- This topic has 1 reply, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Taxes are one thing. This is INSURANCE… a product… a service which is based on risk.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. All government services are paid for by different people at different rates. Military, fire and police services aren’t paid for strictly based on risk either, and I don’t see why government should apportion medical service costs any differently. If government provided aid were strictly based on risk then the folks on the gulf coast and in tornado alley would pay a lot more for FEMA then they do. And children and old people would pay taxes at higher rates rather than lower ones (or in the case of children, none at all).I hear you thinking, “But children can’t pay taxes because they have no income to do so”. Congratulations, you’ve just proved that you believe in taxation based on ability to pay.[/quote]
Is your current health insurance in Chi-Town based on a percentage of your income? How about your auto insurance or your renters insurance? I’m guessing they’re not.
As to your FEMA statement. As I currently have a policy on one of my homes with them I can tell you it certainly based on risk. There are charts that provide for different ratings and associated premiums. Higher risk area… higher cost… better coverage… higher cost. And it has nothing to do with income.
What we are talking about is a product (personal health insurance)… not a public service like schools, police, or fire protection. Using your logic I’ll soon be faced with an income differential charge when I go food shopping in CR! LOL
Even Obamacare in the US is not based on income for those exceeding the subsidies levels (lower income individuals and families). A person making $1,000,000/ year is not charged more than a person making $100,000!
Next we’ll discuss the fairness of people being able to disclose only a portion of their income and subsequently pay a lower rate for CAJA as compared to someone that must disclose their total income because of the way their retirement income is structured and pay a much higher rate for the very same service, even when both folks have the same total retirement income. I suspect you fall into the former… but that’s a discussion for another time.
[quote=”Scott”]According to Randall Zamora our resident Costa Rica Tax Expert
“The official percentages applied to the reported monthly income go from 10.5% to 18.5%, so in order to reach a $1000 monthly CAJA payment the reported monthly income should be between $5405 to $9523.”
Why anybody would be voluntarily declare that kind of income is beyond me but there ya go …
If someone was to do that in other, less-secure countries your wife would be kidnapped 2 hours later …
Scott[/quote]
Based on your statement Scott I’m guessing you feel the associated CAJA cost for someone with a retirement income in those ranges outweigh the benefits of residency?
Although declaring that kind of income might be a cheaper, and much faster (2 hours!) option than a divorce for some!!!! LOL 😉
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Is your current health insurance in Chi-Town based on a percentage of your income? How about your auto insurance or your renters insurance? I’m guessing they’re not.[/quote]
That’s a fair point but the other examples of protective services I cited are – and healthcare services are [b]not[/b] a product as you seem to insist. But OK, if we want to limit the discussion to healthcare only then what about Medicare – that is paid for by a tax on income. The more you earn the more you pay.[quote=”Imxploring”]Even Obamacare in the US is not based on income for those exceeding the subsidies levels (lower income individuals and families). A person making $1,000,000/ year is not charged more than a person making $100,000![/quote]
Well Obamacare is, at the end of the day, simply private healthcare insurance that people have been induced to purchase. And in private healthcare insurance not everyone pays the same either, and it is not solely based on risk. If I lived in downstate Illinois I would pay less than I do here in Chicago because healthcare providers downstate earn less than they do here. So I pay higher premiums as a result.Even risk based premiums aren’t strictly fair because older people [b]TEND[/b] to use more healthcare services but it doesn’t [b]NECESSARILY[/b] mean that a particular older person will require more healthcare. It’s all just an estimation.
Of course one could consider the most unfairly treated people of all to be those who pay for healthcare insurance and never get sick – every dollar they pay in premiums goes to pay for healthcare for other people.
You are certainly entitled to feel aggrieved that you pay more for things because of your higher income level but as I said earlier, what we each consider fair can vary from person to person. I consider it fair that people with more means pay more than people with less.[/quote]
Looking at your last sentence I’m guessing you’re pretty much a socialist Steve…. so should I be paying more for my groceries or a meal when I dine out… how about my car insurance or electric? Where would you draw the line? Don’t you think such an attitude encourages people to seek to game the system and discourages people to seek being more productive and sucessful?
