Will the "Orthodox" stand up or happily pay for abortions?
YeshuatheWay
Tonight life as we know it will be forever altered.
Tonight the U.S. Senate, in the face of all that is Traditional,
traditional, Christian, biblical, and historical voted to endorse and
finance elective abortions...
and, more importantly...
Tonight the U.S. Senate voted to make you pay for all elective
abortions.
Moreover, tonight the U.S. Senate voted to make it more difficult for
physicians to invoke conscientious objections to performing abortions
- meaning the physician could incur sanction or legal liability if he
or she decided against performing an abortion. In this regard, one
survey revealed that 95 percent of our nation's Christian physicians
are ready to leave medicine if a weakening of conscience protections
would force them to violate their conscientiously held convictions.
What are the odds that your future physician will not be Christian?
This was the vote:
YEAs ---60
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---39
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 1
Voinovich (R-OH)
Think about this...
Do not believe for a moment that tonight's vote did not affect you.
Tonight was a landmark night - not for good.
Tonight every fetus became a slave - subject to death or life at its
"owner's" whim.
Tonight you, too, became enslaved inasmuch as you have no vote
as to whether or not you will pay for someone else's elective
abortion.
You will pay.
Tonight you have been enslaved and you will finance the enslavement of
every fetus in America.
Send this message on to your friends and relatives.
Tell them what happened tonight.
This was written by an Orthodox Priest.
In this case, IMO, liberal and Orthodox are mutually exclusive! Will
you Orthodox also agree with the liberal establishment to fine and/or
imprison Clergy for saying homosexuality is a sin? That is coming too!
WAKE UP!
aggreen
politically liberal and radical and who are pushing for "reform"
really give a damn about the abortion funding provisions?
Al
Alexander Arnakis
<aggr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>***Welcome back. The question may be: Do Orthodox Christians who are
>politically liberal and radical and who are pushing for "reform"
>really give a damn about the abortion funding provisions?
>
The bill is a *health* bill, not an abortion bill. Regarding abortion,
it tries to preserve the status quo (the Hyde Amendment) that
prohibits direct federal funding of abortions. Unfortunately, many
existing health insurance policies cover abortion, and some people may
wish to continue with these policies while receiving income-based
subsidies under the bill. But accounting rules would be set up so that
they would pay for the abortion coverage with their own money.
The larger question for Orthodox Christians is whether they consider
it conscionable to let people die because of lack of health insurance
-- and statistics show that that is exactly what happens, in thousands
of cases every year.
Remember, the vote Saturday night was to allow *debate* to begin. The
abortion provisions could (and probably should) be improved during the
debate, amendment process, and conference with the House.
I suspect that some people who are opposed to the bill in general are
latching onto the abortion controversy in an attempt to kill it. It's
*those* people who don't give a damn -- not about abortion, and not
about health. What they give a damn about is their own wealth and
profits.
AGG
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:41:21 -0800 (PST), aggreen
> <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > ***Welcome back. The question may be: Do Orthodox Christians who are
> > politically liberal and radical and who are pushing for "reform"
> > really give a damn about the abortion funding provisions?
> >
> The bill is a health bill, not an abortion bill. Regarding abortion,
> it tries to preserve the status quo (the Hyde Amendment) that
> prohibits direct federal funding of abortions. Unfortunately, many
> existing health insurance policies cover abortion, and some people may
> wish to continue with these policies while receiving income-based
> subsidies under the bill. But accounting rules would be set up so that
> they would pay for the abortion coverage with their own money.
>
> The larger question for Orthodox Christians is whether they consider
> it conscionable to let people die because of lack of health insurance
> -- and statistics show that that is exactly what happens, in thousands
> of cases every year.
>
> Remember, the vote Saturday night was to allow debate to begin. The
> abortion provisions could (and probably should) be improved during the
> debate, amendment process, and conference with the House.
>
> I suspect that some people who are opposed to the bill in general are
> latching onto the abortion controversy in an attempt to kill it. It's
> *those* people who don't give a damn -- not about abortion, and not
> about health. What they give a damn about is their own wealth and
> profits.
