Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2012, 08:07 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clip-Clop View Post
Would you also love if tax deductible charitable donations went away?
I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-16-2012, 10:30 AM
Clip-Clop Clip-Clop is offline
The Curragh
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manningtown, Colorado
Posts: 2,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.
Might not change your donation plans, but I will tell you the people giving away millions and millions of dollars to charities (either partly or mostly) because they have to for the break, it would change they way they do things. A lot of research is funded that way. We should try it though, I am certain the tax increase would go directly to paying down our debt and helping out those in need.
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2012, 08:54 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clip-Clop View Post
Might not change your donation plans, but I will tell you the people giving away millions and millions of dollars to charities (either partly or mostly) because they have to for the break, it would change they way they do things. A lot of research is funded that way. We should try it though, I am certain the tax increase would go directly to paying down our debt and helping out those in need.
That's why I said, "what 'Zig said".
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-16-2012, 10:31 AM
Clip-Clop Clip-Clop is offline
The Curragh
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manningtown, Colorado
Posts: 2,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.
That money has already been taxed if you take away the donation write-off. Tax on tax on tax on tax. Always the solution.
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:02 AM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:30 AM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Clip-Clop Clip-Clop is offline
The Curragh
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manningtown, Colorado
Posts: 2,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk View Post
This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.
I agree with virtually everything you say. But once you force that employer to pay that part of your pay everything changes. Once you demand something from that employer you take away the employers right to pay their employees as they wish. An employer should absolutely have the right to cut someones pay if they feel like it for whatever reason they want, employee A doesn't like it employee A can leave. Simple.
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:39 AM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk View Post
This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t. .
Then is the claim of conscientious objector bullsh*t?

Until indentured slavery is brought back one has the freedom to choose one's employer.

Besides who would want to work for a bullsh*t employer anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2012, 12:57 PM
horseofcourse horseofcourse is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 3,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63 View Post
Then is the claim of conscientious objector bullsh*t?
Yes, they can't petition the federal government and state they want zero of their tax dollars going to the US war machine. They simply can't do that. For me it's a bit scary as someone who needs drugs to continue to live like me that religions can start getting into the business of determining which USDA approved drugs are allowed to be insured. That's heading down a path you really don't want to go down. But really we are already there as the "death Panels" thing was hilarious. They have been there forever always. Called Health Insurance Companies. Medical Bankruptcy is a uniquely American thing.
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-20-2012, 01:15 PM
horseofcourse horseofcourse is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 3,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63 View Post
Until indentured slavery is brought back one has the freedom to choose one's employer.
Well, I'm not sure this is entirely true. I have what is known as a pre-existing condition and without drugs I would die within a year. I am very lucky right now to have medical coverage through my employment so I can still feed my kids. Without coverage I would go broke. Although the ACA is rancid horse crap and not single payer which is the ONLY logical option, the ACA did mention something about continued coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so as rancid as it is it is maybe a hair better than the rancidness currently in place. No one is required to cover my "pre-existing" condition I believe. So to say I have 35 million employment opportunities to find coverage I need isn't really being honest...keeping health care coverage is the new indentured slavery so to speak...it's a matter of life and death for me. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.

(in the real world, the "employer" chooses you, not vice versa as you stated. you don't walk into a business and state, "I'm starting work here tomorrow at 8 am and here is how much you are paying me." Normally you have to apply for a job, go through an interview process, and the employer makes his/her choice. You only have the freedom to choose where you apply, you have to get chosen.)
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?!

Last edited by horseofcourse : 02-20-2012 at 01:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-20-2012, 01:20 PM
Clip-Clop Clip-Clop is offline
The Curragh
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manningtown, Colorado
Posts: 2,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseofcourse View Post
Well, I'm not sure this is entirely true. I have what is known as a pre-existing condition and without drugs I would die within a year. I am very lucky right now to have medical coverage through my employment so I can still feed my kids. Without coverage I would go broke. Although the ACA is rancid horse crap and not single payer which is the ONLY logical option, the ACA did mention something about continued coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so as rancid as it is it is maybe a hair better than the rancidness currently in place. No one is required to cover my "pre-existing" coverage I believe. So to say I have 35 million employment opportunities to find coverage I need isn't really being honest...keeping health care coverage is the new indentured slavery so to speak...it's a matter of life and death for me. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.
And replaced by what? Government run healthcare? They cannot even handle the mail correctly.
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-21-2012, 06:27 AM
Coach Pants
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseofcourse View Post
. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.
Yeah free health care for all with no deductibles...and if there are deductibles then absolutely no indemnity plans to cover that deductible.

F.uck 'em. No exchange of dollars. What do you think this is? A democracy?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-17-2012, 01:47 PM
Antitrust32 Antitrust32 is offline
Jerome Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 9,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk View Post
This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Can I start just making stuff up out of thin air, too?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Republicans: anti-woman, anti-gay, watch former voters walk away.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.