Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2013, 06:45 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 06:25 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  And typical of your dodging, you never answered the my original question: Where in the law does it state you must have citizenship in another sovereign country prior to renouncing your US citizenship?

It doesn't. But I've gave you an example documented on wikipedia where the State Department denied someone's expatriation for that reason.

(05-11-2013 06:25 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  You need medication if you can think that being arrested for tax evasion while trying to expatriate to avoid paying them is tantamount to wrongful imprisonment or living in a totalitarian regime. Godwin's Law (or the Communist equivalent) is a poor cover for your stupidity and hyperbole.

Come on, no strawmen allowed, please. You present an impossible situation. You're saying that, for example, if Bobby Fischer didn't like paying taxes, he could just leave and renounce his citizenship. BUT, even if he'd been able to he'd have been subject to the 10 year waiting period, during which time he has to pay taxes to both his new country, and the US, even if he may never again set foot in the US, and if he refuses, he is guilty of tax evasion and deserves to be imprisoned. Just call a spade a spade and admit that you don't think people should be able to leave.

The issue that we're debating is if:

1. Your duties to your country (like paying taxes) are part of a voluntary exchange when the government is providing you services. In other words, the government gives you services (education, roads, etc.) and you pay for them with taxes and by agreeing to obey the rules. And if you can't take the taxes or the rules, you can move away, and once you are no longer receiving those services from the government, your duty to pay for them and obey all the rules ceases. In other words, the government exists as a service organization, to serve the people, and your obligations are part of a social contract you voluntarily enter into when you accept those government services.

--or--

2. Your duties to your country come from being a citizen, and have no connection to services rendered. Your payments and duties are NOT in exchange for services, and you owe them even if the government does not provide you those services. In other words, if you were born in the US, even if you move abroad and never return, you are obligated for your whole life to obey US laws (like not going to Yugoslavia) and to pay US taxes and other US duties (like buying Obamacare insurance), and the only way out will be to renounce your citizenship, which (a) isn't a practical option if you don't already have citizenship, and (b) even if you do, there's still a lot of barriers put in the way to prevent you from escaping.

We are debating if #1 is a more moral and just system, or if it's #2. You clearly are defending #2. And all I'm doing is pointing out that at present, every country except North Korea, Cuba and the US, disagrees, and picks #1.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 06:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Come on, no strawmen allowed, please.




... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 01:51 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 07:50 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I'm no longer anywhere near minimum wage. But I paid for school working minimum wage, and not much more than that when I became a shift supervisor. I was glad I had the job so I could pay for school--which I paid for 100% by myself, largely with jobs that might not have been there if the minimum wage were so high that employers wouldn't want to hire inexperienced employees/late teenage workers. I'm not opposed to minimum wage laws, but just caution on using it to solve all problems associated with low income. It is not a panacea.

When I got divorced I got a job that paid a dollar over minimum wage. I worked for 5 months and I made about $5800. Want to know how much I paid in day care? $6000

"largely with jobs that might not have been there if the minimum wage were so high that employers wouldn't want to hire inexperienced employees/late teenage workers"

This is nothing but a scare tactic. These companies are getting rich by not paying their employees, and guess who has to pick up the tab? You!

I keep going back to this, but in Wisconsin where I live, you would have been eligible for child care assistance as part of the Wisconsin Works program, part of a welfare program designed for the working poor in the state, designed and implemented by Republican governor Tommy Thompson.

You should just come up and live in Wisconsin--we're really nice people in the upper midwest and our safety net is designed sensibly to support hard working folks like yourself. I know, moving is probably not practical with potential child support issues. Maybe your state has support that you were not aware of?

More generally, transparent and direct support to low income people is in general a better way to address inequities due to income. Jacking up the minimum wage just makes employers have to reduce their labor force. That's not a scare tactic, it's the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 04:36 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  try to leave the country and renounce your citizenship for tax evasion reasons, they cry foul when you get punished for breaking the law.

This shows a fundamental difference between us. Your statement proves that in your mind all laws are valid, and everybody should go to jail for breaking them. Just like the claim that Bobby Fischer deserved to jail because he broke the law.

