Moderator: Community Team
Night Strike wrote:#1. That ANY job, even the most menial if worthy of being done is worthy of paying a wage that allows someone to eat, have a safe house over their head and reasonable clothes.
No job should be mandated to provide those things. People get paid based on the value they bring to the company.
Nice try. The thing is that the ONLY reason many people can afford to work for these low wage jobs is that the government does subsidize them, sometimes even despite working multiple jobs. The companies are allowed to enjoy a false sense of profit, based on their ability to NOT have to provide for their worker's needs.Night Strike wrote: Companies are NOT charities. It's not a company's job to pay you for everything you want. You get paid based on the company's needs, not your own. That means you either align your needs to get by (or thrive) on that pay, or you find a second/a different. Or you negotiate with your employer for a raise.
Nice try, but no. Workers get paid the minimum companies can pay workers. That is why a McDonald's worker in Marine County will make more than a skilled laborer or even a teacher in my area.Night Strike wrote: People start companies to make money, not to make sure everyone around them gets paychecks (although many small business owners still make sure to pay their employees even if it means they don't get a paycheck themselves). Companies hire workers in order to be more productive and make more money, and those employees get paid based on that added/necessary value.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#3. The topic at hand was insurance and health care. You seem to equate thinking that insurance should pay for things means that the care is free. Its not. Insurance is something we buy, either directly and fully or in part, with the remainder coming as compensation for work.. part of our wages. NOTE that this system was set up to benefit employers because they got tax benefits from offering insurance instead of just higher wages. It is also required.
Employers started offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract new/better workers because the federal government froze wages during WWII. Again, it was the government manipulating the free market that has caused the massive problems we have today (health insurance being the only non-personal choice market). More and bigger government problems won't fix the system.
Night Strike wrote:Students across the country are cringing as the new medical insurance law’s mandates eliminate the affordable policies they previously enjoyed, imposing a new financial burden.
Night Strike wrote:“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free. ” –P.J. O’Rourke, 1993
1903. Is that a year? No, that’s 1,903%, which is how much medical premiums for students have increased at Louisiana’s Nicholls State University this year, thanks to a partial implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
Night Strike wrote:In March of 2010, President Obama signed what is now popularly termed “Obamacare” into law. Much of the new health law depends on making younger, healthy people who don’t use medical care pay for older, sicker populations who do.
College and university students are now feeling the bite.
Up until last semester, basic medical coverage at Nicholls State cost students just $75.05 for two semesters plus the summer session. However, these basic, inexpensive, limited policies don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s expansive requirements; they’re no longer permitted. Students are just one of many groups who cannot keep their old policies under the new law. Cost of a new policy? $1,503, a 1,903% increase.
“The cost of this insurance policy for Nicholls State University Students is $576.00 for the fall 2012 semester, $576.00 for the spring 2013 semester, and $351.00 for the summer 2013 session. The reason for the increase in price is due to federal changes made to the minimum coverage amounts for health insurance.“1
As illustrated in the table below, Nicholls’ situation is by no means unique—prices are going up at universities around the country, with more to come as Obamacare phases in. The current price hikes result from a new $100,000 minimum coverage requirement, but that cap increases again next year, then quickly rises to a requirement for unlimited coverage. Expect further premium increases.
Table 1 – Sample Price Hikes At Other Universities
Institution old premium new premium increase
Bethany CollegeLindsborg, Kan. 12 months, $445 over $2,000 [2] 349%
The State University of New York at Plattsburgh $440.00 $1,300 to $1,600 [2] 340%
North Carolina public universities $920, two semesters $1,418, two semesters [3] 54%
Lenoir-Rhyne University Hickory, N.C. $245 per year $2,507 per year [4] 923%
University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Wash. $165 a year $1,500 to $2,000 [4] 809-1,112%
Nicholls State University, Louisiana $75.05 per year $1,503 per year [1] 1,903%
Ave Maria University, Florida 65-82% [5]
Clearwater Christian College, Florida $600 per year $1,330 122% [5]
Franciscan University, Ohio Dropped (cost doubled) [6]
Night Strike wrote: Points to Ponder
o The President said you could keep your policy. Students can’t.
Intentional misquote. It WILL cost less, overall, in time. A few groups were always going to pay more. Taxpayers will, in the long run pay much less.Night Strike wrote: o The President said it would cost less. It costs more.