***The only way an Orthodox Christian or a RC could with clear
conscious support this bill would be if there was a clear and precise
provision banning ANY federal funding for abortion.
Al
--
YeshuatheWay
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:41:21 -0800 (PST), aggreen
>
What the statistics show is that this will bankrupt an already failing
economy. The debt will hit double digit TRILLIONS. Health care will
not be the problem then, now will it...there is deliberateness to all
this, and you know it.
John Galt
Opinion stated as fact.
JG
>
Alexander Arnakis
>
>***The only way an Orthodox Christian or a RC could with clear
>conscious support this bill would be if there was a clear and precise
>provision banning ANY federal funding for abortion.
>
Alexander Arnakis
<Yeshua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>What the statistics show is that this will bankrupt an already failing
>economy. The debt will hit double digit TRILLIONS. Health care will
>not be the problem then, now will it...there is deliberateness to all
>this, and you know it.
That's a different issue than abortion.
Regarding cost, you have to compare the total cost of the present
system (including private health insurance premiums and
out-of-pockets) with what is being proposed. I have no problem
shifting part of my health insurance premiums (and my insurance costs
$1,200 a month, of which the government already pays $800) into the
form of taxes. My preference would be to go to single payer, fund it
with taxes, and then use the enormous bargaining power of this entity
to hold costs down.
AGG
***You can't deal with Christian morality...that is obvious. So, I can
brush off your idiotic remark as understandable...especially since you
support the right of women to kill their unborn babies.
--
John Galt
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:17:23 -0800 (PST), YeshuatheWay
> <Yeshua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What the statistics show is that this will bankrupt an already failing
>> economy. The debt will hit double digit TRILLIONS. Health care will
>> not be the problem then, now will it...there is deliberateness to all
>> this, and you know it.
>
> That's a different issue than abortion.
>
> Regarding cost, you have to compare the total cost of the present
> system (including private health insurance premiums and
> out-of-pockets) with what is being proposed.
I only wish it were that simple. The current proposal will escalate the
cost of private insurance and Medicare premiums while also spending 2.5T
on the "program".
The total cost of the present system is due to its sophistication and
reach, not "inefficiency", as some seem to believe.
I have no problem
> shifting part of my health insurance premiums (and my insurance costs
> $1,200 a month, of which the government already pays $800) into the
> form of taxes. My preference would be to go to single payer, fund it
> with taxes, and then use the enormous bargaining power of this entity
> to hold costs down.
But it can't, unless you're going to convince the care providers to work
for fraction of their current income.
You really need to spend some time on math. For both what you're getting
and what you want, the numbers don't work out.
This is really pretty simple. There are three key variables involved in
health care: they are its quality, your ability to choose your provider,
and your ability to obtain care on-demand.
If you want to lower costs, you have to give up one. Which one?
JG
AGG
> The total cost of the present system is due to its sophistication and
> reach, not "inefficiency", as some seem to believe.
>
***That's far from true. There's much more paperwork in the current
private schemes than in Medicare. Middleman paperwork is inefficiency in
any sense of the word.
Alexander Arnakis
>***You can't deal with Christian morality...that is obvious. So, I can
>brush off your idiotic remark as understandable...especially since you
>support the right of women to kill their unborn babies.
Fuck you.
AGG
***Knock off the faux piety. You conservative ass clowns pump your
chests whenever bombs are dropped on villages with pregnant women. You
don't give two shits about women or children.
YeshuatheWay
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many unfortunate things happen during war and I don't think anyone
would "pump their chests" if pregnant woman were killed by accident.
However, that is quite different than the systematic slaughter of the
unborn through abortion.
John Galt
The paperwork is (1) not all that expensive as a ration of the entire
cost of US health care annually, and (2) most of that paperwork is made
necessary by government regulation.
The government can solve that problem by simply streamlining the
regulations. No national health care system necessary.
JG
AGG
--
AGG
Fuck your mother!
--
AGG
Alexander Arnakis
>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>> Fuck you.
>
>Fuck your mother!
