Obama is in his second term he doesnt have to worry about votes. Anyway forcing people to buy healthcare doesnt seem very socialist to me. it would be socialist to provide free healthcare. Am I wrong on this?

"I was pointing out that the subset in question is the primary case where this occurs....... Well, if you are Obmatard, you make them go bankrupt by forcing them to offer it."

You just did it again! You're using your specific dislike for the *some* portions of Obamacare in order to dismiss the notion that we NEED something in place and we need it NOW. Besides, to my knowledge your argument regarding the impact of Obamacare on small business is just plain wrong. See the following:

" 96% of all firms in the United States - or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms - have under 50 employees and Will not Be Penalized for choosing not to provide health coverage to their employees. 96% of those firms already cover full time workers. That means less than .2% of small businesses (10k out of 6 million) will actually have to provide insurance to full-time employees or pay the shared responsibility fee due to ObamaCare. "


http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-smallbusiness.php



"...substandard..."

compared to what? Pretty sure that compared to the big slice of nothing they were enjoying before it's a mighty big step up.

Now you willfully misinterpret. Compared to having a job, welfare is substandard. I clearly referred to the people who would be outbof work when their employers shut the doors and file bankruptcy.

And your right, Sic, forcing people to buy a product isn't socialism. It's totalitarian despotism.

Actually, Draug, you're right. Sorry. It wasn't deliberate but I did miss your context. It's still a bullshit theory, but I was arguing against the wrong bullshit theory.

Yeah I can agree with that seems kindof despotic. Kinda pales in comparison to NDAA 2012 and military commisions act and kill lists and on and on but... yeah, government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. hmmm

Anyways, this whole line of argument is a red herring now. The vast majority of small businesses won't be affected, so lets stay in the real world. The real world where people who didn't have health care now have it.

"And your right, Sic, forcing people to buy a product isn't socialism. It's totalitarian despotism."

Really? So is public education then, and emergency care, and police protection, and fire protection, and everything else we're taxed for. Lets not get ludicrous here Draugnar, there is nothing despotic about universal health care, much less Obamacare. You don't like the mandate. I get it. Still not despotism.

Um, yes it is. Taxation is not forced purchase. Taxation is a percentage and all people receive the same coverage regardless of their percent. Purchase is a fixed price based on product. The fact that product could cost upwards of 10 grand or more per year even for someone who only makes 20 grand a year means it is not a tax. The fact that the money goes to a private *for profit* company (not the US government) means it is not a tax. The fact that SCOTUS was heavily divided and even the opinion affirming and upholding it still chastised the government means... Well it means SCOTUS was forced to agree when the administration called it a tax and the prosecution didn't argue the argument I just set forth.

I do understand that argument Draug, but doesn't it seem just the slightest bit hypocritical?

Republicans refuse to entertain any notion of a true universal, government sponsored healthcare, and then they split hairs with this argument coming down on Obamacare because the money is going to Private corporations. An issue on which they've left us with really no alternative. Obamacare was the left's compromise.

"" "people said the same thing about public schooling systems that they are saying about universal healthcare"

No they didn't, silly. Public education was an early, consistent, and consistently popular movement in the US. Some areas of the US had free public education before 1700, and its spread was largely uncontroversial.""

umm i was referring to prior to the 1700s back when elitists thought that letting anyone getting educated would tarnish the reputation and lessen the value of a normal education ie. sophists, machavellianists (sp) etc

The US sure has some nice places, but...
http://www.infowars.com/34-signs-that-america-is-in-decline/

It's interesting to see how many people get so vexed about universal health care for US taxpayers (like health care is a bad thing):-
Is the same anger generated when the US govt spend billions on funding overseas wars, would there be genuine anger if people like Romney had to pay more than 11% tax?
What say did the US taxpayer have when the US supplied weapons to people like Iraq, Israel, Libya, Viet Nam, the Contras, et al? (I know there are lots more)
Romney seemed to stand on a ticket of this is what I want to do as opposed to addressing what the needs of the country were, are the US urgently in need of tax breaks for the rich or tighter abortion laws, that guy was off the wall.
I love the phrase "anyone can get rich" doesnt mean "everyone can get rich" because it highlights the bullshit some people cling to when desperate. When you get to the stage when you feel the need to tell everyone how great you are alarm bells should be ringing, there are serious problems and wrapping yourself in the star spangled banner will never make you immune from reality. America will need to be Brave once they hit the fiscal cliff, it's not if you need the medicine, it's when you pluck up enough courage to take it.