And finally…. is that belief and view based on your own position in life and how such a system would benefit you at the expenses of other more sucessful people since it would appear you would be on the receiving end of this system rather than the paying end?
I noticed in an earlier post you mentioned you figured that your contribution to CAJA would only be about $100-$130 per month. Assuming you’re using the 10%-13% numbers that have been mentioned for mandatory CAJA contributions that means you are figuring on having to declaring approximately $1000 per month (the bare minimum) in total income to obtain your residency. If I have those numbers correct will that be your total income? I’m guessing not since I think you know you won’t be able to live on $900 per month in CR unless you go native. And with inflation and the apparent increases in CAJA even if you could initially.. your stay would be a short one when time and increasing cost quickly caught up with you.
So you will have other income I’m guessing. How about when SS kicks in after you relocate? Will you be declairing that additional income (even though it might not be required for you to obtain your residency) since you feel so strongly that people with means pay more than people with less? Or will you be gaming the system since it benefits you?
It’s easy to enjoy the ride (and even justify it) when someone else is paying the price… but be careful you might have to walk by a mirror and see yourself, although for many people these days that doesn’t even seem to matter!
Once again… personal health INSURANCE is a product… not a social program!
I noted the ‘hoped for’ payment too…:roll:
An expat married to a [i]Tica[/i] told me yesterday, that their fee has risen nearly 17% too.[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Is your current health insurance in Chi-Town based on a percentage of your income? How about your auto insurance or your renters insurance? I’m guessing they’re not.[/quote]
That’s a fair point but the other examples of protective services I cited are – and healthcare services are [b]not[/b] a product as you seem to insist. But OK, if we want to limit the discussion to healthcare only then what about Medicare – that is paid for by a tax on income. The more you earn the more you pay.[quote=”Imxploring”]Even Obamacare in the US is not based on income for those exceeding the subsidies levels (lower income individuals and families). A person making $1,000,000/ year is not charged more than a person making $100,000![/quote]
Well Obamacare is, at the end of the day, simply private healthcare insurance that people have been induced to purchase. And in private healthcare insurance not everyone pays the same either, and it is not solely based on risk. If I lived in downstate Illinois I would pay less than I do here in Chicago because healthcare providers downstate earn less than they do here. So I pay higher premiums as a result.Even risk based premiums aren’t strictly fair because older people [b]TEND[/b] to use more healthcare services but it doesn’t [b]NECESSARILY[/b] mean that a particular older person will require more healthcare. It’s all just an estimation.
Of course one could consider the most unfairly treated people of all to be those who pay for healthcare insurance and never get sick – every dollar they pay in premiums goes to pay for healthcare for other people.
You are certainly entitled to feel aggrieved that you pay more for things because of your higher income level but as I said earlier, what we each consider fair can vary from person to person. I consider it fair that people with more means pay more than people with less.[/quote]
Two points I’d like to make on your examples.
First Medicare… Medicare is a prepaid old age health insurance plan that Uncle Sam forces you to pay into and hopes you never collect on. And much like Social Security it has been used as a cash cow for year while it had a positive cash flow for the governmemt to expand it operation and for politicians to provide the funding for all the things they promised folks in order to get elected! The bad part is that now both programs are not providing that positive cash flow any longer and are in fact requiring Uncle Sam to make good on all the money that was “borrowed” from them. Now suddenly they are entitlement programs and a burden to government… go figure! When the surpluses were flowing in they were golden programs that would solve all of society’s problems!
Medicare is not private health insurance. It is, much like SS, an ill conceived social program that government used to tax people and expand it’s influence over society. While the original concept may have been a noble one both have morphed into something far from that which the framers had intended.
As to the regional cost difference for health insurance you mention. That has everything to do with risk and the regional cost of the services being insured. Once again… nothing to do with the level of one’s income seeking such coverage. They are NOT basing your insurance premium on how much YOU make.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Looking at your last sentence I’m guessing you’re pretty much a socialist Steve.[/quote]
[i]Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done [/i]
No, I am not a socialist. I don’t believe in government ownership of the means of production. Capitalism has flaws but it by far the best system for the allocation of resources we’ve ever come up with.
