The Affordable Boat Act [Archive]

E4NASH

11-11-2013, 09:35 PM

My dad sent this to me in an e-mail...interesting take on the Affordable care act. Hopefully this won't stir up any trouble...Enjoy!

The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The affordable boat act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.

This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every American can now have a "affordable" boat of their own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees.

In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who cant afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.

If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or cant afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment.

Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.

A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories,(like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.

Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...its only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.

If the government can force you to buy health care, they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else..

Yeah...it's that stupid...

KG's Supra24

11-11-2013, 10:19 PM

Yeah...it's that stupid...

The email? No doubt. :D Silly

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

jmvotto

11-11-2013, 11:15 PM

Pretty funny for the Obama voters.

I posted that a few days ago in joke of the day.
https://forum.moomba.com/showthread.php?9367-Joke-of-the-Day/page19&highlight=Joke

E4NASH

11-11-2013, 11:38 PM

Ahhh...sorry about the dupe. I haven't been on in a while. Hope those voters are proud/happy with themselves...

sandm

11-12-2013, 08:25 AM

an interesting debate on boats vs healthcare :)

although many different arguments and lots of scenarios can provide different outcomes, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I figure most of us on this forum are fiscally responsible and probably in pretty good jobs as we have disposable money for a boat and all the expenses that go along with it. I think the assumption could also be made that most of us have health care either thru work or for those self-employed, thru an insurer. if the intent is to make sure everyone in the us has insurance and as a side effect ends up lowering costs of treatment due to hospitals no longer charging off bad debt, is this not a good thing?

he says as he chucks a steak into the lion pit and waits for the outcome :)

BensonWdby

11-12-2013, 08:58 AM

Not that familiar with it - but what about people who don't need insurance? Those who make a boat load of money and don't want to bother with it? They are still required to get it - right? (like the tie-back to boats ??)

kaneboats

11-12-2013, 11:11 AM

At least we will be able to buy stamps in the new ER. By the way-- they will be taking all Federal holidays off so don't get sick or hurt.

rdlangston13

11-12-2013, 11:53 AM

sandm

11-12-2013, 12:29 PM

I don't think it'll affect anyone that has insurance. I see it as forcing my coworker who chooses not to get coverage to have it. so when his wife goes into labor and has a kid, I'm not stuck with higher bills at the hospital from them charging off his bad debt.
I certainly don't understand all the in's and out's of it and I don't think anyone really does as smoke and mirrors are what our gov't is good at, but seems to me that having insurance should be a good thing.

I consider myself that low risk person as I've been to the dr maybe twice in the last 20 years, but I'm also considered high risk as my bmi is high. 5'11" and currently 205. I lead a somewhat active lifestyle and I'm considered obese so my insurer chooses not to give me the discount(currently 17%). if healthcare reform somehow manages to fix that, I'm going to be happy.

I guess at the end of the day it feels like a law that will force those that should have it and have access to it to provide it for their families. I see too many large families that are a drain on the system choose to pass on healthcare knowing the state will take care of them. of course I feel the same way about the irs and giving deductions for having kids. I'm subsidizing refunds to families that keep popping them out. give me an income-progressive flat tax with no itemizing and I'll be in 7th heaven :)

kaneboats

11-12-2013, 12:41 PM

I don't think it'll affect anyone that has insurance.

Maybe do a search on "Cadillac tax" before you get so hopeful. You have no idea what is coming. Like any other socialist program, those who were getting something good will have it taken away and given to those who would just take anyway. The "plan" is designed to curtail care in good plans and use the alleged cost savings and extra money to pay for others. But, as usual, they didn't anticipate that nobody will keep paying a high premium for a plan that sucks.

smorris7

11-12-2013, 12:41 PM

KG's Supra24

11-12-2013, 01:20 PM

Problem: Soaring healthcare cost and gouching insurance companies.

Solution 1: Create an act that attempts to fix the problem

Solution 2: Don't have one yet but it sure as s**t isn't going to be solution 1.

Pick your side and go to battle. It's not about the common good, it's about winning. This whole thing is a joke and any hope there was is quickly getting diminished by the botched roll out. Money usually wins and big pharma and insurance companies have plenty so I wouldn't get too worked up if you are cheering for solution 2. You will likely continue paying a ridiculous price for hospital Tylenol and you'll still get to see the insurance companies name on the biggest building in your town.

mikenehrkorn

11-12-2013, 02:30 PM

I don't think it'll affect anyone that has insurance.

