Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

i don't care what the individual income is

Posted By: florida on 2008-09-09
In Reply to: Question. We are MTs. Right? - Do your incomes exceed $250,000/yr? sm

how is it anyone else's right to tell me that i have to give ANY portion of my income to help those less fortunate? I don't care if the income is $200,000 or $20,000!


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

1 more time. INDIVIDUAL income means 1 person.
not a family. It means the income that one single person makes. This means that a husband and wife making less than $500,000 yearly combined incomes will receive tax cuts. I am posting separate information under a second post to dispel any confusion that is being generated on this issue. Small businesses have a different plan does not involve tax increases of any sort of description.
Check out his income tax returns. Bulk of his income
royalties he gets from his books, which are selling like hotcakes. Besides, he gets to spend his own salary, yes? Your second paragraph is incoherent and inaccurate. McC's age is an issue NOT because of his "image", but rather because of his ill-advised VP pick and the truly TERRIFYING idea that SP could ever get that close to the oval office. SP's beauty pageant competitions have little to do with image either, rather with perceptions. Your parting shot is ridiculous. Obama gives twice the average American to charity and his jet is something his contributors think is key to his ability to "spread himself around" and get the vote out. You or I cannot pretend to know what he will do with it once the election is over. One thing for sure is that he will not be lying about selling it on Ebay.
Then let each individual
deal with the personal consequences, if there are any. Don't mandate what they can and cannot do.
we. we, we....is there an individual among you?
nm
an individual wrote this and -
every individual has a right to his/her own opinion, but that does not mean that the countries are saying we were duped. The people in other countries are just like the people in America - you either love him or you hate him - there is no in between for Obama.

I personally think that we have him now as POTUS and we should stand behind the man and show respect for the office he is holding and give him a chance to do something before we continue to tear him down.

I hear people say Obama has already broken this promise or that promise, but how can he break promises he made when he is not even the president yet? Give him a chance - if he messes up, then talk about it and be upset -- and even though I voted for him, I will be upset right along with you.
How lost an individual you are....
I am not a republican and it doesn't take much for one to now see that this president has NO loyalty to this country. NOTHING AT ALL!! He has an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with this country but control!! You need to wake up!

Treason? 'a more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation'...

How very sad for you that you don't even realize that in a "free country" one is allowed to speak out against their president. THAT IS NOT TREASON!!! that is what sickos in Iran call treason.... do you akin yourself with the likes of those sick tyrannical leaders?

That is exactly what Obama is doing. Speaking out against our president is our constitutional right...to keep things in check and NOT allow government too much power or control into our lives.

So sorry for you. You are truly the very kind Obama longs for.... he needs to take care of you don't ya know? You are obviously too ignorant to do it for yourself!
Individual independent investigation
I agree it is important to look at raw facts and draw conclusions for yourself. So much of what we see and hear out of the mainstream media is slanted to one side or the other. I believe it is very important for one to get info from independent sources in order to draw enlightened conclusions. I think it's naive at best to trust solely the mainstream media and even partisan sources exclusively for your news. Things can be spun so many different ways. This is one area where we agree.
I hardly consider myself some upper class individual trying
to keep "lower class" in check.  You assume incorrectly.  We can't make everyone happy but we try our best.
On individual incomes exceeding $250,000.
To restore funding for longstanding program commitments slashed, diverted and/or discontinued to fund the war. He cannot create "MORE" programs without majority support from Congress. Should he be able to garner such support, then we would call that representative democratic process, not socialist/Marxist black liberationist theology.
I was not referring to an individual as being self-righteous,
I was referring to the collective you that applies to anyone that maybe needs to see a different perspective.
Individual liberty? Why allow the Government
nm
I was asking what individual people who identify themselves as liberals....
what that meant to them. I can look up liberal in a dictionary...that is not what I meant. There are those on this board who are Democrats, who call themselves liberal Democrats...who obviously do not agree with you, as you state there are no "true" liberals in the Democratic party. This is very interesting. You have my attention again....what in your estimation makes a "true conservative?" Do tell.
Why assume that flag-flying was this individual's
There's nothing in the story to support your assumption that flying the flag represents this individual's complete understanding of the notion of patriotism.