But you seem to be one of those who erroneously believes that socialist means “someone who favors a government provided social safety net”. Yes, I do believe in that. So do you, based on comments you left earlier. The only point we continually fight over is how generous they should be.
You would not, I assume, let people die of disease or starvation and are probably willing to pay taxes to educate other people’s children, right? Then by that (misapplied) definition of socialism you are one too. Every government on the planet has some type of social safety net in place so by those standards every nation is socialist. I don’t know of anyone who wants to roll back every single social welfare program. Are you such a person? I certainly hope not.
[quote=”Imxploring”]…so should I be paying more for my groceries or a meal when I dine out… how about my car insurance or electric?[/quote]
As for groceries, restaurant meals and car insurance, of course not but we’re talking about the means by which government apportions costs, not private enterprises. Electric rates SHOULD be priced higher based on usage as a means to give an incentive to use less energy – which is precisely the case for most electric utilities.[quote=”Imxploring”]Don’t you think such an attitude encourages people to seek to game the system and discourages people to seek being more productive and successful?[/quote]
Yes, I do. And whatever we can do to prevent that – [b]WITHIN REASON[/b] – should be done. The other day there was a news report of New York police and firefighters who were indicted for Social Security Disability fraud. If found guilty, I hope they throw the book at them. Repeatedly. I hate cheaters.But I get the impression that many right wingers are more than happy to let the truly needy die of starvation if it means that those undeserving cheats don’t benefit. I am of the opposite view – better to let some cheaters gain if it means the truly needy are provided for. It’s a lot like what our criminal justice system is based on – better to let 100 guilty go free if it means no innocent person is convicted.
[quote=”Imxploring”]…is that belief and view based on your own position in life and how such a system would benefit you at the expenses of other more successful people since it would appear you would be on the receiving end of this system rather than the paying end?[/quote]
On the contrary. I’ve never collected welfare, or unemployment benefits, or food stamps. I pay higher taxes than some who make the same annual income, especially when you take into account that I am single and therefore don’t get a spouse or child dependent deduction. I have paid thousands in Medicare taxes that I will probably never benefit from.I HAVE benefited from some benefits such as government student loans (which I paid back) and I did take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction. Do you oppose those too? Or is it just the benefits that CERTAIN types of people get. As you have read, I am willing to pay more for CAJA than some of the others here are currently paying. That doesn’t bother me. In the Mitt Romney view of things, I am one of the makers, not one of the takers.
[quote=”Imxploring”] If I have those numbers correct will that be your total income? [/quote]
No.[quote=”Imxploring”]Will you be declaring that additional income[/quote]
I will comply fully with whatever the law requires, I don’t like tax cheats and have no plans on being one.[/quote]
Let me get this straight… you intend to “comply fully” with the law by declaring only the minimum required retirement income but not declare your full retirement income when obtaining residency in order to obtain the benefit of healthcare at a lower cost yet allow people of higher declared income that can’t pick and chose how much they declare subsidise your coverage. Doesn’t that sound like cheating, it sure does to me! And doesn’t that directly conflict with your previous statement that people of higher means should be required to pay more for those of lesser means? Seems to me you’re willing to comply with the law and live by your principles only to the degree that it is convenient and economically advantageous to you alone.
So you’ll declare a small pension or Social Security earnings to meet the requirements….pay the lowest possible CAJA cost and potentially (apparently) have an additional pension or two that makes you a “person of means”, yet not pay more? Is that how this utopian system you envision works? I like it… I’ll adjust my course now… I got the hard work and sacrifice leads to wealth and sucess thing all wrong!
Sorry Steve…. does fly. Check the mirror.
