TheReal_ND wrote:
Also, the idea of just handing our economy over to these fucking health insurance kikes is repulsive. They are the ones breaking the system to begin with.
Who do you think the companies by their insurance from? Whatever historical reasons for the current system are not valid reasons to continue as such. As a society we've decided to stop doing lots of stupid things. There's lots left.
Anyone who's dealt with tri-care or the VA, you want government healthcare for all?
I vote no.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
If you want special treatment, use private sector healthcare. Like I said before, even with the excellent NHS, 40% of Brits still use private healthcare because special.
brewster wrote:You guys are overthinking it. Take the SS example. The employee is going to get their SS & various taxes paid and get their after taxes salary, it will cost the company SS+taxes+take-home. The 50% SS they "pay" is part of his compensation. What difference does it make whether the employer pays 50%, 100% or nothing of the SS? The cost to the employer is exactly the same if they withhold 6.4% and pay the rest from his total benefit, or 12.4%, or feds be damned, pay the whole compensation via a 1099 and leave it up to him to pay the full SS & taxes. This latter is a "consultant" and very popular in some sectors. I've done that since I was 21.
It's not about the cost to the worker unless you consider the company offshoring. FFS, why does this need to be explained? It's not a hypothetical. Trump ran on this.
This isn't a question of, will companies leave if the cost of employing people is too high. That's already been settled. They're leaving. Have been leaving. Will continue to leave. Where was I when everyone took amnesia pills and forgot about the decades of offshoring of American jobs to find a cheaper workforce?
If it's all the same either way, then why did all the businesses flee the country? Didn't they know there was no difference in any of this?
He also ran on building a 2,000 mile wall for no reason.
Businesses move because their costs are lower. Period. It's not all about taxes.
brewster wrote:You guys are overthinking it. Take the SS example. The employee is going to get their SS & various taxes paid and get their after taxes salary, it will cost the company SS+taxes+take-home. The 50% SS they "pay" is part of his compensation. What difference does it make whether the employer pays 50%, 100% or nothing of the SS? The cost to the employer is exactly the same if they withhold 6.4% and pay the rest from his total benefit, or 12.4%, or feds be damned, pay the whole compensation via a 1099 and leave it up to him to pay the full SS & taxes. This latter is a "consultant" and very popular in some sectors. I've done that since I was 21.
It's not about the cost to the worker unless you consider the company offshoring. FFS, why does this need to be explained? It's not a hypothetical. Trump ran on this.
This isn't a question of, will companies leave if the cost of employing people is too high. That's already been settled. They're leaving. Have been leaving. Will continue to leave. Where was I when everyone took amnesia pills and forgot about the decades of offshoring of American jobs to find a cheaper workforce?
If it's all the same either way, then why did all the businesses flee the country? Didn't they know there was no difference in any of this?
He also ran on building a 2,000 mile wall for no reason.
Businesses move because their costs are lower. Period. It's not all about taxes.
Taxes are a cost numbnuts.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
On Friday, Great Ormond Street Hospital, where the child is being treated, said it had applied for a new court hearing "in light of claims of new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition."
The case is due to be heard at the High Court in London later on Monday.
hope it works out for them.
had a relative lose a child in central america last week that probably would have been fine if they'd been in the states. burns me up that these fuckers in the uk are telling these people they aren't allowed to take their child out of the country to get better healthcare.
but biorne tells me they're more free because they can get a license to watch t.v. and piss on the streets.
Attorney Grant Armstrong said the boy's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, are withdrawing their appeal of court orders that say Charlie's treatment should end, according to the Associated Press.
Yates and Gard cried in court as their attorney said time had run out for their 11-month-old, after a U.S. doctor said it was too late to give the baby an experimental treatment on which the couple had pinned their hopes.