I have insurance but I'm self-insured since my company does not offer insurance and at least in my case there is a huge impact.............in the terms of a 40-50% rate increase!!!!

viking

11-12-2013, 02:43 PM

Sandm, you talk like it is has effect on people who already have good insurance but that is where you are mistaken. There are a large amount of new taxes coming being initiated to pay for the federal insurance subsidies that will affect all of us. Then when they can't get enough money through the new taxes they will start charging credit cards and pass appropriation bills to pay for it and then the national debt will grow even larger.

Not to mention forcing companies to charge the same rate for everyone no matter how much risk the pose does two things, it either drives the cost up for low risk people to pay for the high risk ones or it causes the insurance company to eventually go broke. I think that is the ultimate plan, this whole law is a pretext to set the stage for a single payer national system because it's designed to drive insurance companies out of business

Sent from my iPhone

BINGO!
And don't think Corporate America isn't pushing the pencil to see that it may be cheaper to pay the fines than offer group healthcare. The almighty dollar will say eliminate the current "good" plan and by default everybody will roll on the government plan....."my employees still have healthcare"! Too bad you can't find the damn exchange to sign up, when you finally do you find it costs more than what you had, and the services (if you are approved to have them) have diminished substantially.
We have yet to see the wrath of this debacle!!

sandm

11-12-2013, 02:58 PM

I guess I'm optimistic that it will all work out for the better. lots of opinions on how it's bad and will cost us all money and a lack of good coverage but in the end, no one knows what will happen with this 5 years down the road. although my guess is that if by some miracle the repub's get back in power, they will find a way to strike it all unconstitutional and it's all water under the bridge(back to the boat thing :) ).

jmvotto

11-12-2013, 04:14 PM

I am all for a FREE Obama Boat... I Have a supra 242 with all da options!!!

tarheelskier

11-12-2013, 05:36 PM

[QUOTE=sandm;232014]I don't think it'll affect anyone that has insurance. [QUOTE]

I am guessing you have not seen how much your premium will be next year? You like the fact that you are REQUIRED to have maternity coverage?

jmvotto

11-12-2013, 05:42 PM

There are like 10 basic coverage's in NYS that must be carried on insurance. maternity, eye and dental are three of them.
avg annual health care increase over the last 10 years is close to 13%, cant see this slowing down...
especially with the amount of people signed up. its the same govt pyramid scheme that SS# operates under. need more people at the bottom to pay up to the top. not gonna work.

PS I would like that 242 in all Black with white trim Mr. President

E4NASH

11-12-2013, 06:34 PM

My buddies insurance went up from $150 to $417 (single coverage)...I'm thinking there are a LOT of people affected by this. I know my wife's insurance was completely changed. Good thing we aren't on that anymore. We change to my insurance last year. I guess that's a benefit of working for "big business". Now that we are "fixed" there's no need for maternity coverage and we shouldn't be forced to pay for it. No body should be forced to pay for something they don't want or need just so someone else who does want it can have it. Let them pay the higher price for more coverage....you buy more you pay more...

BensonWdby

11-13-2013, 01:20 AM

Can't say if this this is a result of ACA or not - but my annual health care with a furtune 1000 company just went up about $1300 / year.

mikenehrkorn

11-13-2013, 08:51 AM

Can't say if this this is a result of ACA or not - but my annual health care with a furtune 1000 company just went up about $1300 / year.

Part of that increase could be the normal cost of living increase but I would guess you have never had an increase that big before, correct? Most of that is probably attributed to ACA....

kaneboats

11-13-2013, 08:52 AM

Mine just went up the same amount and deductibles went up. We had to buy into a year starting in Nov. instead of Jan. for some reason too. Next year they are telling us it will be much worse.

sandm

11-13-2013, 09:56 AM

I am guessing you have not seen how much your premium will be next year? You like the fact that you are REQUIRED to have maternity coverage?

just finished open enrollment for the next year. my out of pocket went up $9/check or $234/yr total for all insurance(life/dental/vision/health/disability) and no real changes in deductibles or out of pocket maxes.

No body should be forced to pay for something they don't want or need just so someone else who does want it can have it. Let them pay the higher price for more coverage....

I think of this every year I pay my taxes and all the money I'm paying for schools and getting zero benefits out of. never had kids and won't ever but yet I don't have the luxury of the deductible for kids. on the flip side, guy here at work rides his bike every day. 50 years old, doesn't have a license and never learned to drive a car. he pays zero into gas tax and road maintenance but uses them every day and benefits from new ones. lots of examples out there where we are paying for something we shouldn't/don't use and using something we pay zero toward.

rdlangston13

11-13-2013, 12:37 PM

just finished open enrollment for the next year. my out of pocket went up $9/check or $234/yr total for all insurance(life/dental/vision/health/disability) and no real changes in deductibles or out of pocket maxes.