I'm not disputing that by fleeing the US tax system he broke the law. Just like I'm not disputing the East German's climbing over the Berlin Wall broke the law. What I'm arguing is that the law is immoral. I'm saying it should NOT be illegal, if you feel the taxes are too high so you decide to move elsewhere. But you don't seem to even fathom the concept that a law that was approved by the majority can be immoral or invalid. If you break the law, you should go to jail. Period. So, if we were arguing Jim Crow laws instead of tax laws, your argument is that of course Rosa Parks should be thrown in jail for breaking the law, and my argument is that the law forcing blacks to sit on the back of the bus is immoral.

So here's a question, Carlo. I'm curious to get your position. What if the state of Texas passed the same law that the Federal government did. In other words, it says that if you were born in the State of Texas, then you are obligated for life to pay taxes to Texas, even if you leave and live somewhere else. And if you want to stop paying Texas taxes, you have to go through a renunciation process which can take years, and has a 10 year waiting period, and you have to pay exit tax penalties for leaving the Texas system.

Would you accept that such a law is valid? If you were born in Texas, and moved to Florida, would you happily keep paying Texas taxes? And if you feel such a law would be immoral, why is it any less immoral when the Federal government does it? After all, just like the Federal government claims you benefited from its services, Texas can make the same claim even more emphatically since Texas provided the core services, like education, police, fire, roads, etc., that made your life possible. So why shouldn't Texas be able to make the same claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 08:01 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Quote:Bull shit. It was NOT a fake passport. The US wanted him returned back so they invalidated his passport and told the Japanese to arrest him. Just like they did with Snowden. You understand that by claiming this is "breaking the law" you are defending the East Germans, the North Koreans, and every country that imprisons their people, and you are claiming that their actions did not make them 'unfree'? So, let's assume North Korea did the same thing and issued everybody passports and said "You're all free to leave". And then as soon as the people started running for the border, the government said "Oh, we just invalidated your passports, you're committing a crime by trying to travel with an invalid passport, the penalty is death", then you're fine with that. Because, like you said of Bobby Fischer, if, unbeknownst to you the government has invalidated your passport, it is a crime to try to travel, and so he deserved to be locked up.

1) Complete BS right back and 2) No, it not. Somebody engaged in shady activities or breaking such laws is in a totally different category than totalitarian oppression. It is not in the same category as a totalitarian regime shooting some poor man on a border fence simply because he wanted to escape for more fundamental freedoms like the freedom of speech. The simple fact you can compare the two is a strawman fallacy and your pride and stupidity clouds your judgment. Also strawman is comparing this man to the plight of Snowden or Manning, who do know what the meaning of civil disobedience is.

Quote:It doesn't. But I've gave you an example documented on wikipedia where the State Department denied someone's expatriation for that reason.

and

Quote:Come on, no strawmen allowed, please. You present an impossible situation. You're saying that, for example, if Bobby Fischer didn't like paying taxes, he could just leave and renounce his citizenship. BUT, even if he'd been able to he'd have been subject to the 10 year waiting period, during which time he has to pay taxes to both his new country, and the US, even if he may never again set foot in the US, and if he refuses, he is guilty of tax evasion and deserves to be imprisoned. Just call a spade a spade and admit that you don't think people should be able to leave.

Over 1100 people have successfully renounced their US citizenship last year alone and the only example of a person who was denied this was one chess champion Bobby Fisher, a fugitive from justice - which will prevent a renunciation from taking effect until the matter is cleared, was denied citizenship while in a japanese jail? You must really be desperate for any real facts!

When you are a criminal in the legal system, you will not be granted a renunciation of citizenship until your criminal matters are cleared by the courts. Had Bobby Fisher been clean, he could have appeared before a US counsulate, and the process would have happened in minimal time, as it usually does. Making this argument as a case against the government holds its citizens against their will is comparable to this:

[Image: 1978_1242_coffield_and_central__09_ed.jpg]

Note these citizens were captured in the US - by 'club wielding neadrethals' as you put it - and are being held against their will. The government also won't grant them a renunciation of their US citizenship. That story tugs at your heart strings more than if I also told you that they are also convicted of committing violent felonies.

And as for the 10 years or so in taxes, not necessarily. If you are some greedy, tax evading coward with numerous business interests still existing in the US, then expect the feds to take their time with it. But for the average guy on the street? Not so much.

