Politics Who's Gonna Win?

And of course the reviled and cursed individual mandate in the ACA was at the very heart of the GOP alternative to HillaryCare in 1993. In fact, many of the provisions in the 93 Republican proposal are included in the ACA.

 

About F*cking time those a-holes started paying something! I think Obama's "class warfare" (meaning he wants to close the rich tax loopholes) theme will be a winner.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2012 8:56 PM ---

"...right wing play book..." verbatim......see page 1,232 paragraph C, subset 2

 

To some people the 3.8% tax rate will be pretty close to a 3.8% tax rate. I have tried explaining many times how dumb tax policy does not really impact the "rich" and can have a big impact on others. For example if Donald Trump sell a property with multi-million dollars in capital gains his tax is going to be about at the 3.8% rate assuming his army of lawyers and accountants figure a method to avoid the tax. To some unsuspecting people the 3.8% tax could be in effect a $19,000 tax on $1 in additional income. Assuming the tax at $499,999 capital gain is zero and the tax on $500,000 capital gain is $19,000.

To give a real example. My father lives in a house he bought 40 years ago for about $40,000. It is a house less than 1,000 sp ft. on a lot over an acre. At the market peak the property was worth about $250,000. If the area has a certain type of commercial development, the property could easily push him into the 500,000+ capital gain category. I doubt he has every made over $50,000 in a single year. But he could get hit with the tax, I don't know the details, I have seen conflicting information on how the tax works. But doing the math if he lives there another 10 years, for a total of 50 years, the $500,000 gain is about $10,000 per year for him. You want him to pay $19,000 in additional tax to sell??? And don't you see the impact on him is much more painful than it would be on Donald Trump, assuming Trump ever pays the tax??? I say keep your tax, my dad sacrificed and lived modestly - if others do the same they can pay for their own healthcare!
--- merged: Feb 21, 2012 11:01 PM ---

I can not explain this any further.

Right. Talk to me when we have IRS rules and regulations. Talk to me when we have interpretations of those rules and regulations. Talk to me after aspects have been challenged and ruled upon by the courts.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2012 11:09 PM ---

As much as my analogies are hated, I offer one - read at your option.

I a married couple, agree to go to a marriage counselor to try and fix their broken marriage - and one spouse offers a "compromise" and the councilor agrees that it is the greatest compromise ever offered in the history of marriage - they write it up, get is signed witnessed by a notary -but the other spouse walks away not committed to the "compromise" and making it work, what is the result going to be? The "compromise" fails. In fact there never really was a compromise. It was just one side thinking there was a "compromise". The real work was not done.

Why is the concept of real "compromise" so difficult for me to communicate??? Is it me? Yes, that is it, has to be.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2012 11:10 PM ---

Rich people have options others do not have. Think of a family farm, a small business with real-estate...

 

Obama ALL THE WAY!

 

Ace...you can dodge and weave all you want, but you misrepresented that tax in the same manner as the death panels and socialized medicine...standard right wing "fear mongering." I would have been shocked if you acknowledged that you didnt know what you were taking about but simply parroted the talking points.

You can also brush aide ("cant explain it any further") the significant benefits that millions have already received.

And you can ignore the fact that the individual mandates, the concept of a pool for uninsured and small businesses, the ban on denying coverage for pre-exisiting conditions, etc. were all provisions of the '93 Republican proposal that many of those same Republicans now vilify. A single payer system would not have been a compromise so the government option was dropped (to the dismay of many liberals, but that is what compromise is all about); a system with the above provision that previously had bi-partisan support was a compromise by Obama and the Democrats.

But it takes two to compromise and I would suggest that it is evident to any reasonable objective observer that the Republicans, even given the equal role in the "gang of six" and inclusion of many of their amendments and early proposals, had no interest in compromise.

 

I gave an example in a post that was wrong, I corrected it.
I stated that I have read conflicting information on the tax.
I stated I did not know how the tax will ultimately be administered.

what more do you want?

Do you know that Donald Trump most likely does not own real estate in his name? Odds are that every property is held in some individual legal entity. so the Donald could be involved in hundreds of real-estate transactions that may never get to his 1040 as income? Have you given any of these things any thought?

What is going to be the impact of this tax?

Do you know that when professional real estate developers/investors consider a project- they run projections with an expected return (usually pretty accurate) before they green light a project or investment? Do you know they build in transaction costs, including taxes, in the projections? Do you know in high demand scenario the tax will be included in rents or the final sale?

What is going to be the impact of this tax?

Come on, think about these things!
--- merged: Feb 21, 2012 11:49 PM ---

Two sides in a dispute. One side "compromises". The other side walks away not committed to the "compromise".

Did you really need that?

If you want to put it that way, feel free. I on the other-hand, will not think I have a "compromise" solution when I do not.

 

I thought about it and I would suggest the stated intent of the tax is clear to objective observers, but you cant accept that.

I also think that the examples I provided of numerous attempts by the Democrats to compromise and you ignore it and respond with a marriage counseling analogy.

Nothing more to be said, Ace, other than you demonstrated once again that you are not interested in discussing the facts but would rather "contribute" inane analogies and undocumented and unproven right wing talking points.

 

I dont think he will ever understand.

 

Intent? Who cares about intent. What is the real impact going to be! Process v. results - another example.

You provided nothing of value or insight.

 

I think facts and the numerous indisputable examples of attempts to compromise that I provided is of value.

What was good for Republicans in '93 was "off the table" in '09. How do you compromise given that environment?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612

But it is Obama the Democrats fault, not the obstructionist Republicans.

 

My dad's situation is not abstract. As a business owner, I know the tax impact on a business owner is not abstract. I know a person who has a grand-mother that has valuable farm land, that will have to be sold when she passes and the gains split many different ways, they are very interested in the tax implications. Investors/developers do what they do - not secret. How are you calling this conceptual/abstract???
--- merged: Feb 22, 2012 12:08 AM ---

You have not changed from '93 to '09? I have.

Perhaps you are correct, the situation may have been too difficult for Obama. Or, perhaps Obama could have taken a different approach to reach a solution.

 

Of course, in ace world its all on Obama, despite numerous attempts to compromise, and not the Republicans with the stated intent to obstruct.

 

Some things I understand, some things I don't. When I don't understand something, I ask questions. When I think I understand something I state my view in simple declarative sentences - with an interest in reading responses - I occasionally change my view based on my interactions with others.
--- merged: Feb 22, 2012 12:15 AM ---

I thought it was a good analogy. I plan on using it frequently when talking to liberals on the question of "compromise". If not for you folks being so obtuse, I would not have thought of it - thanks.

Not fully. Did you not understand my initial point - it gonna be a surprise - we won't really know until after the election.
--- merged: Feb 22, 2012 12:20 AM ---

Here is another analogy - peace negotiation between waring parties. They hate each other. They have a stated intent to obstruct. Can lasting peace be achieved? In your world view - no. In mine, yes. You start small... get to some small "yes"...build upon it... get another "yes"...build upon it...takes time...takes effort...takes will... takes determination...takes an understanding that a lasting peace is worth the effort...

 

I hate to do it, but you're on your own. I honestly do not know how to reason with the unreasonable.

My head hurts.

 

Do you know the common definition of insanity? I did not engage in this expecting a different result, did you?