I think of this every year I pay my taxes and all the money I'm paying for schools and getting zero benefits out of. never had kids and won't ever but yet I don't have the luxury of the deductible for kids. on the flip side, guy here at work rides his bike every day. 50 years old, doesn't have a license and never learned to drive a car. he pays zero into gas tax and road maintenance but uses them every day and benefits from new ones. lots of examples out there where we are paying for something we shouldn't/don't use and using something we pay zero toward.

Society benefits from an educated population therefore kids being in school benefits you even if you don't had kids.

Sent from my iPhone

KG's Supra24

11-13-2013, 01:17 PM

Ya'll are already paying for the inflated healthcare cost. Insurance premiums and medicare.

If healthcare is going to be considered a right, funding is necessary. The problem at hand is how to gather the funding. The current system needs a revision because right now we subsidize the wealthy and don't make them pay their "share" into this right we are providing for everyone. It's a failing system. The ACA is trying a different way to raise those funds. The goal of destroying the ACA makes no sense without a plan to actually solve the problem.

Out of curiosity, those of you with increasing rates ... have you priced a similar plan under the exchange? How much more was it?

kaneboats

11-13-2013, 02:11 PM

The exchange? LOL. Try and log in.

KG's Supra24

11-13-2013, 02:32 PM

I can get to the website. I don't really want to apply, though .... that's why I'm asking those who have tried.

Within 5 minutes I learned that in Arkansas (my county), you get a subsidy with a family of 3 if your income is less than 78k.

I also checked out their calculator and it looks like it estimates health insurance for a non-smoking family of 3 to be just shy of $7,000 a year with an income of $100,000, once again for my county in Arkansas.

Not sure how accurate those are as they seem to be simple tools, not an actual quote or application form.

sandm

11-13-2013, 02:51 PM

Society benefits from an educated population therefore kids being in school benefits you even if you don't had kids.

Sent from my iPhone

but we don't from having everyone on a healthcare plan?

rdlangston13

11-13-2013, 03:17 PM

but we don't from having everyone on a healthcare plan?

No, my neighbor having health insurance affects me 0. His kids being educated enough to keep the country rolling after I retire affects me a lot.

Sent from my iPhone

KG's Supra24

11-13-2013, 03:20 PM

False, your rates increase when your neighbor goes to the hospital and doesn't pay for his bill.

Why? Because the hospital has to recoup those cost, they raise prices, insurance now has to cover the increased prices, they pass it to you.

That's the reason we are here. You can't expect the free market to work when you force healthcare service.

If you want to provide the service, you have to fund it. In the past we asked lower income earners to pay a higher percentage of their income than higher income earners because they are more likely to use the services. That system didn't work. ACA is a new approach to an old problem.

You can destroy the ACA but you are left with the same problem ... inflated healthcare cost.

mikenehrkorn

11-13-2013, 03:48 PM

Out of curiosity, those of you with increasing rates ... have you priced a similar plan under the exchange? How much more was it?

Kane is right -- the exchange is a complete joke!! And as far as the rates go, they would be the same as any other broker or insurance web site would quote. The same insurance companies are providing the policies with the quoted rates, the exchange is just presenting that info to the public...........so none of these insurance plans are actually provided or administered by the govt.

E4NASH

11-13-2013, 06:41 PM

just finished open enrollment for the next year. my out of pocket went up $9/check or $234/yr total for all insurance(life/dental/vision/health/disability) and no real changes in deductibles or out of pocket maxes.

I think of this every year I pay my taxes and all the money I'm paying for schools and getting zero benefits out of. never had kids and won't ever but yet I don't have the luxury of the deductible for kids. on the flip side, guy here at work rides his bike every day. 50 years old, doesn't have a license and never learned to drive a car. he pays zero into gas tax and road maintenance but uses them every day and benefits from new ones. lots of examples out there where we are paying for something we shouldn't/don't use and using something we pay zero toward.

Don't you use/need the roads, police, Fire Department, military, etc. And didn't you at one time attend public school or university...thought so.

Maternity coverage should be an additional rider at additional cost...not a mandatory requirement

KG's Supra24

11-13-2013, 07:04 PM

Maternity coverage should be an additional rider at additional cost...not a mandatory requirement

The problem with it being an additional rider is that people will not purchase the rider. Then what? Are you going to turn away a person in labor? No, she will be treated, she won't pay and rates will increase in turn having you pay it at a later date.