And the horse you rode in on.
v1_0
wrote:
Fornication! Adultery! Beastiality!
v1_0
> The bill is a *health* bill, not an abortion bill. Regarding abortion,
> it tries to preserve the status quo (the Hyde Amendment) that
> prohibits direct federal funding of abortions. Unfortunately, many
> existing health insurance policies cover abortion, and some people may
> wish to continue with these policies while receiving income-based
> subsidies under the bill. But accounting rules would be set up so that
> they would pay for the abortion coverage with their own money.
Hopefully the "church and state" sword cuts both ways, although I
sense that it may not.
>
> The larger question for Orthodox Christians is whether they consider
> it conscionable to let people die because of lack of health insurance
> -- and statistics show that that is exactly what happens, in thousands
> of cases every year.
Both questions exist - just because one is larger does not mean that
the other should be ignored. I think that Universal health care -
covering everybody for everything - is perhaps a good goal, but is
unrealistic. I am certain that there is a point of diminishing
returns somewhere. Cross it, and it's that whole thing about casting
one demon out - but getting 7 in return. We may end up spending
obscene amounts of money and getting poor health care in return -
getting some sort of cranky structure (social security??) that is
always in danger of running out at some point in the future...
The government is looking for 'cost savings' and 'efficiencies' in the
external agencies it has to deal with - doctors, hospitals, etc. - but
has less incentive to look within itself for such things. In
general. This is in opposition to current, private, health care -
they have equal incentive. But perhaps less opportunity.
What is the old slogan? Monopolies are always bad for the customer.
(ultimately).
-V
AGG
***I don't ride horses. I prefer the plush posterior of a woolly water
buffalo!
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>Fornication! Adultery! Beastiality!
You forgot incest.
AGG
***Who do you think lives in the bombed villages? When did conservatives
ever stop and ask whether those bombs landed on innocent life? That's
correct. NEVER. They don't give a shit.
AGG
***Lies on both bullet points. The University of California released
results of their fairly conservative investigation and discovered:
- Private insurers spent 8 percent of their premiums on billing,
marketing and other financial activities.
- Physician offices spent 14 percent of revenues and hospitals 7 to 11
percent of revenues on these activities.
- Overall, 21 percent of private health spending went to billing-related
tasks, and an additional 13 percent of spending went to non-billing
administrative functions.
- Only 66 percent went to medical care.
***In my universe, 1/3 of costs going towards non-medical care
activities is waste. Medicare has none of that bureacratic, venal
profiteering junk.
AGG
***More results.
"The authors of the International Journal of Health Services study
attributed the high U.S. administrative costs to three factors. First,
private insurers have high overhead in both nations but play a much
bigger role in the United States. Second, The United States fragmented
payment system drives up administrative costs for doctors and hospitals,
who must deal with hundreds of different insurance plans (for example,
at least 755 in Seattle alone), each with different coverage and payment
rules, referral networks, etc. In Canada, doctors bill a single
insurance plan, using a single simple form, and hospitals receive a lump
sum budget, much as a fire department is paid in the United States.
Finally, the increasing business orientation of U.S. hospitals and
insurers has expanded bureaucracy."
"Ezra Klein: I think you mean more paperwork and more coverage. As the
more coverage part isn't in dispute. But the more paperwork bit is. If
you want less paperwork, go Medicare-for-All, or some other form of
single-payer. The paperwork comes from a fractured insurance system
where one doctor's office will deal with dozens of different plans.
Medicare, conversely, is simple and clean to deal with.
Baltimore, Md.: Paperwork? I'll show you paperwork! My 3-physician
doctor's office has an admin staff of 5 simply to handle the bewildering
array of forms required by the different insurance companies.
Something's out of whack there.
London, UK: You want no paperwork? Move to Britain. When I joined the
NHS, needing an urgent appt for eye issues, I had to answer 4 questions,
2 of which the nurse who phoned me already knew: Name, phone number,
address, and primary care physician. (I didn't have an answer for the
4th one, but they let me come anyway.)
That was it. Zero paperwork. No ID whatsoever. Appointment the same day.
What could be more lovely?
Ezra Klein: It's true that the NHS has very little paperwork. One of the
oddities of the debate is that a lot of the critic's concerns point
directly at a single-payer solution. Worried about deficits? A monopsony
buyer is the quickest path to savings. Paperwork? Same deal. Choice of
doctors? Uh huh."