It’s funny how people that gain from such a system are able to justify their deserved benefit (entitlement) in their own minds yet are unable to explain how it is fair and equitable to those paying for that benefit. Or how their very own manipulation of such a system is somehow not wrong. Also hard to defend how such a system is not RIPE for widespread manipulation or that it doesn’t encourage people to thrive, work hard, and succeed in life… why bother… the rich guy down the block will pay my share! LOL
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Let me get this straight… you intend to “comply fully” with the law by declaring only the minimum required retirement income but not declare your full retirement income when obtaining residency in order to obtain the benefit of healthcare at a lower cost yet allow people of higher declared income that can’t pick and chose how much they declare subsidise your coverage.[/quote]
No, I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law. I am no tax cheat and resent your implication that I am.
Not willing to address the other points I raised?[/quote]
I’ve been following this thread closely since I, too, believe the cost of CAJA should not be based on an individual’s income.
I would appreciate some clarification regarding your statement “I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law” with the key phrase being “whatever is required by the applicable law”. If the “applicable CAJA law” required proof of income, with the minimum requirement being $1,000/month, and you had fixed income of $1,500/month from social security and another $600/month from other sources: would you submit to CAJA only proof of your Security Security payment or submit proof of both your Social Security payment AND proof of those other sources of income?
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]I would appreciate some clarification regarding your statement “I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law” with the key phrase being “whatever is required by the applicable law”. [/quote]
What part of “comply fully with the applicable law” didn’t you understand? If the law requires me to provide proof of all fixed income sources then that is what I will do.[/quote]It not what we say. It’s how we say it. If the applicable law stated “proof of income” (notice the absence of the word TOTAL) and “the required minimum of $1,000/month for residence” (again … where “total” was implied but not stated) would you declare just the social security or your social security and other income (of which CAJA would take a 10-17% bite out of)?
[quote=”sweikert925″]I won’t have to declare my Social Security when I arrive in CR because my current plan is to delay filing for SS as long as possible. Between my pensions and my savings I will have more than enough to live on and only my pensions are used for calculating the CAJA assessment. The amount of my pensions alone are enough to satisfy the pensionista requirement.
For every year I delay filing for SS benefits, I would get an extra $170 per month – forever (plus whatever annual inflation adjustment is awarded). Why would I file for Social Security before arriving in CR if I didn’t need to?[/quote]
Sorry. I tend to forget not everyone made the same choices as I did (I stopped working at 57 and took early Social Security at 62. BTW,. delaying social security until 70 is a very BAD decision .. but not a conversation to be had here).
Amending my question, when your social security kicked in at 70 would you declare it and pay that 10-17% (probably higher by then) of it to CAJA …?
So, you won’t declare any of the income on your savings? Being as socially conscious as you lead me to believe you are, I’d think you’d also declare the income from your savings so that the 10-17% bite out of it could help those in circumstances less fortunate than yours.
[quote=”Imxploring”] Sorry if I stuck a nerve that was not my intention. I am sorry if I have done so.[/quote]
It isn’t a nerve you struck it is your convoluted manner of thinking.
A single payer system, whether it is medical or other, is financed by taxation. There is no way around it.
Worrying about what any government entity will or will not do is a waste of time and effort. Politicians are not even close to being intelligent and they do not care what they do to those who vote for them. Their main concern is to please the masters who finance their re-election above anything else.
To think that politicians are any different in Costa Rica than they are in the States is a fantasy.
What any of the more recent residents are paying in higher costs for the CAJA pales in comparison with the 394% increase in our cost of electricity and 250+% increase in our water over the past 6 years. In my opinion both costa are taxes since both are national utilities.
We are voters and/or taxpayers and nothing more. You can scream and cry and raise all the hell you want to but you will not change the way things are.
If you think anything will be any different, no matter where you are, you are whistling Dixie but the Confederacy lost that war 150 years ago.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Let me get this straight… you intend to “comply fully” with the law by declaring only the minimum required retirement income but not declare your full retirement income when obtaining residency in order to obtain the benefit of healthcare at a lower cost yet allow people of higher declared income that can’t pick and chose how much they declare subsidise your coverage.[/quote]
No, I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law. I am no tax cheat and resent your implication that I am.