Maternity bills likely make up a large portion of healthcare cost and have therefore been deemed to be necessary.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/29/cbs-faulty-obamacare-reporting-pregnancy-editio/196653

parrothd

11-13-2013, 07:13 PM

Not much good complaining about it, unless you've got a better idea.. Even if you repeal it the insurance companies aren't going to refund or rollback the increases..Insurance rates will keep going up every year..

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

sandm

11-13-2013, 08:04 PM

Don't you use/need the roads, police, Fire Department, military, etc. And didn't you at one time attend public school or university...thought so.

Maternity coverage should be an additional rider at additional cost...not a mandatory requirement

of course I used public school and my parents paid taxes for it. I won't use it ever again, so why pay?? yes, I get the educated society argument and using this just as a point on healthcare. I also glady pay registration and gas taxes for the roads I use.

and I do agree 100% with maternity being a separate rider. as they say... pay to play. I also don't think kids should get ANY deductions on taxes. you choose to have them and I'm subsidizing that decision.. sucks..

BensonWdby

11-14-2013, 01:23 AM

rdlangston13

11-14-2013, 04:18 PM

I also don't think kids should get ANY deductions on taxes. you choose to have them and I'm subsidizing that decision.. sucks..

I agree 100% with this. We also need to phase out all the other deductions. Then we can lower the actual rate for everyone and every type of income to about 10-15% and everyone can participate! No more "earned income tax credit" or tax breaks for buying this kind of car or these kind of windows. Everyone pay the same percentage, no deductions, let the free market do its thing

Sent from my iPhone

E4NASH

11-14-2013, 05:11 PM

The problem with it being an additional rider is that people will not purchase the rider. Then what? Are you going to turn away a person in labor? No, she will be treated, she won't pay and rates will increase in turn having you pay it at a later date.

Maternity bills likely make up a large portion of healthcare cost and have therefore been deemed to be necessary.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/29/cbs-faulty-obamacare-reporting-pregnancy-editio/196653

Well, then how about actually putting in an actual penalty for not paying. If you go to a store and take something without paying it's called theft...this should be no different. If they are making a real effort to pay the bill that's fine but if they decided to run off on the bill their needs to be a consequence. Make them work it off, garnish their check (if they have one) or as a last resort...prison. People who just run off on a bill don't care about their credit or anything else. So why should they pay. They should be dealt with accordingly. Those that do care and just have money trouble or whatever at least they make an effort. Those people should be worked with. My wife works in the hospital and almost everyday she has these story's of these people who have 5,6,7 babies and they never paid. At a certain point mandatory sterilization should be considered. I know that's extreme but damn! I can't stand free loaders or the tolerance of them.

I'm all for helping someone out who's had a rough go but that's to help get them able to stand on their own feet but not for them to lean on me forever.

KG's Supra24

11-14-2013, 05:26 PM

KG's Supra24

11-14-2013, 05:36 PM

We also need to phase out all the other deductions.

Don't scream that too loud new home owner!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

sandm

11-14-2013, 05:47 PM

^agreed unless they can go to a flat tax.

I can't imagine that EVER happening as that would reduce the irs to 1/10 of what it is today and we all know shrinking gov't is not in the english language..

E4NASH

11-14-2013, 05:47 PM

Put mothers of newborns in prison?

Lol, should we ship the children to your address?

Also, there is a cost associated with collections ... We are attempting to reduce the cost of healthcare.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

No but they should be forced to pay. This does not apply only to maternity cases...really why should someone not have to pay for something with no consequence and here hardworking people that pay our bills have to pick up the Tab while they don't. Obviously the business has to pass expense on to their customers but these deadbeats shouldn't get a free pass to ride on the coat tails of everyone else. Makes me sick

KG's Supra24

11-14-2013, 06:29 PM

really why should someone not have to pay for something with no consequence and here hardworking people that pay our bills have to pick up the Tab while they don't.

Because, we, as a society, have decided that healthcare is a right and should be available to everyone ... same with roads, police, education, etc.

There is always going to be a "tax" associated with a service. Now we have to figure out the best way to collect that "tax". Our last system made it way too easy for insurance companies to exploit the system and by doing so they have elevated hospital cost to an unreasonable amount.

I'll admit, I get frustrated with the way people look at. Perspective with the current system ....

Most hate the fact that XXXXX has 5 kids and can't pay for a dang one. She is bleeding the medicare system!! Lets make her pay 25,000 (5,000 per kid). We now have $25,000 to contribute to the "pool".