YeshuatheWay
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I said, things happen during ARMED conflicts. However, that is
quite different than systematically knowingly and purposefully killing
the unborn.
v1_0
>
> - Show quoted text -
"A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare
Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical
expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6
percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.)" this is
from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?apage=2
Sounds great, right? We go from 66 percent up to 83 percent...
WRONG! You have forgotten the doctors!
You don't seem to have thought about what "administration" is. This
is record keeping, filling job vacancies, *scheduling appointments*,
submitting claims to insurance companies, handling phone in questions,
etc.
Unless the government replaces doctor's offices, these activities
still go on.
To the doctor, all you have done is replace one insurance company -
private - with another - government. They still need to do these
things. Oh, and file government forms rather than private ones...
So what has really happened is that you have replaced that 8% overhead
of the private insurance companies with that 16.7% percentage
overhead of the government! Now we are down to 58% being spent on
actual healthcare...
Now, the one possibility of cost savings is that the doctors may not
have to send "late notices" or give accounts over to collection
agencies (these costs are also administrative costs). The government
would do these things, perhaps at better scales of economy - but they
still cost money, so cannot be zero'd out.
-V
John Galt
> On Nov 23, 6:51 pm, AGG <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On 11/23/2009 6:11 AM, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> AGG wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2009 5:52 PM, John Galt wrote:
>>>>> The total cost of the present system is due to its sophistication and
>>>>> reach, not "inefficiency", as some seem to believe.
>>>> ***That's far from true. There's much more paperwork in the current
>>>> private schemes than in Medicare. Middleman paperwork is inefficiency
>>>> in any sense of the word.
>>> The paperwork is (1) not all that expensive as a ration of the entire
>>> cost of US health care annually, and (2) most of that paperwork is made
>>> necessary by government regulation.
>>> The government can solve that problem by simply streamlining the
>>> regulations. No national health care system necessary.
>>> JG
>> ***Lies on both bullet points. The University of California released
>> results of their fairly conservative investigation and discovered:
Please, little tiny thinker. See below for the grownup analysis:
>>
>> - Private insurers spent 8 percent of their premiums on billing,
>> marketing and other financial activities.
How much money is that in dollars, what percentage of those activities
would still be performed under a nationalized system, and what
percentage is that of the 15T we spend annually on health care?
If you can't answer those questions, you're not well-informed enough to
pretend you have a valid opinion.
>>
>> - Physician offices spent 14 percent of revenues and hospitals 7 to 11
>> percent of revenues on these activities.
How much money is that in dollars, what percentage of those activities
would still be performed under a nationalized system, and what
percentage is that of the 15T we spend annually on health care?
If you can't answer those questions, you're not well-informed enough to
pretend you have a valid opinion.
>>
>>
>> - Overall, 21 percent of private health spending went to billing-related
>> tasks, and an additional 13 percent of spending went to non-billing
>> administrative functions.
How much money is that in dollars, what percentage of those activities
would still be performed under a nationalized system, and what
percentage is that of the 15T we spend annually on health care?
If you can't answer those questions, you're not well-informed enough to
pretend you have a valid opinion.
>>
>>
>> - Only 66 percent went to medical care.
>>
>> ***In my universe
Where nobody else lives but you.
JG
, 1/3 of costs going towards non-medical care
>> activities is waste. Medicare has none of that bureacratic, venal
>> profiteering junk.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare
> Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical
> expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6
> percent to profits�a 16.7 percent administrative share.)" this is
v1_0
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well... every year we do a little paperwork - one form - due around
the 15th of April. Still, that requires quite a bit of time and most
people can't even do it themselves.
-V
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>Well... every year we do a little paperwork - one form - due around
>the 15th of April. Still, that requires quite a bit of time and most
>people can't even do it themselves.
>
they just followed the damn instructions (which, btw, I spent a whole
career devising). For most wage earners, all this really involves is
transferring some numbers from their W-2's to their returns. I think
there's an intimidation factor, which is promoted self-servingly by
the tax preparation industry.
v1_0
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:31:30 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com>
Well, maybe if you are Single, living in an appartment, work for
someone else, don't use any of your personal items for business, have
no things that you buy for business, don't have any health care things
going on, etc.
