Obamacare foe Marco Rubio insured under Affordable Care Act

[Benton]

(12-14-2015, 04:00 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: In that case should all these candidates pushing for a flat tax be slammed for taking the tax breaks for home mortgage or children?

You know I really grrr the fact I have to defend the progressive Rubio.

Difference being we don't have a flat tax, we have a system of deductions. It's not either/or.

Rubio has the option of taking a government handout or — doing what he's advocating — and buying off the free market. It's either/or.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-14-2015, 11:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Difference being we don't have a flat tax, we have a system of deductions. It's not either/or.

Rubio has the option of taking a government handout or — doing what he's advocating — and buying off the free market. It's either/or.

You are asking him to set an example. So Bernie sanders and Hillary want to raise tax rates really high. So maybe they should start paying more now to set an example. Or maybe they will just follow the laws and settle for the minimum.

Taking the subsidies wasn't a great move. But it's hardly a big deal.

[Benton]

(12-14-2015, 01:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are asking him to set an example.  So Bernie sanders and Hillary want to raise tax rates really high.   So maybe they should start paying more now to set an example.    Or maybe they will just follow the laws and settle for the minimum.  

Taking the subsidies wasn't a great move.  But it's hardly a big deal.

No, I'm asking him to do what he's advocating. For the fourth (or so time): He wants people to NOT USE government healthcare and instead buy it on the open market, but HE'S USING GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE.

It would be the same if he said he doesn't want people to use gas guzzler vehicles, but then drives an SUV (Gore) or by promoting family values but then getting caught spending thousands on hookers (Vitter).

As far as Sanders, I don't know what he pays in taxes, but you have no clue as to what he's advocating, outside of the usual RINO scuttle of "Dems are going to tax everyone!"

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Tax_Reform.htm

Quote:Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004

• Extension of Family Tax Provisions
• Repeals the scheduled reduction (15 to 10 percent) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005, of the refundability of the child tax credit.
• Extends through 2005 the increased exemption from the alternative minimum tax for individual taxpayers.
• Extends through 2005 the following expiring tax provisions:
  
  1. the tax credit for increasing research activities;
  2. the work opportunity tax credit;
  3. the welfare-to-work tax credit;
  4. the authority for issuance of qualified zone academy bonds;
  5. the charitable deduction for donations by corporations of computer technology and equipment used for educational purposes;
  6. the tax deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers;
  7. the expensing of environmental remediation costs;
  8. the designation of a District of Columbia enterprise zone
     

Quote: Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty.

Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty. The bill would make the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers. It would also increase the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would make permanent higher income limits for married couples eligible to receive the refundable earned-income tax credit.

Quote:Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.

• Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
• Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
• Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
• Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
• Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
• Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
  

Quote: 1% room-and-meal tax instead of property tax

The property tax, the major source of funding for education and municipal services in VT, is regressive because it is not based on ability to pay. Many senior citizens and working people were (and are) paying far more in property taxes than they can afford on their limited incomes. For 7 straight years I did not raise the general property tax for homeowners in Burlington. At the same time, I fought hard for more progressive forms of taxation.
We did become the first municipality in Vermont to develop alternatives to the property tax. After a major struggle against many of the restaurant owners, we implemented a 1% room-and-meal tax. We also passed a classification system of taxation which raised to 120% the tax rate on commercial and industrial property.

He's not talking about raising taxes (at least, not outside the 1%ers). He's talking about closing loopholes. Which is something I would have thought you advocated for?

[StLucieBengal]

(12-14-2015, 01:21 PM)Benton Wrote: No, I'm asking him to do what he's advocating. For the fourth (or so time): He wants people to NOT USE government healthcare and instead buy it on the open market, but HE'S USING GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE.

It would be the same if he said he doesn't want people to use gas guzzler vehicles, but then drives an SUV (Gore) or by promoting family values but then getting caught spending thousands on hookers (Vitter).

As far as Sanders, I don't know what he pays in taxes, but you have no clue as to what he's advocating, outside of the usual RINO scuttle of "Dems are going to tax everyone!"

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Tax_Reform.htm





He's not talking about raising taxes (at least, not outside the 1%ers). He's talking about closing loopholes. Which is something I would have thought you advocated for?

I am for a flat tax. No deductions. Even for the 1%. Then only have as much government as you can pay for... This way people see what they are being taxed without all the three care Monty of deductions .

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2015, 01:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am for a flat tax.   No deductions.

So if you ran a business you would pay taxes based on total sales instead of profits (sales minus expenses)?

That is just insane.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2015, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably because if it is such a problem why was it the best solution for him after looking everywhere.

Rep

[JustWinBaby]

(12-14-2015, 11:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Difference being we don't have a flat tax, we have a system of deductions. It's not either/or.

Rubio has the option of taking a government handout or — doing what he's advocating — and buying off the free market. It's either/or.

If he wanted to accept insurance from his employer - compensation in the form of a benefit - he had to take Obamacare. 

His alternative was to go into his pocket for "unsubsidized" coverage that would be somewhere around $10k more expensive.


Here’s why: Congress went out of its way to force itself and its staffers who want to keep their employer-backed insurance to buy healthcare plans on the individual market through what are called “exchanges,” which are online marketplaces listing plans and costs.

Normally, those who get insurance through their employer (the federal government, in Rubio’s case) have no reason to shop on the individual health-insurance market.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article1958567.html#storylink=cpy

[Benton]

(12-15-2015, 11:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If he wanted to accept insurance from his employer - compensation in the form of a benefit - he had to take Obamacare. 

His alternative was to go into his pocket for "unsubsidized" coverage that would be somewhere around $10k more expensive.


Here’s why: Congress went out of its way to force itself and its staffers who want to keep their employer-backed insurance to buy healthcare plans on the individual market through what are called “exchanges,” which are online marketplaces listing plans and costs.

Normally, those who get insurance through their employer (the federal government, in Rubio’s case) have no reason to shop on the individual health-insurance market.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article1958567.html#storylink=cpy

He could have been one of the 80 people that signed up on his own exchange.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-florida-insurance-market-117055

Or he could take the federal subsidy he's campaigning against. Dude rails against subsidies, takes one himself.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-16-2015, 01:07 AM)Benton Wrote: He could have been one of the 80 people that signed up on his own exchange.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-florida-insurance-market-117055

Or he could take the federal subsidy he's campaigning against. Dude rails against subsidies, takes one himself.

Like I said, Warren Buffet - hero of the left - rails against his low tax rates....has a team of accountants to take every deduction under the sun while his boy collects millions in farm subsidies. 

But just keep ignoring the fact before ACA that Rubio had employer provided insurance and pretend like he's a hypocrite for not going into his pocket to continue to get his employer provided healthcare benefit. It's not even a new benefit but continuing to collect the benefit he had, which required enrolling in Obamacare.

[Benton]

(12-16-2015, 01:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Like I said, Warren Buffet - hero of the left - rails against his low tax rates....has a team of accountants to take every deduction under the sun while his boy collects millions in farm subsidies. 

But just keep ignoring the fact before ACA that Rubio had employer provided insurance and pretend like he's a hypocrite for not going into his pocket to continue to get his employer provided healthcare benefit.  It's not even a new benefit but continuing to collect the benefit he had, which required enrolling in Obamacare.

excellent point, I won't vote for buffet in the upcoming primary.

what? He's not elected? ****, nevermind.