Hey Nigee - Rpmney already pays 14%, you stupid fuck.

Hey Draug settle down man, if he's off by 3% that doesn't make him a stupid fuck, and the rest of his argument is quite interesting indeed.

Draug
Is 14% the high earner income tax bracket in the States, if so I think I may have solution to the current US govt debt ...... stick it up to 40% and watch those greenbacks roll in. Why would your high earners pay such little tax, does that make any sense, surely the rich people can afford to pay more without adversely affecting their quality of life, that seems to make economic sense or is there something in the Constitution that prevents people paying their fair share.
I know that some people are greedy and want to pay as little as they possibly can but you can't build a society on greed and self-interest alone, civilised social democracies don't work that way.
Giving to the poor doesn't make you a Socialist
Paying tax doesn't make you a Socialist
Raising health care standards doesn't make you a Socialist
Caring about other people doesn't make you a Socialist
Tax and spend doesn't make you a Socialist
Voting Democrat doesn't make you a Socialist
Caring about the environment doesn't make you a Socialist
No, you need to work a lot harder that that before you can wear that badge.

"...Is 14% the high earner income tax bracket..." You morons, Romney is not paying 14% "Income" tax. He does not earn a paycheck like you and I probably do. He has investments, and pays taxes on dividends, on capital gains, etc. THAT is why he pays a different tax rate than others, because utilizing the Tax Code which the DEMOCRATS did not change while they held the White House and both houses of Congress, that is what he legally owes.

By the way...any of you brainiacs ever look at what Obama pays?

Bottom line...you are targeting the wrong straw man, morons.

"Oh so you're able to make huge profits thanks to all the unpaid domestic labor that helps to perpetuate wage slavery?
Tell me more about the economic parasites with a grandiose sense of entitlement who expect a handout from people who actually work"

@Nigee as krellin pointed out, he pays 14% capital gains the same as any other investor. The dummycrats have convinced the poor that the money Romney (and I and a *lot* of other Americans) make off investments is the same as working a 9 to 5 job. But I didn't see the guy at McDonald's lose his life savings on 9/11. I, however, lost $250,000 that day. That's right, a quarter million. That is because it was invested. In reality, it was about $75,000 of my own money and another $175,000 that it had earned. So, yes, I think 14% is fair when you are putting your own money at risk.

The capital gains rate is 15%. Romney is getting below that probably with tax credits on some of his investments.

Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% taxes on each dollar I make for the rest of the year (plus sales and property taxes on top of that) - and I'm making just over the median household income for Californians. The whole system is completely fracked up; anyone talking about fiddling with the rates in the income brackets to bring more "fairness" to the world doesn't have a clue and should just shut up.

Not to mention, the money being invested -- i.e. RISKED -- in which you *may* earn (and be taxed on) Capital Gains...has **already been taxed** as Income BEFORE growing. Further, the capital gains (in theory) come as the result of your investment (i.e. some corporation with stock) having grown, and thus it, too paid more taxes, both in terms of corporate taxes and via the income tax of its employees.

An argument can easily be made that Capital Gains should be *eliminated* completely!

If we are sop very much concerned about taxing income, then why do we not leagalize and tax the *many* substances flowing around in the "underground" economy, including marijuana and prostitution....and POLITICAL donations...

Further, can we please go after Hollywood money a little harder. The Libs in Michigan (and many other states) can't hand out tax credits fast enough to give Hollywood a tax break.

Ohhh the hypocrisy...

"Capital Gains...has **already been taxed** as Income BEFORE growing."