Alexander, this is very similar to the technical writing field,
especially with computers. In order to write about it, you have to
understand it. But then your writing is written for people who
understand it (perhaps at a level less than yours, true), etc. When
a true novice comes along it doesn't work for them, as they are below
the assumed level of understanding.
When you get married, have children, get a house, start running any
sort of business, etc: sure, you can choose to keep things simple and
be charitable to the governement, or your can try to read those
instructions. Of course, those are instruction *books*, often times
one to each subject, that give you the details rather than a
summary. Or you can someone that already has read those books or
been trained in them.
After all, the forms need to fit with the tax code...
-V
Stephen Adams
Hogwash. Your self-interest in this is clear - since you devised the
instructions, you think they are clear. They aren't. If they were,
we wouldn't have the scenario of the IRS giving out WRONG information.
Our Tax Law, the forms AND instructions are about as clear as mud.
-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathv...@tznvy.pbz (rot13)
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Hogwash. Your self-interest in this is clear - since you devised the
>instructions, you think they are clear. They aren't. If they were,
>we wouldn't have the scenario of the IRS giving out WRONG information.
>
("Your Federal Income Tax") around 1970 or 1971, in which the sentence
"Personal, family, or living expenses are not deductible" came out as
"Personal, family, or living expenses are *now* deductible" -- a
difference of a single letter. That would have been big news! Back in
those days, we would proofread hot-metal galleys -- there was a lot of
late-night overtime as the deadlines approached.
>Our Tax Law, the forms AND instructions are about as clear as mud.
>
The problem is that some people have complicated transactions, that
have to be forced into the template of the tax law. Most people don't
really have that complicated economic lives. My advice is to keep your
reportable transactions simple. For example, there's a lot of
*economic* income (such as the fair rental value of the home you own
and live in) that's not included in "gross" income for tax purposes.
(Another example is unrealized, or "paper," capital gain.)
Stephen Adams
No. The solution is NOT to keep my finances simple, but to keep the
TAX LAWS simple. Eliminte most deductions, reduce the complexity of
calculations and shorten the forms. Increase the personal exemption
a bit to make up for the loss of complicated deductions. And then
stick to it!
v1_0
wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2009 16:26:20 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> >Hogwash. Your self-interest in this is clear - since you devised the
> >instructions, you think they are clear. They aren't. If they were,
> >we wouldn't have the scenario of the IRS giving out WRONG information.
>
> This happens rarely. I remember one typo that got into Publication 17
> ("Your Federal Income Tax") around 1970 or 1971, in which the sentence
> "Personal, family, or living expenses are not deductible" came out as
> "Personal, family, or living expenses are *now* deductible" -- a
> difference of a single letter. That would have been big news! Back in
> those days, we would proofread hot-metal galleys -- there was a lot of
> late-night overtime as the deadlines approached.
I think he was referring to calling the IRS and asking them a
question, rather than outright misprints. One basic issue is that
the caller may not know how to phrase the question - or perhaps use
the wrong terminology and get a wrong answer because of that.
>
> >Our Tax Law, the forms AND instructions are about as clear as mud.
>
> The problem is that some people have complicated transactions, that
> have to be forced into the template of the tax law.
Whoo! Maybe it is the law that is confusing things.. Or at least
not making allowances for the real world.
> Most people don't
> really have that complicated economic lives. My advice is to keep your
> reportable transactions simple. For example, there's a lot of
> *economic* income (such as the fair rental value of the home you own
> and live in) that's not included in "gross" income for tax purposes.
> (Another example is unrealized, or "paper," capital gain.)
I think this actually further proves the point: you fluent in the
terminology. For me, I need to pull up a window in wikopedia and/or
search on the terms so that I can fully understand what they mean.
Let alone what "fits into" each of these.
So, yeah, the forms may be simple - once you learn all of the
underlying definitions and where to put each item. Which is
required to fill out the forms "correctly" (from the perspective of
the tax payer, rather than just putting good numbers into the form).
My "correctly" means making sure you are not paying any extra in taxes
than you should be. (No less, either).
