On 11/12/13, 10:48 AM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/12/2013 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase
of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus
the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it


The only way to really tax everybody evenly, even the underground
employed, is a nation wide sales tax eliminating the income tax. That
way everybody really pays taxes, peroid.. No 4 billion dollar IRS
refunds to China and a house in Alabama somewhere... Simple, you live
here, you pay, period...


Sure, task the poor with the most regressive tax of all. Dumfoch.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:34:10 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it

It would be easy to have a 'VAT Credit' on the 1040, just like there'll be a Health Insurance Credit
for the 'poor' . I just entered some data in a subsidy calculator site. Household of four, 2 adults
in 30's, non-smokers, and two kids. Annual income $65000. http://tinyurl.com/mfxnfxp

Here's what I got back:

Household income in 2014: 276% of poverty level
Maximum % of income you have to pay for the premium, if eligible for a subsidy:8.8%
Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$9,256 per year
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$3,533 per year
(which covers 38% of the overall premium)

Other Levels of Coverage
The premium and subsidy amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You have the option to apply the
subsidy toward the purchase of other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more
comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $4,138 per year (which is 6.37% of your
household income, after taking into account $3,533 in subsidies). For most people, the Bronze plan
represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less
in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you
enrolled in a Silver plan.

Out of Pocket Costs
Your out-of-pocket maximum for a Silver plan (not including the premium) can be no more than
$12,700. Whether you reach this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services you
use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year.

You are guaranteed access to a Silver plan with an actuarial value of 70%. This means that for all
enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered
benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. If you choose to enroll in a Bronze plan, the
actuarial value will be 60%, meaning your out-of-pocket costs when you use services will likely be
higher. Regardless of which level of coverage you choose, deductibles and copayments will vary from
plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs will depend on your health care expenses. Preventive services
will be covered with no cost sharing required.

Other Coverage Options
Children and young adults under age 30 are eligible to purchase catastrophic coverage. With a
catastrophic plan, you would pay out-of-pocket for most health services until you reach the annual
limit on cost sharing ($12,700 in 2014). However, preventive services are covered with no cost
sharing required.

..


John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:48:12 -0500, Charlemagne wrote:

On 11/12/2013 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it


The only way to really tax everybody evenly, even the underground
employed, is a nation wide sales tax eliminating the income tax. That
way everybody really pays taxes, peroid.. No 4 billion dollar IRS
refunds to China and a house in Alabama somewhere... Simple, you live
here, you pay, period...

The VAT is, basically, a sales tax - at least from the end user's point of view. By granting tax
credits for VAT, which the liberals would sure as hell do, the idea of taxing everyone 'evenly' is
shot out the window.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:54:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:23:10 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/12/13, 10:48 AM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/12/2013 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase
of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus
the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it


The only way to really tax everybody evenly, even the underground
employed, is a nation wide sales tax eliminating the income tax. That
way everybody really pays taxes, peroid.. No 4 billion dollar IRS
refunds to China and a house in Alabama somewhere... Simple, you live
here, you pay, period...


Sure, task the poor with the most regressive tax of all. Dumfoch.

The thing that is scary is that every country with a VAT or a national
sales tax, still collects income taxes. I bet our government would do
the same if we let them.

Not from the 'poor'. A tax credit for VAT wipes out Harry's ridiculous complaint. He's still pretty
good at name-calling though.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

John H wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:48:12 -0500, Charlemagne wrote:

On 11/12/2013 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase
of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus
the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it


The only way to really tax everybody evenly, even the underground
employed, is a nation wide sales tax eliminating the income tax. That
way everybody really pays taxes, peroid.. No 4 billion dollar IRS
refunds to China and a house in Alabama somewhere... Simple, you live
here, you pay, period...

The VAT is, basically, a sales tax - at least from the end user's point
of view. By granting tax
credits for VAT, which the liberals would sure as hell do, the idea of
taxing everyone 'evenly' is
shot out the window.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Actually a VAT is mostly a hidden sales tax. The last payer, the public,
is the only tax actually seen. Every sale up the ladder, that adds value
is taxed, which is mostly hidden from the public.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase of
anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus the
VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it

Actually I don not see that as a problem. Makes sure everyone pays for
government services.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/12/2013 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase
of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus
the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it


The only way to really tax everybody evenly, even the underground
employed, is a nation wide sales tax eliminating the income tax. That
way everybody really pays taxes, peroid.. No 4 billion dollar IRS
refunds to China and a house in Alabama somewhere... Simple, you live
here, you pay, period...

