HavBlue and the IRS

[AJ Babaganoosh]

Oh please, I would love to hear this one. Lets see, is it the income tax not being constitutional one? Or, is it the 2 dozen or so other nutty excuses that while funny remain illegal. As it turns out the system is the most complex on the planet and yet in many cases it is also the cheapest. Maybe we can get one of the folks from across the pond to tell us about their tax structure and the costs associated therein.

I said nothing about the income tax being illegal or unconstitutional. Nor did I suggest there were “excuses” for not paying income tax under the current system. I pay all the taxes I owe, every time. In fact, I probably pay more than I owe because I don’t have the time to sort through such a complex system and find deductions. My contention is that the tax system is not right. It is legal but that doesn’t make it right. Slavery was legal at one time but it was not right. The fact that our system may be cheaper than something across the pond doesn’t make it right either. If I had to pay $10000 for an FZ6 and someone else had to pay $12000, we both got screwed. I will still not be happy about paying too much just because somebody else paid more.

 

[HavBlue]

I said nothing about the income tax being illegal or unconstitutional. Nor did I suggest there were “excuses” for not paying income tax under the current system. I pay all the taxes I owe, every time. In fact, I probably pay more than I owe because I don’t have the time to sort through such a complex system and find deductions. My contention is that the tax system is not right. It is legal but that doesn’t make it right. Slavery was legal at one time but it was not right. The fact that our system may be cheaper than something across the pond doesn’t make it right either. If I had to pay $10000 for an FZ6 and someone else had to pay $12000, we both got screwed. I will still not be happy about paying too much just because somebody else paid more.

So let me get this straight, you pay all that you owe and yet you don't have the time to sift through the yellow pages in an effort to seek assistance from someone that could conceivably get you the deductions necessary to file a return that may in fact garner you a refund. I fail to see how the system would be at fault here. Rather, it would seem time management is the bigger issue.

 

[grommit]

So does everybody in the US have to file a tax return?

I am no expert but...

Here in the UK most normal employed people Pay As You Earn (PAYE) this is deducted at source, from your wages. You might get to do a tax return once in 20 years, this is so for the vast majority. Self employed people and big earners would have to file a tax return each year. The type of return depends on the size of business.

National Insurance goes to fund not only health care but pensions plus other benefits for yourself and others. We have a welfare state which mean we try to look after those less fortunate or who need help. Hence the attraction to those outside the UK.

Local tax (council tax) is related in main to the person who owns property and is calculated from its value (which is in bands) at a given time. We did have a better system which meant each individual paid a local tax but nobody seemed to like that for reasons I still do not understand. It goes towards the police and fire service plus waste disposal and other local things like roads.

 

[HavBlue]

So does everybody in the US have to file a tax return?

I am no expert but...

Here in the UK most normal employed people Pay As You Earn (PAYE) this is deducted at source, from your wages. You might get to do a tax return once in 20 years, this is so for the vast majority. Self employed people and big earners would have to file a tax return each year. The type of return depends on the size of business.

National Insurance goes to fund not only health care but pensions plus other benefits for yourself and others. We have a welfare state which mean we try to look after those less fortunate or who need help. Hence the attraction to those outside the UK.

Local tax (council tax) is related in main to the person who owns property and is calculated from its value (which is in bands) at a given time. We did have a better system which meant each individual paid a local tax but nobody seemed to like that for reasons I still do not understand. It goes towards the police and fire service plus waste disposal and other local things like roads.

No, everyone does not have to file a return as this is generally based on the income which for 2006 was roughly anything above $9,000.00 however, if you had self employment income that would be anything above $400.00. Pensions hold at $25,000 for a single and around $32,000 for a married couple. The system is unique in that it tracks reported income. This meaning that if you are a W2 wage earner the firm will report that income as well as the 1099 income you may earn as a self employed individual. The problems start when a return stating a specific income does not match the reported income. At this point the filer becomes an under reporter. Keep in mind, the highest penalty you can receive is that of a delinquent filer (failure to file). Then we can go for failure to pay. The new interest rate is scheduled to be 7% annually compounded daily with a maximum rate of roughly 25% although there are instances that will generate a 100% penalty. In the outside world this would be considered a Usery.

Now, I'll go you one better, if you fail to file and there is reported income, the system is designed in a manner that allows it to file a return for you and this is known as a "substitute for return." The problem you face here is simply that all it sees is positive income and because it doesn't know you the return is filed at the highest rate "single and none." Now, you do have the right to file a return on your own behalf but this takes time and it's a royal pain for you to straighten things out.