Medicare tax is capped around $115,000. You pay 1.45% into this "pool" until you reach 115k, nothing after that. Let's look at one guy that makes 2M. If he had to pay "his share" on the income past 115k, he would have to pay an additional 27k.

The philosophy has been that the 2M guy won't use Medicare so we decided to cap it at 115k. Yea, I can rationalize that BUT how is that the answer to everyone splitting the burden of providing a service to society? That's just splitting the burden between everyone making 115k or less.

If I make 115k I'm going to pay 1650 into the "pool" to help this lady. If Joe Millionaire makes 2M, he pays 1650 into the "pool". How does that not frustrate someone in the middle class that also doesn't use the Medicare services? Why should you have to pick up that ladies tab more so than Joe Millionaire?

Is it more efficient to pay people to collect the 25,000 (meaning you net less than 25k) from the lady poppin out babies or does it make more sense to ask the wealthy to "pay their share". Yea, the lady poppin out babies she can't afford is a POS but that's not going to change.

Somehow the wealthy have sold everyone this idea that squeezing the middle class is ok because one day you will rise up and be one of them. LOL

E4NASH

11-14-2013, 07:52 PM

rdlangston13

11-14-2013, 09:15 PM

Don't scream that too loud new home owner!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Wouldn't phase me, I'm not used to that deduction yet, never had it. It would just be like normal.

Sent from my iPhone

KG's Supra24

11-14-2013, 10:19 PM

In my opinion a flat tax is the better way to do things. No deductions no credits, no exemptions...nothing. EVERYONE pays the same percentage.

Solid idea but then it would be easier for everyone to calculate their tax ... and i might not have a job. I'll have to lobby against that. :p

There are no easy answers. I don't think the ACA even solves most but its a start to some of the healthcare problems. (many other issues) Sadly, the chances of Congress working together through the problems are dismal. 9% approval rating last i heard. Its sad .... and scary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

E4NASH

11-14-2013, 10:25 PM

Solid idea but then it would be easier for everyone to calculate their tax ... and i might not have a job. I'll have to lobby against that. :p

There are no easy answers. I don't think the ACA even solves most but its a start to some of the healthcare problems. (many other issues) Sadly, the chances of Congress working together through the problems are dismal. 9% approval rating last i heard. Its sad .... and scary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Agreed....

jmvotto

11-14-2013, 10:53 PM

Flat tax would raise unemployment big time, including kg and myself, irs would be minimal and cpa's, tax practitioners, advisors, lawyers , etc would all be in line for the handout. Hence the 80,000 pages of the IRS code. No chance on the forbes flat tax.

Funny you guys bring up the tax part in the ACA discussion, only reason this passed muster in the Supreme Court is because congress has the ability to tax, the penalty for not having healthcare is actually a tax, that's why Roberts had to vote the way he did, invoking taxes is not unconstitutional .

That said, that fool Obama was on the boob tube today! extending another boo boo on his plan!another extension to a poorly executed strategy . This program will unwind faster that a baseball without a cover...
This govt is a frigging mess!

My .02 of course

rdlangston13

11-14-2013, 11:17 PM

CPAs will find something else to do. And we need to eliminate 90% of the irs. We are already balancing the budget! Sorry KG haha

Sent from my iPhone

KG's Supra24

11-14-2013, 11:32 PM

another extension to a poorly executed strategy . This program will unwind faster that a baseball without a cover...

I'm not convinced there was a strategy. Huge let down by the administration, hard to see how they could have done much worse .... And its looking like that could happen

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

rca

11-15-2013, 01:36 AM

David, you're taxes are going up because you just got married. You HAVE to file jointly now which means your deductions went down. Ah the joys of marriage.

On a not about the original point. My wife and I are self employed. Last year we payed $295 a month for insurance with a $7,200 deductible. That plan has been cancelled and I've been offered a comparable plan at $695 a month. Just a little increase. I would shop for a new plan in the health care marketplace but I'm stuck in a loop on the healthcare website and nobody can figure out why yet. So I wait..........

BensonWdby

11-15-2013, 08:45 AM

I am FAR from wealthy, but I do believe everyone should pay their fair share. In my opinion a flat tax is the better way to do things. No deductions no credits, no exemptions...nothing. EVERYONE pays the same percentage. So Joe the plumber over here who makes 35K pays 10% (or whatever it is) $3,500, and Harry Rockefeller over here who make 3.5 million pays $350,000. Both pay the same percentage however the more you make the more you pay. THAT is FAIR and equal. Everyone should pay the same according to their income level.