NOt really, most of those students are eligible for their parent's policies. Those that are not can generally get various state and private policies.Night Strike wrote: o This increase more than cancels President Obama’s Pell grant increases, making it harder to afford school. So, what the president has given with one hand, he more than retakes with the other.
Night Strike wrote:o Obamacare is designed to get money from people who won’t use it, to pay for those who will. This burden falls heavily on young healthy people.
[/quote]Night Strike wrote:“But I don’t think we know yet what the impact will be until the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented.”
—UNC President Tom Ross3
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:WILLIAMS5232 wrote: i just get tired of them bitching about it all the time like it's someone elses fault they bought a 200k house and now johnny needs to have major surgery. .
Except, that is not the real story in most of the country. it is what a few conservative pundits like to pretend is the story because it fits into their "let's support he wealthy" rhetoric.
Also, even when it was the story, bankers used to be held accountable themselves when they loaned money to people who could not afford it. It was one reason why they did not make out 200K mortgages to people making $9 an hour. Now, its the rest of us who are left holding the bag.
And, yes, many people could do with a lot less. HOWEVER, the funny part of your rhetoric is that its not the minimum wage workers or those making $8 an hour, for the most part doing that. They simply cannot afford it, cannot get the loans if they wanted... etc. Its the people making more like 50-80K, even 100K who get caught up in the "lifestyle" and wind up getting too easily in over their head because they THINK they "have something".. and forget about putting aside for tommorrow. Those at the bottom don't have a choice.
NO ONE MAKES MINIMUM WAGE!!! YARGH!
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
About 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 4 percent of men
thegreekdog wrote:Also, since stahrgazer is not answering my questions, perhaps you can?
thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.
It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.
Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.
Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.
I guess I have a few questions for you:
(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?
(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?
(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?
First I'll answer question 8. CEO salaries got so high because they could, the same reason Congress's salaries got so high: because they could, because they make the rules. Specifically, in many cases, CEOs would get an excessive bonus promised by the Board of Directors and their contracts, if they brought costs down, and in many of those cases, they brought costs down by laying off people, and frequently reducing benefits - which means, they got their salary increased by the salaries of many of those they laid off. Interestingly enough, the CEO of one company is frequently on the board of directors of other companies, which means, they're washing each other's backs - just like Congress. They get to make their own rules, rules that are good for them and rarely good for others.
Answers to the rest of your questions are: a revision to less narcissistic ethics. But to "force" that is called "Socialism."
Hmm. One of the benefits companies often reduced was "medical insurance." The Affordable Care Act sort of forces them to reconsider that; and sure 'nuff, many folks call it "Socialism."
Big hooplah in the news this week about the agreement to "not go over the fiscal cliff" requiring companies to pay more taxes. Well, they'd pay less taxes if they chose to employ more folks, reducing their individual and corporate profits by the conglomerate costs of salaries and benefits for those they add to their ranks. In fact, Obama had wanted a plan where companies would only get tax "breaks" if they added more workers.. we'll see if he manages to pass that.
Our economy worked very well in the 50s when the average exec made no more than 10-20 x the salary of his lowest worker. So, if someone in the company made about 15k, 150-300k in salary, benefits, and bonuses, seems reasonable for a CEO, rather than a starting salary of about that or twice that plus platinum bennies plus excessive bonuses and stock options that exponentiate the overall monies gained by the CEO.
I'm confused by your answer to 8. What prevented CEO salaries from being so high prior to the last 20 years or so? To my knowledge there were no laws, regulations, professional guidelines, or ethics manuals preventing CEOs from having salaries 100 times that of the company's employees.
thegreekdog wrote:As to the rest, it doesn't answer my questions, clearly. I asked some fairly clear questions, but I can restate them if you want. It appears to be a lot more of the same thing you posted before, which I've already read and digested. And two of your points are wrong actually.
