't intrusion into our lives that we'll be subject to.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Not exactly the same thing Purp as that difference isn't just medicare....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
huh?
I'm not following you.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
K, well I have a tyke so I'll use FreeAgent's number....
So at the end of the day, I'm $3,200 off for the year. That's pretty significant. I guess significant enough that I'd be reluctant to change as well if I was born south of the border.
There's obviously more to it as insurance plans differ and whatnot in what they cover, what they don't yadda yadda yadda plus the other bits that our socialist utopia provides. But in the spot I'm in right now, an extra $266 a month certainly wouldn't hurt- but I'm happy to pay it for the overall security.
Actually - that's what he pays - $2800. That's about what we pay as well. However, to get the true numbers, you need to find out what his employer pays for him as well. That would be the true cost of his insurance. (just because someone else pays it for you doesn't mean it's free)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Canada's social security net is a little more broad than the states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Ok, sure. What was the point you were making?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Is that the difference in taxation isn't just the existance of public health care and will include funding other social programs.
At the end of the day, I know that if I worked in the States, my paycheques would be a bit larger though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Yes, you pay far more in taxes (for now... we're apparently trying to catch up), and you get social programs as a result (hopefully).
The money we are talking is just health care... that doesn't include what we are taxed separately for medicare/medicaid, or social security.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
j/c Obama confirms no extension of tax breaks to "wealthy" Obama: U.S. cannot afford tax cuts for wealthier Americans On Wednesday September 8, 2010, 2:05 pm PARMA, Ohio (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Wednesday ruled out extending Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans, as he sought to draw a sharp distinction between his Democrats and Republicans in this election year. "This isn't to punish folks who are better off -- it's because we can't afford the $700 billion price tag," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery. (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, editing by Alister Bull)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum 120 Days until the largest tax
hikes in the history of America
Take Effect
|
|