Pretty sure that 50% of all tax returns filed end up with 0 tax liability, mostly due to low income. And the top 5% of earners already pay over 90% of income tax collected. So this whole concept fo "Fair Share" has no meaning. Recognizing that you can't get blood out of a rock, I don't know what the solution is. "... tax the rich, feed the poor, till there aren't no rich no more ...." Ten Years After. I have a basic problem with the concept of "Q: How much do I owe?, A: How much ya got?", but the money has to come from somewhere.

drb59

11-15-2013, 10:20 AM

Found this statistic:
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[9] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.

KG's Supra24

11-15-2013, 10:49 AM

^ This!! So much this!!

Working with the stats Benson mentioned ... "And the top 5% of earners already pay over 90% of income tax collected" ... that could mean that the top 5% of earners pay too much tax OR it could mean that the top 5% of earners bring in substantially more than the 95% below them.

I've seen statistics saying that to get into the top 1%, you need to make 400k. 400k!!! is a 1%er? That's physicians and successful small business owners, not the "elite". You should be making serious bucks to be in the top 1% of the nations earners.

"you can be a 1 percenter in Arkansas as a whole with family income of $254,000." ... " in Arkansas, 43 percent have family income — family income — below $30,000 a year. You're in the upper third of all Arkansas families if you and your spouse make $50,000 or more."

KG's Supra24

11-15-2013, 10:56 AM

RCA, you have the option to file separately but in most cases it will benefit you to file together.

From the people I have talked to, individuals like you seem to be the most effected. Guys that had insurance to cover catastrophic events (high deductible plans). They are the ones being forced into more expensive plans.

To top it off, just heard on the radio the insurance industry isn't interested in extending everyone's plans 1 year while the bugs get worked out. Why? Bc they are about to cash in on guys like you while the ACA takes the blame. Administration screwed up this roll out but hopefully they can find a way to work together to iron out the issues.

sandm

11-15-2013, 12:34 PM

hopefully they can find a way to work together to iron out the issues.

you don't seriously believe that line you just typed. we saw how well they work together during the last financial crisis.. they don't care. want some real progress on issues there? fine them a hefty penalty every day the govt is closed and eliminate their free healthcare.

rca

11-15-2013, 02:31 PM

Actually, being a former CPA, I'm pretty sure you do not have the option of filing separately. If you are legally married you are required to file joint.

rca

11-15-2013, 02:40 PM

I did say former, as in 25 years ago, lol. So you can file jointly or as Married Filing Separately, but not an individual return like you could before you were married. The MFS usually is worse than the MFJ option if you both work.

BensonWdby

11-15-2013, 09:23 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/

So even if you took all the income from the bottom half of the eraners (not just some percentage in the form of a tax) you still would not have enough to be a significant contributor to the economy.

So you take more from the top half. At what point does the top half see no incentive to be in the top half? Probably never, but it could happen.

There is no question that there is an income gap - but that does not mean that those at the bottom 'deserve' money from those at the top. At least not in a capitalistic society. That's not to say that it wouldn't be nice to have corporations share the wealth a bit - sending more to the workers and a little less to the officers. Who wouldn't want more. It's a complex situation to say the least. But like the Eagles say - Get over it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg

jmvotto

11-15-2013, 11:19 PM

This should be in the joke of the day.

Even if your married with a family , have a job and live in another state your covered until 26

sandm

11-16-2013, 08:44 AM

benson, your right in that the bottom does not deserve from the top, but we have built it that way with too many tax loopholes and a code that no one really understands. as much as I hate to see KG out a job, it needs to be fixed to be simple. we would feel the effects of layoffs/unemployment for a few years but it would eventually even itself out.

granted this was a few years ago.. guy that worked for me. single breadwinner, 4kids and wife. makes somewhere around 40-43k. at the end of the year, we totalled up his irs federal contributions to the tax pool and it came to $740. he received a refund that year of almost 8grand. progressive flat tax will eliminate some of that pool of $$ being handed out to lower income. no tax deduction, some will think twice about having them. I don't have to tell you that refund didn't go to supporting a family, insurance or the such. new computer, new tv, etc... and I do not believe for a second that this is an isolated incident.
my ex manages an optical shop. I can't tell you how many stories of single moms coming in on medicaid to get glasses for kids or self. they don't like the assortment as it's not really "fashionable" so boyfriend that is with mom whips out cash to pay for trendy products. they have same address, but don't get married as then mom loses benefits..

the whole system is screwed..