Another big mistake is waiting to file because you know you have a refund. The problem here is time as you will lose that refund after 3 years regardless of your filing after that time frame and even though you had a refund.

In terms relative to National insurance, here in the United States it would cost billions to promote and execute. The burden placed on the taxpayer and system would far outweigh any benefit if there is such a benefit. It would also force a billion dollar industry right out of business and force delayed health care which is also one of the reasons many do not like the HMO systems. Perryn had earlier stated he paid 204 British for his insurance. I don't know what this is relative to the USD but I pay roughly $160 per month for Blue Cross, have my own choice of doctors, pay next to nothing for office visits or drugs.

 

[DefyInertia]

Shall we open up yet another can of worms and start discussing the proposed federal retail sales tax???

I pay roughly $160 per month for Blue Cross, have my own choice of doctors, pay next to nothing for office visits or drugs.

So what do you plan on doing if your coverage gets dropped and/or a treatment you need is not paid for due to a "pre-existing" condition?

The current health care system works great for me and my current situation...hopefully it always will. For my Mother, who has been working hard since she could stand on 2 feet, this is not the case....she's being left behind and it's costing us tens of thousands of dollars as a result...and that's for the bare minimum treatment.

It's just sad to see hard working people die young and/or suffer because they cannot get coverage.

I'm on the fence with this one...there are very strong arguments in both directions. The movie Sicko was rediculously one-sided as Mike Moore films tend to be, but it still made some good points....


________
Vaporizerinfo

 

[jfreakman]

Hi Mate,
Surely you end up paying for health insurance anyway? The Health service in the UK is not perfect, I can tell though that I have had more from it than I have put in.
3 operations, 16 broken bones, 4 lots of stitches with all the related follow up. Annual health checks, blood tests.
I cut my foot in Mississippi in 1981 3 stitches cost $300.
The thing that is killing the NHS is people who abuse the system (like anything).

I pay around $60 a month for complete health and dental coverage, for just myself. If I had meds to take or doctors visits to make, then they would be 80% covered. Its a good plan for me, as you'll see.

In your situation, you gain an obvious advantage as you make generous use of your NHS. It works very, very well for you and you can see benefits from it. For someone like me, who hasn't been to the doctor/ER in 15+ years, it would be a total drain. It would be worthless to me.

Right now, I have the best of both worlds, cheap insurance, and low taxes. It works very very well. While it's right in that I do pay for insurance, it's wrong in that I'd get anything out of a NHS right now.

 

[jfreakman]

So what do you plan on doing if your coverage gets dropped and/or a treatment you need is not paid for due to a "pre-existing" condition?

The current health care system works great for me and my current situation...hopefully it always will. For my Mother, who has been working hard since she could stand on 2 feet, this is not the case....she's being left behind and it's costing us tens of thousands of dollars as a result...and that's for the bare minimum treatment.

It's just sad to see hard working people die young and/or suffer because they cannot get coverage.

I'm on the fence with this one...there are very strong arguments in both directions. The movie Sicko was rediculously one-sided as Mike Moore films tend to be, but it still made some good points....

and this is why a NHS would be a good thing to have--IF IF IF you used it. :thumbup:

 

[jfreakman]

HavBlue - no worries - we love you man!!! lol


Go read the 16th amendment...it will make you thankful for the code and regs...

Yes, you are absolutely correct in that it does need some...clarification and further embellishment... but I think that the point of what we were trying to say is that tax code could be a little less complicated.

Of course, I don't do my taxes myself, so it doesn't make a difference to me.:thumbup:

 

[dako81]

I'll chip in my opinion on taxes.

I pay taxes because if I don't, men with guns will come to my home and take it and everything I own from me and put me in jail. It might not happen immediately, but eventually it will happen. I think that if people could decide for themselves what to do with their own hard earned money we would live in a lot nicer of a society. Who am I to tell someone else what to do with their life and their belongings? If they earned them, they aren't mine to mess with. I don't think that a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington should be able to decide what I do with my money either. They don't know me. What qualifies them as better than me to decide what I do with my life and my money? If our federal government cut spending to the level of the early to mid 1990's, they could completely get rid of the federal income tax and still stay afloat.

I believe in voluntary interaction. That means that I should be responsible for things that I do, transactions that I make, and donations that I give. This government coercion goes against this belief. If I don't pay, I go to jail. Even if I don't support what the money is going for.

