Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

Scataphagos said:
Pros and Cons. If the only tax were a national sales tax, it would have to be so high as to discourage consumption and be a drag on the economy and employment... would be great for building savings and capital though (not that the government wants us to do that, of course).
More...

It would have to be approximately 20 or so percent, from what I've read. Personally, if you gave me all of my income I'd be just fine with that.
 
Tsing Tao said:
It would have to be approximately 20 or so percent, from what I've read. Personally, if you gave me all of my income I'd be just fine with that.
More...

I'm thinking 25-30%, but who knows?

I'd think we'd want an income tax to include corporate income (and make dividends tax free to avoid unfair double taxation).

Whatever would be the most widely based and lowest rate would need to be enforced without loopholes.
 
Scataphagos said:
I'm thinking 25-30%, but who knows?

I'd think we'd want an income tax to include corporate income (and make dividends tax free to avoid unfair double taxation).

Whatever would be the most widely based and lowest rate would need to be enforced without loopholes.
More...

Agree on the corporate income tax, and without loopholes. Might not be a bad idea, however, to offer corporations incentives when they employ the majority of their employees here in the US vs. abroad.
 
Tsing Tao said:
There's no point in continuing it anyway, as you will never admit to a damned thing, regardless of how it is put to you. You have no intention of coming to an agreement on anything here - not one thing - unless it is your view we all agree to. Your intent here is to obfuscate, cloud the issue, point out spelling errors, dodge, and generally troll your way through the forum in an attempt to cause as much displeasure to everyone else as you possibly can.

My guess is you're an old, retired guy, sitting somewhere at home (probably on one of the coasts) with a little smug grin on your face, believing yourself to hold the intellectual high ground on most of these threads. In reality, however, you're probably the guy who people avoid discussions in real life with on any topic that is more complex than the weather or mowing their lawn (if you actually venture outside to socialize, that is - i have my doubts) because any such discussion means you have to be the one who is "in the know", and all of us peasants are lucky to get just a glimpse into that wondrous intellect you wield like a broadsword.

You could be divorced, or gay - though I'm doubting the homosexual angle with you. I'm not sure you have kids - although I suppose it is possible you weren't always like this, so someone was probably at some point convinced to mate with you.

You claim to be neither liberal or conservative (at least that's what I managed to get out of your evading the question on multiple occasions), but that's a complete sham, although it is possible you have such a distorted view (or disgruntled) that you truly believe everyone but you is left/right of center, and you represent the base view of what is "balanced and objective". Your ego is probably colossal, and perhaps impregnable. You are Stone Deaf.

How'd I do? :) Not that I expect you to actually admit any of this.
More...

None of which addresses what I said, but since you're now into name-calling, I'll assume that you have nothing left.

You have yourself a nice day.
 
piezoe said:
It is a decision based on legal hair splitting. It will probably be reversed.
More...
Well THAT didn't take long. The speed of the reversal surprised even me. I wonder if Jem knows, has a new record been set for the fastest reversal ever? :D
 
Not a reversal ... from what I read... it is conflicting circuit court rulings.
but, I do not know for sure because the sources were less than expert.

It looks to me like this will head up to the Supreme Court.
And likely be decided by Roberts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top