A little off topic on this, but I suddenly realize why you are able to
understand much about Orthodox theology....
-V
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>I think he was referring to calling the IRS and asking them a
>question, rather than outright misprints. One basic issue is that
>the caller may not know how to phrase the question - or perhaps use
>the wrong terminology and get a wrong answer because of that.
>
inadequate), on published IRS materials, and on sets of algorithms
developed for their use (and whcih my office used to review for
technical accuracy). If a question doesn't fit into the framework of
the algorithm, they're sometimes at a loss. The errors come in when
the reps hazard a guess, rather than referring the question to
somebody more knowledgable.
>
>Whoo! Maybe it is the law that is confusing things.. Or at least
>not making allowances for the real world.
>
interests.
Believe me, the IRS takes what it is given and tries to simplify it as
best it can. For example, years ago pensions were taxed under either
the General Rule or the Employee 3-Year Rule. Congress figured it
could raise more revenue by abolishing the 3-Year Rule, which meant
that everybody had to use the General Rule. This General Rule relied
on actuarial life expectancy tables, and was complicated enough that
many people had to write in for official rulings as to how their
pensions would be taxed. The IRS rulings people and publications
people sat down and devised the optional Simplified General Rule, that
short-circuited the whole process. Congress liked the Simplified
General Rule enough that they later made it mandatory.
v1_0
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:56:35 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think he was referring to calling the IRS and asking them a
> >question, rather than outright misprints. One basic issue is that
> >the caller may not know how to phrase the question - or perhaps use
> >the wrong terminology and get a wrong answer because of that.
>
> The phone reps have to rely on their training (which is sometimes
> inadequate), on published IRS materials, and on sets of algorithms
> developed for their use (and whcih my office used to review for
> technical accuracy). If a question doesn't fit into the framework of
> the algorithm, they're sometimes at a loss. The errors come in when
> the reps hazard a guess, rather than referring the question to
> somebody more knowledgable.
>
> >Whoo! Maybe it is the law that is confusing things.. Or at least
> >not making allowances for the real world.
>
> Blame Congress. The law is complicated because of competing economic
> interests.
I am. Note that this law is the product of the same conditions that
will be developing and maintaining healthcare. But there is another
post or two.. hundred... on that already.
Reeling back to the originial topic, I understand that there is a
difference betwen "tax evader" and "tax protester". So there may be
a way to "protest" that portion of the tax that would go to contra-
religious activities funded by the government, such as abortion.
This would be similar to the conciencious objector thing in the draft.
-V
Alexander Arnakis
>
>No. The solution is NOT to keep my finances simple, but to keep the
>calculations and shorten the forms. Increase the personal exemption
>a bit to make up for the loss of complicated deductions. And then
>stick to it!
>
Simplifying the tax laws is a chimera. Everybody agrees that it's a
worthy goal, but once they start tinkering, we often end up with
something *more* complicated. That's what happened with the Tax Reform
Act of 1986, which Sen. Bradley said would abolish and streamline
deductions, and lower rates. That thing turned out to be so
complicated, with so many new loopholes, exceptions, and grandfather
clauses, that I nearly had a heart attack trying to parse it out.
We'll never have tax simplification because we have too many competing
economic interests. Everybody fights tooth and nail to protect their
own preferences.
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>Reeling back to the originial topic, I understand that there is a
>difference betwen "tax evader" and "tax protester". So there may be
>a way to "protest" that portion of the tax that would go to contra-
>religious activities funded by the government, such as abortion.
>
>This would be similar to the conciencious objector thing in the draft.
>
evasion," which is not. "Protest" or "civil disobedience," when it
comes to taxes, has not been recognized by the courts. It's treated
the same as tax evasion.
The reason is that money is fungible, and there's no way to separate
out the portion of any individual's taxes that might go to programs to
which he objects, such as war, abortion, etc. (Direct federal funding
of abortion is already outlawed by the Hyde Amendment.) If individuals
could designate their taxes for specific uses, there would be chaos.
AGG
> from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?apage=2
>
> Sounds great, right? We go from 66 percent up to 83 percent...