As far as health care, I think it needs to be left completely to the private market. When the health care providers have to compete, prices will come down, service will go up, and quality will go up. When they have to compete, they are incentivized to make a profit. This gives them a reason to do a good job. Prices would dramatically decrease if the government got completely out of health care, service and quality would go up, and people would be much happier because if they weren't happy with their service at one place, they wouldn't ever have to go back, and they could tell everyone they knew not to go there.

If a large enough group of people want their own health system, they should be able to get together on their own and create an organization they all can be part of. They can all then contribute their own money for their own services, and everything they do will only effect THEM, because THEY chose to be a part of it. If I don't want to be a part of it, I shouldn't have to be and I should be able to take my money elsewhere if I so choose.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Nelly]

No, everyone does not have to file a return as this is generally based on the income which for 2006 was roughly anything above $9,000.00 however, if you had self employment income that would be anything above $400.00. Pensions hold at $25,000 for a single and around $32,000 for a married couple. The system is unique in that it tracks reported income. This meaning that if you are a W2 wage earner the firm will report that income as well as the 1099 income you may earn as a self employed individual. The problems start when a return stating a specific income does not match the reported income. At this point the filer becomes an under reporter. Keep in mind, the highest penalty you can receive is that of a delinquent filer (failure to file). Then we can go for failure to pay. The new interest rate is scheduled to be 7% annually compounded daily with a maximum rate of roughly 25% although there are instances that will generate a 100% penalty. In the outside world this would be considered a Usery.

Now, I'll go you one better, if you fail to file and there is reported income, the system is designed in a manner that allows it to file a return for you and this is known as a "substitute for return." The problem you face here is simply that all it sees is positive income and because it doesn't know you the return is filed at the highest rate "single and none." Now, you do have the right to file a return on your own behalf but this takes time and it's a royal pain for you to straighten things out.

Another big mistake is waiting to file because you know you have a refund. The problem here is time as you will lose that refund after 3 years regardless of your filing after that time frame and even though you had a refund.

In terms relative to National insurance, here in the United States it would cost billions to promote and execute. The burden placed on the taxpayer and system would far outweigh any benefit if there is such a benefit. It would also force a billion dollar industry right out of business and force delayed health care which is also one of the reasons many do not like the HMO systems. Perryn had earlier stated he paid 204 British for his insurance. I don't know what this is relative to the USD but I pay roughly $160 per month for Blue Cross, have my own choice of doctors, pay next to nothing for office visits or drugs.

The money that I pay as Grommit elequantley scribed. Does not only cover health care. It payed my mortgage payment for six months when I had a motorcycle smash and couldn't work. It is paying to give me a state pension as well as the private one I have. It pays for my kids to go to university. So it is cheap at half the price.

 

[Nelly]

Shall we open up yet another can of worms and start discussing the proposed federal retail sales tax???



So what do you plan on doing if your coverage gets dropped and/or a treatment you need is not paid for due to a "pre-existing" condition?

The current health care system works great for me and my current situation...hopefully it always will. For my Mother, who has been working hard since she could stand on 2 feet, this is not the case....she's being left behind and it's costing us tens of thousands of dollars as a result...and that's for the bare minimum treatment.

It's just sad to see hard working people die young and/or suffer because they cannot get coverage.

I'm on the fence with this one...there are very strong arguments in both directions. The movie Sicko was rediculously one-sided as Mike Moore films tend to be, but it still made some good points....

Second post your on the fence of mate.. It is morally wrong that your mum is denied health WTF. That is not democracy in my book.

 

[DefyInertia]

It is morally wrong that your mum is denied health WTF. That is not democracy in my book.

Money talks, man. She's not denied health care per se...she's denied coverage because the odds are she's not a good investment for the insurance company....if she won the lottery or something she could get the care she needed untill the money ran out...

I on the other hand, I am a good investment for my health insurance company. Chances are I'll pay more premiums then they'll have to dish out for care.

And you're right, it's not democratic in my book either...but we're a republic...albeit a democratic one.
________
The Vision Condo Pattaya

 

[Nelly]

And you're right, it's not democratic in my book either...but we're a republic...albeit a democratic one.

Now that is smething I will never get me head around lol

 

[Nelly]

it would be a total drain. It would be worthless to me.

Right now, I have the best of both worlds, cheap insurance, and low taxes. It works very very well. While it's right in that I do pay for insurance, it's wrong in that I'd get anything out of a NHS right now.