The Affordable Care Act is not socialism; it's actually a case of "washing each other's backs," in this case as between insurance companies and Democrats in Congress. The rhetoric around the Affordable Care Act from Republican pundits screams "socialism," but that's mostly because Republicans are loathe to admit that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are much the same in that they are tools of companies, special interest groups, and the rich.
thegreekdog wrote:The fiscal cliff law did not raise taxes on corporations. It actually continued to give corporations major tax breaks they enjoyed under other laws signed by this president. There were three corporate taxpayer-friendly provisions that were extended: the research and development tax credit, a foreign tax "loophole," and 50% bonus depreciation deduction. Further, the law gave some new corporate tax breaks, including tax benefits specifically geared to film production companies. So, all-in-all, corporations made out great with the fiscal cliff legislation! Rich people got dinged, but so did the middle class and the working class.
thegreekdog wrote:EDIT - Also, quick point of reference. The average CEO salary was $12 million in 2011 (I think, I may be getting my years wrong). There's a lot of data out there. Just want to get your thoughts on my questions. I assume that since you feel strongly about this, you would have some thoughts on those items.
thegreekdog wrote:
I'm confused by your answer to 8. What prevented CEO salaries from being so high prior to the last 20 years or so? To my knowledge there were no laws, regulations, professional guidelines, or ethics manuals preventing CEOs from having salaries 100 times that of the company's employees.
thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.
It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.
Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.
Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.
I guess I have a few questions for you:
(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?
thegreekdog wrote:
(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?
thegreekdog wrote:
(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?
AndyDufresne wrote:It's time we start shooting, Nobu.
--Andy
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
john9blue wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:It's time we start shooting, Nobu.
--Andy
did he say anything about gun control? how do you even know he's against gun control? god you guys are the fucking worst. get your straw man bullshit out of here.
and no, i'm not overreacting. andy gets away with this shit constantly because he's not explicit about it.
or maybe implying that your debate opponent is a violent gun freak is considered good debate around here?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?
(amirite?)
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?
(amirite?)
Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)
spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?
(amirite?)
Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)
BigBallinStalin wrote:No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!
BigBallinStalin wrote:spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?
(amirite?)
Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)
No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!
TAX THOSE 'WEALTHY' FUCKS CUZ COMMON GOOD!!!
spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?
(amirite?)
Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)
BigBallinStalin wrote:No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!
stahrgazer wrote:doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,
thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,
Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?
Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,
Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?
I think she's saying that if doctors were paid for the emergency "can't say no" procedures, that more tax revenue would be collected from them (because they'd be "claiming" more income), thus decreasing the amount needed from other taxes on other people.
Timminz wrote:I have no idea what point that is supposed to be making. I mean, who would be paying? The people who don't have the money in the first place can't do it, or they would be already, and if the government pays, it will actually be a net loss since they'd be paying out more than the gain in tax revenue. Maybe the insurance companies? But why should they be responsible for the costs of someone who wasn't even their customer? And which company would have to pay?
thegreekdog wrote:spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family
From the article:
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?
(amirite?)
Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)
In the context of a free market health insurance system, families with incomes over $120,000 could have purchased health insurance for less. Not anymore though.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!
That really is not a new thing with the Affordable Care Act. It's just more expensive now.stahrgazer wrote:doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,
Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?
stahrgazer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!
PLAYER57832 wrote: Anyway, if these services were paid for instead of being provided for free, then the doctors would have more income to report and would be paying more taxes. Having that income to tax could potentially offset some of everyone else's tax bills. Given what doctors tend to make and the number of free visits nationwide... that might actually be a significant sum of money.
stahrgazer wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: Anyway, if these services were paid for instead of being provided for free, then the doctors would have more income to report and would be paying more taxes. Having that income to tax could potentially offset some of everyone else's tax bills. Given what doctors tend to make and the number of free visits nationwide... that might actually be a significant sum of money.
Yes. and as I said, because they aren't able to report income, others are having to pay higher tax percentages to make up the differences.
PLUS they are able to report non-payments as losses of income or the typical cost of the services as a charitable gift, reducing the amount of income they did receive that they have to pay on; and finally, the government does give out money to some charitable hospitals, etc. (Planned Parenthood is NOT the only medical institution that receives government funding) which means tax dollars are paying for it already.
But remember, not every community has such compassionate docs, either, to agree to treat a patient for free.
A big driver for the rise in cost of insurance isn't for the "poor," it's for covering those with "pre-existing conditions." Yet, most who detest "Obamacare" agree to the part of "Cover pre-existing conditions" - the very part of the plan that's driving insurance costs up.
Cost rises for "everyone" just in case someone later-on develops one of those pre-existing conditions and the insurance company is forced to keep insuring you rather than cancel your coverage; and because so many with pre-existing conditions who could not get any insurance coverage, now can.
But in the long run, covering everyone before a disease progresses to cataclysmic proportions can save the nation money by reducing emergency room care and reducing the need for surgeries before they happen.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users