Holy ****! More delusional bull****.

Cite.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:11:59 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/11/13, 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:36:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Have you been
admitted to a hospital in the past few years? Take a look at what they
charge for an aspirin.

You blame that on lawyers as much as anything else. They need a well
documented paper train for everything they do in a hospital that is
strong enough to hold up in court


When I was in the military the Navy dentists scared the crap out of me.
I had full dental coverage and care obviously but on at least two
occasions I paid out of pocket to go to a civilian dentist who I thought
was more "up" with the times. That's an example of what I am talking
about.

That is what a single payer system gets you. Everything goes to the
lowest bidder.

Bull****. The practice I visit accepts single payer (Medicare, for
example), and they are top-rated physicians.


Medicare is not single payer. If you have just Medicare, you will pay a
lot out of pocket. Why we pay for a supplemental plan. And lots of
doctors do not take Medicare patients. We ran in to this when our GP
retired. The doctors my wife wanted did not take Medicare patients.

My doctor will take Medicare patients, if the patient pays $1500 a year
to the MDVIP Program.

http://www.mdvip.com/

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

The MDVIP system has nothing to do with Medicare or not. You pay the
$1500 if you want the concierge type of service whether you are
Medicare, private insured or private pay.

Read what he posted! He said his doctor would take Medicare patients if
they signed up for the MDVIP program. Makes sure they can pay the bills.

In article 182288687405973832.610884bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:11:59 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/11/13, 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:36:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Have you been
admitted to a hospital in the past few years? Take a look at what they
charge for an aspirin.

You blame that on lawyers as much as anything else. They need a well
documented paper train for everything they do in a hospital that is
strong enough to hold up in court


When I was in the military the Navy dentists scared the crap out of me.
I had full dental coverage and care obviously but on at least two
occasions I paid out of pocket to go to a civilian dentist who I thought
was more "up" with the times. That's an example of what I am talking
about.

That is what a single payer system gets you. Everything goes to the
lowest bidder.

Bull****. The practice I visit accepts single payer (Medicare, for
example), and they are top-rated physicians.


Medicare is not single payer. If you have just Medicare, you will pay a
lot out of pocket. Why we pay for a supplemental plan. And lots of
doctors do not take Medicare patients. We ran in to this when our GP
retired. The doctors my wife wanted did not take Medicare patients.

My doctor will take Medicare patients, if the patient pays $1500 a year
to the MDVIP Program.

http://www.mdvip.com/

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

The MDVIP system has nothing to do with Medicare or not. You pay the
$1500 if you want the concierge type of service whether you are
Medicare, private insured or private pay.

Read what he posted! He said his doctor would take Medicare patients if
they signed up for the MDVIP program. Makes sure they can pay the bills.

No, it doesn't. The MDVIP program doesn't make sure of ANYTHING, except
that they get the concierge type of service.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:37:58 -0600, Califbill wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:48:12 -0500, Charlemagne wrote:

On 11/12/2013 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:51 -0500, John H
wrote:

Do you think a regressive tax like the typical 18% VAT in all of these
other countries would fly here? How about a 10% across the board
surtax on income?

Don would still trade tax bills with us in a heart beat.

If we had an 18% VAT the Dems would want to 'subsidize' the purchase
of anything and everything for
the bottom 50% of the population. The top 50% would pay the VAT plus
the VAT subsidy for the other
half of the population.


The problem with the VAT is everyone pays it. You can tune it somewhat
by limiting what it applies to but everyone will see some of it


The only way to really tax everybody evenly, even the underground
employed, is a nation wide sales tax eliminating the income tax. That
way everybody really pays taxes, peroid.. No 4 billion dollar IRS
refunds to China and a house in Alabama somewhere... Simple, you live
here, you pay, period...

The VAT is, basically, a sales tax - at least from the end user's point
of view. By granting tax
credits for VAT, which the liberals would sure as hell do, the idea of
taxing everyone 'evenly' is
shot out the window.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Actually a VAT is mostly a hidden sales tax. The last payer, the public,
is the only tax actually seen. Every sale up the ladder, that adds value
is taxed, which is mostly hidden from the public.

I know, that's why I said 'from user's point of view'. I've spent six and a half years in Germany,
buying stuff throughout Europe. It was always much cheaper to ride to Italy for motorcycle parts.
When I was there, the VAT was 14%. Luckily, the Status of Forces Agreement with Germany allowed us
to be reimbursed for the VAT if one wanted to do the paperwork. It was usually worth it to do the
paperwork.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!