You miss the point totally my friend. Our society is not based on a me its based on a we. I fully intend to never need health care again. Reality is though that we will all need it at some point. I dont just pay in for me I pay in for everyone. Yes the draw backs are that there a certain people who refuse to get of their arses and work. Yes we have now reached the point in our economy where if you smoke or are obese you may be denied certain health care. People always knock the NHS. However it is in the majority of cases its there when you need it. + all of the other things, pension, social care, accomodation for the elderly, education for our kids. No system is perfect.

 

[jfreakman]

You miss the point totally my friend. Our society is not based on a me its based on a we. I fully intend to never need health care again. Reality is though that we will all need it at some point. I dont just pay in for me I pay in for everyone. Yes the draw backs are that there a certain people who refuse to get of their arses and work. Yes we have now reached the point in our economy where if you smoke or are obese you may be denied certain health care. People always knock the NHS. However it is in the majority of cases its there when you need it. + all of the other things, pension, social care, accomodation for the elderly, education for our kids. No system is perfect.

That doesn't work in America. This is one of those basic differences between the UK and the US. America was built on the idea of the pursuit of happiness for each individual, based on what they are able to do. Like you guys, we have a welfare system that helps people (and some people take advantage of it). I don't agree with the idea of a NHS because of that simple thing. People used to come to the US because of the idea that through hard work and dedication they could make their lives better. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that. That's why I like the idea of individual health care, it allows me to pick what I want and what works best for me. It's also why I do pay my taxes, because I do realize that people who have the ability to make their lives better because of where they live have an obligation to the place where they live, to make it better. I don't feel, however, a NHS is the best way to apply that.

No system is perfect. But now that I'm old enough to make my own decision about where and what country to live in, I picked this one. Don't get me wrong, my mom is British, I lived in the UK for almost a year. There are definite things that i liked much more about living there. But I still chose to come back and live here, because it worked better for ME. And if that seems selfish or like I don't care about my fellow man, I'm sorry and that's not true.

On the other hand, except for the economic reasons, I do love England. It's my second favorite country!:thumbup:

 

[jfreakman]

It is morally wrong that your mum is denied health WTF.

Oh and this...You are absolutely right about. This would be the only reason I would support an NHS- for a hard-working person to be ill-treated is ridiculous and wrong, and is the downfall of our system.

 

[jfreakman]

As far as health care, I think it needs to be left completely to the private market. When the health care providers have to compete, prices will come down, service will go up, and quality will go up. When they have to compete, they are incentivized to make a profit. This gives them a reason to do a good job. Prices would dramatically decrease if the government got completely out of health care, service and quality would go up, and people would be much happier because if they weren't happy with their service at one place, they wouldn't ever have to go back, and they could tell everyone they knew not to go there.

This is correct. Competition drives a free-market economy, not just in health care but in everything--in motorcycle sales, car sales, fish sales, retail, phone companies, internet companies, etc etc.

 

[DefyInertia]

This is correct. Competition drives a free-market economy, not just in health care but in everything--in motorcycle sales, car sales, fish sales, retail, phone companies, internet companies, etc etc.

Yeah but this is ****ing health care we're talking about. The customer can get completely screwed in a free markt if the correct forces are in place! Should that be an option here???

The insurance companies basically control health care in America and you're right, they are doing everything they can to make a good profit even if includes turning down coverage and making aggresive "pre-existing" condition claims to get out of making payments. Who can blame them, they have a business to run and shareholders to answer to......................

The answer....I don't know, so I guess I can't complain too much.

BTW, please keep in mind that you're talking about economic theory in a vacuum...there are a lot of other factors that play into reality.
________
PRILOSEC INJURY LAWYER

 

[wrightme43]

I am self employed. I do not have any insurance for myself. Trinity qualifies for KY health care due to her sorta unique situation. Her mother does not pay child support or pay for anything. IF I were to buy health insurance I would pay 100 dollars a month to get them to pay 50% after I pay out of pocket $3000 a year. Basicly I would pay 4000$ a year before they pay a dime, then I would pay 50% of any $1000 after that. It does not make sense for me to buy it. I have stupid high coverage on my car and bike insurance, and life insurance, and fire/flood/wind insurance.

The only way I could even break even with the insurance company would be spend 20,000 a year on medical bills, but I dont have that to spend so it would become a moot point when I was unable to pay my 50% or pay my premium.

I have searched and searched for good insurance and it is not available for me.
Still I will not vote for a canidate that supports national health care.

This is one of the main reasons I am considering closing my business and going to work for another company.

 

[DefyInertia]

Still I will not vote for a canidate that supports national health care.

Care to elaborate?
________
WEED BUBBLERS