On the other hand, flying the flag IS certainly ONE expression of patriotism - a form of protected speech, in fact - and the ONLY question here is not whether this individual has a simplistic view of patriotism, but whether displaying the flag should have been prohibited.

We'll just call this your quota of "straw man" logical fallacies for the week, shall we? You may not post another one until next week.
Unbelievable - Individual cities are now asking for money from the bailout -

What do ya'll think about this?  I cannot believe it.  The bailout was bad enough when it was to keep the banks from failing which was going to ruin us all, but now these individual cities are asking for money for things such as mass transit improvements, expansion of clean technology businesses, to fund long-neglected infrastructure, more police, upgrades to airport terminals and runways, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, etc.


Where is it going to end?  What happened to all the taxes people have been paying in for years anyway?  Why was it not being used for those things all along?  And why should I in Georgia have to pay to give people in other states money to fix things?  Alaskans are not giving me part of that money they get every year from their oil...  Maybe that is selfish - but if they continue to take and take from me, then what I am supposed to do? 


who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.

nm


 


Income between 31K and 63K ?

Poster tried to get you to read this before but obviously ignored by most.  You might want to remember this at the polls.........  This was just back in March when this was attempted by Obama.. your hero!


WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaign schedules to return to the Senate for votes on taxes and spending likely to become key points of contention in the race for the White House.



 


Votes on tax cuts and on a one-year ban on pet projects topped the Senate’s agenda before an expected late-night vote yesterday to pass a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint. The nonbinding plan predicts a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when President Bush’s tax cuts expire in about three years.  This was found out and release the morning after they tried to get this passed in the mddle of the night back in March. 


Obama(D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.



 


 


 


 


right - available to the low income -
You said that the insurance program to everyone would become a free program. That is not what it is. It is going to cost. My point was that Medicaid was already there as a government program for free.
Income tax
Rich are given lots of stuff for free. There is no way to hold them accountable to declare it all. Look at the goody bags they get at the award shows. They are worth tens of thousands of dollar. Only just recently has it been taxed.
It will be just like the income tax
1. They'll sell it "for a good cause". The income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax that was sold to the people on the basis of paying off war debts.

2. It will start off small and end up big.

3. It will never end.

4. It will prove incredibly burdensome to whoever has to actually keep all the records and submit the tax to government.

5. It will act as another drag on economic growth.

6. It will serve as yet another brake on the entrepreneurial engine that has always been unique to America.

If a tax revolt of one kind or another isn't coming, I'll eat your hat, with or without feathers. It's gone way past the point of ridiculous now.
My MT pay is certainly not the main income....

in this household. Sure, we could lose our jobs, however, we are quite prepared for something like that. We have an emergency fund in place that would last at least a year (a year's worth of mortgage and utilility payments), we don't have a car payment, all credit cards are paid off and we have CDs, retirement funds, etc. It's called planning for the future and planning for the unexpected. We have paid into unemployment, so of course we would take it if we had to.


It is based on income . . .
not on grades. You have to keep your grades up to keep receiving it, BUT the primary requirement to receive it is low income. So do you thing those who have done well for themselves should be required to give money to those who are below them if they are trying to do better? Because that is what is sounds like. As long as it is benefiting you, it is okay because you are trying to do better?

No matter how you slice it, you are still taking from those who have and giving it to havenots. Just stay consistent with your argument. Who is to say who HONESTLY deserves aid?
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
this is phased out at $47,000-50,000 income nm
x
One income already does not pay the bills! nm
x
Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.

However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.

Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.

I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.

Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.

Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.

I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.

As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.


Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.

No thanks.


okay - what do you think earned income credit is?
My sister pays no taxes - she has no taxes taken out of her check every week - she works a full time job, but she still every year gets back $5000-6000. Now why do you think that is any different than what you are talking about now? It is the same thing...
Income tax versus sales tax......sm

Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........


Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move?  Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?


I'll post my opinion separate from this.


The $83,000 question. SCHIP income guidelines

I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about.  I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well.  I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden.  It's for a good cause, darn it!


"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?


When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.


Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.


Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.


Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.


In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.


Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.


But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.


Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”


States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.


In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.


States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.


While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.


In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.


Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.


Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.


Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”


Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.


Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear


Instead of trying to move the lower income levels....
out of those levels by incentivizing them to work instead of stay there, he wants to move the upper income levels DOWN closer to them. Socialism. Makes absolutely NO sense. If he really cared about lower income levels, he would be trying to figure out a way to help them OUT of it, not keep them IN it and bring others DOWN. That is his idea of "economic parity." Misguided, to say the least.
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us?  Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
they lose a lot of their income and also their Medicare if they marry - nm
x
Yes, earned income credit, we pay our taxes....
Whaddya you make? 7 cents a line? LOL. You call that paying taxes? HAHAHAHA!
No, it's more than jus the earned income credit and kids.
This is adding in things like tuition and related school expenses, but not claiming the grant money they've recieved to pay for that - which you legally have to do. That's what makes me so mad!
Are you complaining about the "earned income credit?" nm
x
Sorry, earned income credit, I have to pay taxes.....
I have no dependents, alas. I don't get food stamps or Welfare, either. Unlike you, the prophet, I will wait and see what direction our President takes us. You might be disappointed or I might be disappointed, but, obviously, it will all roll out in the end, won't it? Yes, I know about gas. Unfortunately for you, it has no escape route because you are too full of $hit to allow its escape. Sorry about the blockage.........honest, it isn't brain matter - it is fecal.
I thought this article clarified the income issue

You guys are probably sick of hearing my opinions on this if you read the last thread, but I wanted to re-post this section of an article that addresses the income level concern.  It sounds like the only state that asked for income guidelines to go as high as $83,000 was New York, and their request was denied, so that income level is not a part of the current bill. (To me it sounds like even the $60,000 guideline may be limited to New York, but I'm honestly not sure on that and will try to find out).


--The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.


Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."


The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.


link to the entire article:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685 


Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm
employers do not offer insurance.
Time to stop the earned income tax credit
No more WELFARE period. Everybody can plant a small garden - even in pots. Go fishing and deer hunting for your meat. Tents are cheap - can walk or hitchhike to warmer climates so you're more comfortable. Live off the land! And let govt get smaller - no more handouts to ANYONE! If we did that, we wouldn't need roads or bridges - end that spending habit. Get rid of government completely. Everybody arm yourselves and live like they did in the old west. We are already well on our way to being a 3rd world country (even airports are dingy). Everybody is on their OWN. Consumerism would end. Who needs TV or iPods or computers or anything else? We're all gonna die anyway. Some sooner than others, but there's no way outta that one. If you don't make any money - you won't have to pay taxes.
Two-Thirds of US Corps pay no federal income taxes

Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax


GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes



(AP)  Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.

Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices - amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.

"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.



Combined income or small business making 120,000 or higher
will be taxed big time instead of the 250,000.  It could down lower to where anyone making 42,000 or higher will be taxed big time.  He keeps changing his mind, but we will for sure see if he wins.     
How much did you make on your "earned income credit" this year? Welfare momma......
x
Sing it sister!! Earned income tax credit most defintely is welfare.
But I bet very few people who receive it think of it that way. They just happily cash that refund check.
Well, I care. I also care about the constitution.nm
nm
I don't really care. sm
It just seems it has been carried on long enough.  I would rather just debate.  It sounds more like a grudge, but as I said, just my 2 cents. 
I don't really care!!! SM
All of you all need to stay over here and try and find some topics to discuss like is happening tonight. 
Do you think I care what you think of me? sm

Get over yourself.  Grow up.  Learn how to behave on an adult chat board.  Stop lying. You are such a liar.  I mean, lying all over the place.  It's really terrible. You need help.


 


How does it feel?


I don't care about that. sm
That is insignificant to what is going on in the world right now.
I don't care either
Just pointing out what a fool you are making of yourself in talking about things you have absolutely no clue about, but if it's a fool you want to be so be it. At least you're a good source of laughs for those of us living in reality.

Liberal church--that's an oxymoron isn't it?

Man, that was very Coulter of me.


And I care...not! nm
x
why do you even care?

Would you prefer to punish the child she is carrying by offering no prenatal care?  Would you sleep better if that woman went back to Mexico where her baby will receive no care at all?  Did you ever stop to think that someone in your family was once an immigrant?  Illegals don't pay taxes?  If they work, they have taxes taken out of of their check and that is free money to the government that they are not eligible to ever collect once they are old. 


Republicans are going to want to keep the illegals here to benefit big business (cheap labor) and democrats are going to want to help them, so either way, nothing will be done.