That may be true for little old grannies who bought $100 of stock every month and are now living off the dividends in retirement after a life of hard work, but it is not true for everyone. Mitt Romney and Bain Capital made their fortunes by borrowing money, buying up companies with it, and then selling (or liquidating) for a quick profit. No income tax paid at any point in that process.

Tolstoy - SHAME - you completely and intentionally misinterpreted that.

Capital gains have not been taxed:

1. The money invested from which you will earn capital gains has already been taxed.
2. The "gains" come from the result of a business growing, which means corporate taxes that have been taxed, and employees wages, which are taxed.

No, I did not misinterpret anything.

"1. The money invested from which you will earn capital gains has already been taxed."

Who paid that tax? Not Mitt Romney. And if the bank loaning the money is borrowing it from the Fed at .5% interest, no one is paying tax on it.

"2. The "gains" come from the result of a business growing, which means corporate taxes that have been taxed, and employees wages, which are taxed."

No. In the case of Romney/Bain, the 'gains' result from a perception (sometimes the result of sales hype and deliberately dishonest estimates and projections) that the business is more profitable, not that it has grown. Most of Bain Capital's money making deals were selling off companies that they had purchased and hacked away at unprofitable divisions first, not by growing them. As a capitalist I think this is a dirty and unpleasant but necessary process. But it is hideously unfair that the people doing it are getting filthy rich paying a fraction of the taxes as a percentage of income that I am paying doing honest labor - all because the fruit of their work product can be defined as "capital gains" instead of wages.

@Tolstoy - It doesn't matter *who* paid the tax. It was taxed. The bank loans you money for your house. You pay it back and the bank gets taxed on the income. They also got taxed on that money before loaning it to you. Same thing happens in business. Mitt borrowed money from someone who had already paid tax on it. He then is obligated to pay it back with interest and if he doesn't he loses his shirt. In sod oing he uses that money to make money for himself upon which he is taxed.

So the lender paid taxes on the money they lent out. The borrow paid taxes on the profit he made off the borrowed money (still taking a risk as he will have to pay it back even if he loses) and then the bank pays taxes on the intertest they charge Mitt. Everyone paid taxes and everyone took risks.

Oh and Tolstoy...

"Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% taxes on each dollar I make for the rest of the year (plus sales and property taxes on top of that)"

I assume that means you didn't pay anything on the money you earned the first 11 months of the year. If that's the case, then you are paying only 4% in taxes. And if you are implying you pay 50% all the time, then you are looking at some fucked up tax tables or California is fucking you over (possible knowing how bankrupt that liberal state is) because I take all standard deduction on my 100K salary (no itemizing or special write offs) and don't pay any where near 50% with city, state, and federal combined.

"I assume that means you didn't pay anything on the money you earned the first 11 months of the year."

That would be an incorrect assumption. I have a tax liability for income earned during the first 11 months of the year, but it is less than 50% for that period because the income earned then is being taxed at lower rates. The money I am making now until the end of the year is being earned while it puts me in the 25% federal tax bracket, and 9.3% state income tax. Plus there's a 15.4% self-employment flat tax. The money I made in January was only taxed with the self-employment tax (which is a flat tax paid by the self-employed to pay for other peoples' retirements and health care through social security and medicare) since the income from that month was less than the standard and personal deductions.

I expect to be assessed at about 30-35% income tax overall for the year on my income, plus a property tax on my house (about 3.5% of my overall income), plus sales taxes in California on consumer goods purchased (at a 8.75% rate).

Why are *government* pensions not taxed? They are gains paid to government workers who did nothing to earn the dollars that created the gain...

"@Tolstoy - It doesn't matter *who* paid the tax. It was taxed."

If you think Mitt Romney should be paying zero taxes because he's getting rich playing with the money I worked hard for and paid 50% taxes on I have nothing to say to you.

And not all investors pay back the money they borrow. Thanks to bankruptcy laws, jackasses like Donald Trump can raise money from investors, lose it all, then declare bankruptcy and walk away to begin the cycle again.