BensonWdby

11-16-2013, 10:17 AM

I certainly don't have the answers. The balance point between the humanitarian desire to not have people living in poverty vs. the desire to improve ones own condition and or meet your list of wants vs. the "Why do you deserve MY money?" is a difficult juggling act. We are not going to solve it on a waterski forum.

It would be interesting however, if instead of getting money from the government - when peolpe get a check it actually identifies a person - like "You just took $5000 out of the pocket from Joe Blow in Des Moines. He has 3 kids, one in college, and a mortgage and has been working his a$$ off for the last 25 years to improve life for his family. But you get his money. You should thank him."

Maybe if we made everyone in the world responsible for one other person - thats all - and it is not the person that is respsonsible for them. Then everyone would be taken care of.

deerfield

11-16-2013, 03:12 PM

We are not going to solve it on a waterski forum.

I bet we could.

Why do I think this? Even with our differences, I am convinced the talent, insight, knowledge, and humility exhibited here by forum members could devise a system of health care that improves the lot of all, without destroying the insurance and healthcare industries, interfering in the doctor/patient relationship, centralizing control, or placing an unwanted financial burden on someone else, today or a future generation. Solutions to big challenges such as this can and need to come from us – you and me, regular Joes. I promise you they cannot come from inside the Beltway. Arrogance, pride, ignorance, immaturity, plain old stupidity, and a deeply disturbed legislative body presumably representing the interests of 330 million citizens defy the capacity for logic and reason. I know. I work there.

Keep the discussion going.

rdlangston13

11-16-2013, 05:34 PM

"you can be a 1 percenter in Arkansas as a whole with family income of $254,000." ... " in Arkansas, 43 percent have family income — family income — below $30,000 a year. You're in the upper third of all Arkansas families if you and your spouse make $50,000 or more."

This blows me away! If your whole family income is less than 30,000 a year maybe the problem is staring you back in the mirror! I don't think big business is holding anyone down that low, especially since I work for a huge company and make more than that! When you see stats like that, IMO it doesn't show how bad big business is, just how stupid or lazy our society is. But then again I'm a priceless white kid so that makes up like 90% of my check right?

Sent from my iPhone

wolfeman131

11-16-2013, 06:21 PM

This blows me away! If your whole family income is less than 30,000 a year maybe the problem is staring you back in the mirror! I don't think big business is holding anyone down that low, especially since I work for a huge company and make more than that! When you see stats like that, IMO it doesn't show how bad big business is, just how stupid or lazy our society is. But then again I'm a priceless white kid so that makes up like 90% of my check right?

Sent from my iPhone

I'm no fan of government subsidies, entitlement program, etc., but do you have a calculator on that iPhone?

Minimum wage in your great state of Texas is $7.25/hr. Do you consider McDonalds "big business?"

Do the math.

BensonWdby

11-16-2013, 10:18 PM

Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

wolfeman131

11-16-2013, 11:13 PM

Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

Yet, that's what many are living on. Even still, double that wage rate & do the math.

Is it still the fault of the person in the mirror?

BensonWdby

11-17-2013, 01:05 AM

There is no fault - it is natural selection. Bottom line - not everyone can be a millionaire without taking all the money from the millionaires - but then there probably won't be any millionaires any more.

What do you suppose would happen if the 7.50 / hr folks started getting 50 /hr? The 50 / hr guys would start getting 400 / hr. your $3 burger goes to $10. Inflation. In a capitalisitic society you will always have income stratification. That is the built in incentive. Without that things get pretty dismal. A lot of life is unfair - just the way it is. I know what is like to be poor. In 1977 I was about a month away from being homeless. I was lucky and found work and pulled myself up through poverty to comfortable to slightly more than comfortable. No one helped me. I just lived within my means.

wolfeman131

11-17-2013, 09:37 AM

We're on the same page. I'm glad to hear of your recovery from a challenging situation.

It's unfortunate, but a brutal truth that there are plenty of dedicated, motivated and hard working people out there that will struggle to surpass $30k a year and belittling those folks is wrong, IMO.

sandm

11-17-2013, 11:01 AM

It would be interesting however, if instead of getting money from the government - when peolpe get a check it actually identifies a person - like "You just took $5000 out of the pocket from Joe Blow in Des Moines. He has 3 kids, one in college, and a mortgage and has been working his a$$ off for the last 25 years to improve life for his family. But you get his money. You should thank him."