Not willing to address the other points I raised?[/quote]
I think you guys are both picking at straws…….
The CURRENT requirement for pensionado temporary residency is a guaranteed lifetime annuity (i.e. pension, social security, whatever) of $1,000/month, The law does not ask you how much or how many guaranteed lifetime annual annuities you have, or how much “fixed income” you have or what those sources are – all it does is require you to prove you have $1,000/month that qualifies as a guaranteed lifetime annuity.
The only reason they find out and know that your annuity is more than $1,000/month is you must provide as part of your application a written document that they will accept demonstrating what that amount is. If you get $2300/month pension and you can get the source of that pension to give you a document that says that your pension is “a minimum of $1,000/month” or “shall never be less than $1,000/month” and IF that is accepted by immigracion, then your monthly CAJA “contribution” would be lower than if you submitted the document saying $2300/month.
I have friends who have their Resolution from immigracion that says (in essence) that the applicant meets the requirement for the minimum monthly pension. Obviously, when they went and applied for CAJA, that statement is all CAJA had to rely on and use in calculating the monthly CAJA required payment.
Others (like me) have a Resolution from immigracion that says exactly the amount shown in my proof of pension letter from Social Security says – to the penny.
Subsequently, I pay a higher monthly CAJA payment than my friends that have the “old” Resolution – but I am still less than 25% of the % numbers y’all throw around.
[quote=”waggoner41″][quote=”Imxploring”] Sorry if I stuck a nerve that was not my intention. I am sorry if I have done so.[/quote]
It isn’t a nerve you struck it is your convoluted manner of thinking.
A single payer system, whether it is medical or other, is financed by taxation. There is no way around it.
Worrying about what any government entity will or will not do is a waste of time and effort. Politicians are not even close to being intelligent and they do not care what they do to those who vote for them. Their main concern is to please the masters who finance their re-election above anything else.
To think that politicians are any different in Costa Rica than they are in the States is a fantasy.
What any of the more recent residents are paying in higher costs for the CAJA pales in comparison with the 394% increase in our cost of electricity and 250+% increase in our water over the past 6 years. In my opinion both costa are taxes since both are national utilities.
We are voters and/or taxpayers and nothing more. You can scream and cry and raise all the hell you want to but you will not change the way things are.
If you think anything will be any different, no matter where you are, you are whistling Dixie but the Confederacy lost that war 150 years ago.[/quote]
Sounds to me like you’ve given up hope and have simply rolled over… have you picked out a casket yet? LOL (It’s a joke Les….)
Sorry… but with that attitude the Country you formerly called home would have never been born. Is your CAJA participation a tax? Is it deductible against your US tax return? CAJA participation as a REQUIREMENT and based on a percentage of income is neither fair or equitable. And as we have seen is subject to manipulation. The advantages to residency for higher income retirees that will have to pay a good percentage of their income and are mobile will work around it and not apply. Those that have placed all there eggs in one basket and are unable to do so, or move when the cost are unreasonably raised will remain and be milked dry.
Much like the old story of the frog and the boiling pot of water…. drop a frog in a boiling pot of water and he will jump right out and save himself, however, place him in the very same pot with cool water then slowly apply heat, he will sit there contently…. the water in the pot will slowly heat up until it ultimately boils and the frog dies. Seems Costa Rica is using the same tactic here.
More affluent folks are highly mobile and can adjust their living arrangements, and associated taxable home.
It is sad to say but true… once again, as has long been the case with Costa Rica, they are shooting themselves in the foot with attracting Baby Boomers and the associated spending that would result. What might result in a quick infusion of cash will, in the end, discourage longer term investment and higher income folks from applying for residency.
An interesting quote from Keynes…. “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
Being aware and doing something about it is the hard part. But not a fight one should shy away from!