> WRONG! You have forgotten the doctors!
***You should know better than to imitate the liars around here, my man.
You took the article out of context. Mr. Krugman was pointing out that
the far right Heritage Foundation was spewing disinformation. What did
you do? You quoted the discredited HF quote, making it look like it came
from Krugman! You can quote the Heritage Foundation all that you want.
Them and their CATO companions start with a conclusion and scrubs the
facts as needed.
***Nice playing though.
AGG
> On 24 Nov 2009 17:42:54 GMT, Stephen Adams<ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>> No. The solution is NOT to keep my finances simple, but to keep the
>> TAX LAWS simple. Eliminate most deductions, reduce the complexity of
>> calculations and shorten the forms. Increase the personal exemption
>> a bit to make up for the loss of complicated deductions. And then
>> stick to it!
>>
> I was referring to how to deal with the situation as it exists.
>
***See that Mr. Arnakis? Mr. Adams is yelling. He's out of control. He
can't take criticism of his pet beliefs. A typical pony-tailed hot head.
Stephen Adams
Do it like the base closings - bipartisan and then vote it up or down.
I bet it passes.
Stephen Adams
Mr. "Fake Al Green" was beaten so badly in the other thread that he has
nothing except to comment on *emphesis* of the problem. A typical self-
absorbed lefty who can't think for himself and only wants everything
handed to him on a silver platter paid for by those who actually work for
a living.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Do it like the base closings - bipartisan and then vote it up or down.
>I bet it passes.
>
involved). Tax changes are central, in that they involve the whole
economy. The politicians will *never* turn loose of the tax code.
Stephen Adams
They said that about base closings at the time...
Douglas Mosier
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:31:30 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com>
not to mention the tax code itself
Alexander Arnakis
<orthoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>not to mention the tax code itself
Relatively few people have to worry about the tax code itself. There's
a "buffer layer" of guidance materials, both official and unofficial,
that covers most of the issues that would be relevant to most people.
Or, if you're lazier yet, the tax-preparation software has gotten
pretty good. Leave the tax code to the tax lawyers.
Alfred G. Green Jr.
***I suppose we're to believe you work for a living, Mr. Adams, despite
the tens of thousands of posts you've pooped on USENET during all times
of the day?
***Mr. Adams, you're becoming more fun than Alfred. I'm not sure what to
do about this. I'm not by nature one who can stimulate two at one time.
What I do know is you're unhinged to the nth degree. Full of rage,
hatred, spite. Good. I'll make my drive home from work now with the
widest of grins. Unfortunately for you, I will be attending an
inspection on site for the next couple of days. You'll have to play
alone in the meantime. Don't hurt yourself, OK?
v1_0
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:31:27 -0800 (PST), Douglas Mosier
>
>
> >not to mention the tax code itself
>
> Relatively few people have to worry about the tax code itself. There's
> a "buffer layer" of guidance materials, both official and unofficial,
> that covers most of the issues that would be relevant to most people.
I would say that is a sign of a very complex system. At any rate, if
someone gets pulled into court for something tax related - it won't be
the "buffer layer" that they will be charged under.
> Or, if you're lazier yet, the tax-preparation software has gotten
> pretty good. Leave the tax code to the tax lawyers.
See, here's a problem. I've heard it best described "Lawyers do
law. Business people do business." The point was not to let the
lawyers negotiate the agreements between businesses. The lawyers
come later - after the business have reached an agreement on how they
will do business. Then the lawyers write the agreement up in legal
terms.
Laywers are good at law, that is what they have specialized in. We
should not expect them to be experts at business nor at commerce nor
at economics.
-V
John Galt
> On Nov 24, 9:41 pm, Alexander Arnakis <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:31:27 -0800 (PST), Douglas Mosier
>>
>> <orthohawk1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> not to mention the tax code itself
>> Relatively few people have to worry about the tax code itself. There's
>> a "buffer layer" of guidance materials, both official and unofficial,
>> that covers most of the issues that would be relevant to most people.
Bottom line --- the most common form of tax code in the rapidly
expanding economies is if not flat, pretty much a one page document. The
economies that are eating our lunch realize that a complex tax code saps
GDP.
JG