Maybe if we made everyone in the world responsible for one other person - thats all - and it is not the person that is respsonsible for them. Then everyone would be taken care of.

if you really think people will care where the money is coming from, you are living in a dreamworld. it has become an entitlement and the 99% don't care where it's coming from, just that they get the check every year.

rdlangston13

11-19-2013, 02:48 PM

I'm not belittling but if you are an adult working minimum wage at Walmart trying to support a family you have obviously made some bad and probably down right stupid decisions at some point that put you there. Minimum wage IMO is for people who just got there first job or put themselves there due to poor decision making. I got minimum wage in high school working at spring creek BBQ, within 6 months I had found more money and a better job at best buy. I was off minimum wage before my senior year of high school started.

I guess it's sad but it's not always enough to work hard, you have to make decision too. If you are smart and willing to make some sacrifices there is not reason why you can pull yourself up into the middle class IMO

Sent from my iPhone

sandm

11-19-2013, 04:50 PM

I would disagree. I have worked with a lot of people over the years in retail stores that are working for less than $8/hr. many have worked hard and risen to better jobs, but there are some that, simply put, don't have the ability to move beyond that basic entry level job. I really hated to type that but look around any blue collar industry and you will find many in the entry level ranks that will move up and succeed and always a few that their calling in life is that entry level job and don't have the skillset or ability to move beyond that. fact of the matter is we need that job filled and those end up offering some stability to the entry workforce.

I have issues with those maintaining minimum wage jobs, unable to supply for their family and yet they still keep having kids subsidized by taxpayers that have no choice in the matter. if you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them.

drb59

11-19-2013, 05:41 PM

I agree with you Sandm. I have a saying that you don't get pick where you are born and the circumstances that surround that. Not everyone is born with the same intelligence or family circumstance to succeed. What if you were born in poverty stricken Africa? It is too easy to criticize or look down on others. In this latest economic downturn, many skilled intelligent people were out of work and forced into lower paying jobs. Many areas within the U.S. have very high unemployment rates and people are just happy to have a job. I too hated to post to this but felt I needed to give my perspective on this.

kaneboats

11-21-2013, 12:20 PM

Historically, if you were willing to make sacrifices and work hard in this country you at least had the opportunity to get yourself and your family ahead. Most of the problem now is that we allow (maybe even teach) people that they don't have to make any sacrifices to get ahead. They deserve not just food and shelter but cell phones and cable and flat panel TV's and new cars. They also deserve alcohol, cigarettes, tatoos, etc. just like everyone else does. Even now if you watch those fortunate enough to be born in this country vs. immigrants who don't or barely speak the language, I'll put my money on the immigrants. They already know what it's like to sacrifice and have NO opportunity. Give them the opportunity and they will make sacrifices until they are successful. Do you know why there are so many successful Chinese laundries, Greek restaurants, Indian 7-11's, etc. Those people seized the opportunity while making personal sacrifices to build something. They also worked incredibly hard. Don't ask me to feel sorry for able bodied poor in this country. That's how my family started too. If you need charity, don't ask this US Govt, go to your church. Oh, that's right, churches are evil and mean to gay people. Sorry. I think FDR created the notion that government is one big fat charity. Well, I have news for you. It can't be. It won't work. We need to separate church and state, including the charity part that everyone loves to ignore. If we all got back to the place where we stopped trying to take everybody else's dollar and committed ourselves to making our own dollar we would all be fine.

drb59

11-21-2013, 01:05 PM

I am in total agreement with your viewpoint Kane when it comes to government handouts and that the problem needs to be addressed. I just wanted to point out that there are hard working people who are having a tough time out there. We shouldn't look at people making minimum wage as being lazy or not hard working individuals.

kaneboats

11-21-2013, 03:22 PM

I think I delineated a difference between those who are willing to work hard and those who have NO IDEA what that really means.

wolfeman131

11-22-2013, 12:18 AM

What if you were born in poverty stricken Africa?.

That could just as easily read, "Alabama."

There are plenty of small towns in America that have seen their key economic centers/drivers exported to other countries leaving them the choice of staying in their hometown, taking whatever pay they can get or moving in hopes of finding a better future.

rdlangston13

11-22-2013, 12:54 AM

I just don't have much sympathy for people who are so unwilling to relocate that they would rather stay out and be poor over move and make a living. Then they cry about how there is no work. If anyone knows someone who needs a job send them to south Louisiana, drilling companies and service companies are hiring, as long as you can pass a physical and a drug test you can find a job offshore. Heck roustabouts who pretty much mop and move stuff around make 50k and that job requires NO skill, just a willingness to work.

I admit that I would be in a world of hurt if the world suddenly ran out of oil, I would be out of a job then but I would do what it takes to survive. If that required moving somewhere that had work where Heidi could also get a job then that's what we would have to do. I wouldn't just sit around expecting a handout.

Sent from my iPhone