[quote=”costaricabill”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Let me get this straight… you intend to “comply fully” with the law by declaring only the minimum required retirement income but not declare your full retirement income when obtaining residency in order to obtain the benefit of healthcare at a lower cost yet allow people of higher declared income that can’t pick and chose how much they declare subsidise your coverage.[/quote]
No, I will declare the full amount of the fixed income that I am then receiving when I make my application – whatever is required by the applicable law. I am no tax cheat and resent your implication that I am.
Not willing to address the other points I raised?[/quote]
I think you guys are both picking at straws…….
The CURRENT requirement for pensionado temporary residency is a guaranteed lifetime annuity (i.e. pension, social security, whatever) of $1,000/month, The law does not ask you how much or how many guaranteed lifetime annual annuities you have, or how much “fixed income” you have or what those sources are – all it does is require you to prove you have $1,000/month that qualifies as a guaranteed lifetime annuity.
The only reason they find out and know that your annuity is more than $1,000/month is you must provide as part of your application a written document that they will accept demonstrating what that amount is. If you get $2300/month pension and you can get the source of that pension to give you a document that says that your pension is “a minimum of $1,000/month” or “shall never be less than $1,000/month” and IF that is accepted by immigracion, then your monthly CAJA “contribution” would be lower than if you submitted the document saying $2300/month.
I have friends who have their Resolution from immigracion that says (in essence) that the applicant meets the requirement for the minimum monthly pension. Obviously, when they went and applied for CAJA, that statement is all CAJA had to rely on and use in calculating the monthly CAJA required payment.
Others (like me) have a Resolution from immigracion that says exactly the amount shown in my proof of pension letter from Social Security says – to the penny.
Subsequently, I pay a higher monthly CAJA payment than my friends that have the “old” Resolution – but I am still less than 25% of the % numbers y’all throw around.[/quote]
Not sure anyone has a clear answer… the numbers being given are in the 10%-18% range. Yours are somewhat lower apparently. In fact there seems to be NO clear answers as to what folks are being charged as a percentage of income both under the old rules and the new!!! The folks running the show in CR need to clear this up!
The idea of providing a letter that stated that one’s income was “at least” $1000/month thereby satisfying the requirements is interesting but somewhat of a loophole I see as being quickly closed. In fact there was an interesting article in AM Costa Rica that made mention of folks with lower incomes on their applications having higher incomes and associated CAJA cost applied. As well as random changes in the immigration inspectors giving PT’s shorter Visa stays rather then the automatic 90 days.
It all seems rather random and not very clear and I’m guessing with time we’ll get a better picture of where this whole situation is headed.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Is your CAJA participation a tax? Is it deductible against your US tax return? [/quote]
I looked up the IRS explanation of what qualifies as a foreign tax credit and the regulations are pretty clear.
[i]What Foreign Taxes Qualify For The Foreign Tax Credit?Generally, the following four tests must be met for any foreign tax to qualify for the credit:
The tax must be imposed on you
You must have paid or accrued the tax
The tax must be the legal and actual foreign tax liability
[b]The tax must be an income tax (or a tax in lieu of an income tax)[/b]A foreign levy is an income tax only if it meets both of the following tests:
It is a tax; that is, you have to pay it and [b]you get no specific economic benefit from paying it[/b][/i]
In the case of CAJA assessments there IS a specific economic benefit. So it doesn’t qualify.
[quote=”Imxploring”]CAJA participation as a REQUIREMENT and based on a percentage of income is neither fair or equitable.[/quote]
What you consider fair or equitable is up to you but your opinion is just your opinion.I am waiting for apology for your having accused me of being a tax cheat and an answer for whether you believe that government social safety programs should exist (which makes you a “socialist” too) or you believe [b]all[/b] government benefits should be abolished which makes you… well politeness forbids me from saying what that would make you.[/quote]
Come now Steve… I don’t remember calling you a tax cheat at all… and as your logic above has determined the CAJA fees, in your determination, are not in fact a tax. Rather they are a FEE and as such NOT part of a single payer system as Les has mentioned. They are a premium for a product, healthcare. A product that is NOT an exclusive service provided by a government for the benefit of society overall such as police, fire, or military as you had previously mentioned and for which an open, competitive alternate free market exist both in the US as well as Costa Rica. So you can’t be a tax cheat if it’s not a tax…. can you?
What I did imply and still profess (without tying to be insulting) is that you are someone that has no problem with others being forced to purchase a product (in this case the very same product, Health Insurance) at a higher cost while you pay a lower because you are able to work around the system while still feeling you have “complied with the law”. While you state freely that you feel it is fair that those with means pay more then those of lesser means you freely admit to being the former while wanting to enjoy the benefits of the latter. Once again not trying to be insulting Steve, just exercising my right to an opinion as to what is fair and equitable which you graciously granted me in your reply.
As to social programs… well I think I might be among a growing group of folks that have watched the “safety net” become a hammock. The recent news about all the SSDI cases in New York is but the tip of the iceberg. A MAJOR reset is well over due and coming. And in the case of the SSDI fund it will be coming soon. Reading the annual SSA report it states that the DI fund will be depleted in 2016. So that reset will be coming soon on it’s own apparently.
Caring for the less fortunate is something I don’t have a problem with and I do in fact give quite freely (really). In fact I sponsor a Costa Rican family in a home I own in CR…. the third such family I have done so for in the past 8 years. Each being given the help to get them on their feet and go on to support themselves.
Being forced to pay (taxed) for a system that has become nothing more than a way of life for many is something I can’t say I agree with. As such I do feel that many government social programs should be eliminated.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]Come now Steve… I don’t remember calling you a tax cheat at all[/quote]
A direct quote from one of your earlier comments:[i] Doesn’t that sound like cheating, it sure does to me![/i]To now say that you didn’t call me a tax cheat because Hey! Turns out CAJA assessments aren’t a tax! (Which also directly contradicts your earlier stated position) does you no credit.
[quote=”Imxploring”]What I did imply and still profess (without tying to be insulting) is that you are someone that has no problem with others being forced to purchase a product…at a higher cost while you pay a lower because you are able to work around the system while still feeling you have “complied with the law”. [/quote]
I also made it abundantly clear that [b]I am also[/b] willing to “purchase a product…at a higher cost” than others. In fact, I stated that I would be perfectly happy to pay double what my currently projected cost would be. If your income level means that you would pay even more, then so be it. If I were in that position I wouldn’t whine and moan about it, I would be grateful that I was so much more fortunate than others.I don’t know what you mean by “work around the system”. I am perfectly willing to pay whatever the law requires me to pay. If the assessment is made only based on my pensions, fine. If they are also based on my later claimed SS benefits, fine. If they also include savings income, fine.
[quote=”Imxploring”]As such I do feel that [b]many[/b] government social programs should be eliminated.[/quote]
Many does not equal all. Which, based again on your (defective) definition, also makes you “a bit of a socialist”.
[/quote]“Willing to” and forced to are two different things Steve. Many people (based on my opinion and personal experience with other humans) will say they’re willing to pay for something hypothetically when discussing an issue… but when it comes time to do so their pockets suddenly become very deep and their arms quite short! (Read that as they don’t pony up the cash!) I think ALL of us can say the same. As they say…. talk is cheap!
While “tax cheat” was not a term I used in your case this definition and the subjective nature of the term cheating might interest you.
“Cheating- Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation. Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means. This broad definition will necessarily include acts of bribery, cronyism, sleaze, nepotism and any situation where individuals are given preference using inappropriate criteria.[1] The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom, making the identification of cheating a subjective process.”
I still question the fairness and equality of a system that would allow someone faced with a fee (or tax if you like), based on a percentage of income, that is able to obtain the same product or service, in this case health insurance, at a lower cost by not disclosing their full income because of it’s fragmented structure. While forcing others with the exact total income that is structured differently (one large pension for example) would be forced to pay a much higher rate.
No matter how one looks at it it can not be considered fair or equitable. It’s quite easy to tell someone not to “whine and moan about it…” when a situation benefits you at the expense of others… but as I said before you need to be careful walking by mirrors. The ME generation alive and well and planning a big move to Pura Vida land!!! LOL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