Tell the whole story on these people and your argument becomes much more credible. Lie about it and I'll nail you for it.

You run along now and fetch me another credible example.

Quote:This shows a fundamental difference between us. Your statement proves that in your mind all laws are valid, and everybody should go to jail for breaking them. Just like the claim that Bobby Fischer deserved to jail because he broke the law.

I'm not disputing that by fleeing the US tax system he broke the law. Just like I'm not disputing the East German's climbing over the Berlin Wall broke the law. What I'm arguing is that the law is immoral. I'm saying it should NOT be illegal, if you feel the taxes are too high so you decide to move elsewhere. But you don't seem to even fathom the concept that a law that was approved by the majority can be immoral or invalid. If you break the law, you should go to jail. Period. So, if we were arguing Jim Crow laws instead of tax laws, your argument is that of course Rosa Parks should be thrown in jail for breaking the law, and my argument is that the law forcing blacks to sit on the back of the bus is immoral.

So here's a question, Carlo. I'm curious to get your position. What if the state of Texas passed the same law that the Federal government did. In other words, it says that if you were born in the State of Texas, then you are obligated for life to pay taxes to Texas, even if you leave and live somewhere else. And if you want to stop paying Texas taxes, you have to go through a renunciation process which can take years, and has a 10 year waiting period, and you have to pay exit tax penalties for leaving the Texas system.

Would you accept that such a law is valid? If you were born in Texas, and moved to Florida, would you happily keep paying Texas taxes? And if you feel such a law would be immoral, why is it any less immoral when the Federal government does it? After all, just like the Federal government claims you benefited from its services, Texas can make the same claim even more emphatically since Texas provided the core services, like education, police, fire, roads, etc., that made your life possible. So why shouldn't Texas be able to make the same claim?

Had you bothered to read my earlier post on this subject before you banged away on your keyboard with that akward, blithering ejaculate of a diatribe, you would have noticed that I do, in fact, believe that federal taxation on US citizens living and working abroad should be repealed. Oppressive? Immoral? No. But it does discourage doing business overseas.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 09:05 AM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Is there any reference for the OKeefe person being denied renunciation other than OKeefe himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Hi frank.
"You're right. That's not fair. The government is supposed to exist to serve the people--not the other around. The people pay taxes and subject themselves to laws in exchange for those services, but if they're not using the services, they shouldn't pay for them."
I think it's stupid to be beholden to the US government when you want to go somewhere else.

I live in China and I still have to file US income taxes. It makes sense though, because I'm sending some money to a US bank account to pay off student loans and credit cards, so I guess I sort of have an income in the US. The annoying thing though is that I also have to file state taxes, when I don't even live in the state, and they think I owe them a bunch of money. -.-

Anyway, I have a question too. Back to the Affordable Care Act bit,
I think you said that even people living outside the US have to sign up for it? I'm curious about this, as a US citizen living abroad. Could you share where you came across this information please? I really don't want to be unpleasantly surprised by some fine down the road...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:29 AM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 09:42 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Hi frank.
"You're right. That's not fair. The government is supposed to exist to serve the people--not the other around. The people pay taxes and subject themselves to laws in exchange for those services, but if they're not using the services, they shouldn't pay for them."
I think it's stupid to be beholden to the US government when you want to go somewhere else.

I live in China and I still have to file US income taxes. It makes sense though, because I'm sending some money to a US bank account to pay off student loans and credit cards, so I guess I sort of have an income in the US. The annoying thing though is that I also have to file state taxes, when I don't even live in the state, and they think I owe them a bunch of money. -.-

Anyway, I have a question too. Back to the Affordable Care Act bit,
I think you said that even people living outside the US have to sign up for it? I'm curious about this, as a US citizen living abroad. Could you share where you came across this information please? I really don't want to be unpleasantly surprised by some fine down the road...

You can get health coverage in china, hence you wouldn't need to get insurance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 10:29 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 09:42 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Hi frank.
"You're right. That's not fair. The government is supposed to exist to serve the people--not the other around. The people pay taxes and subject themselves to laws in exchange for those services, but if they're not using the services, they shouldn't pay for them."
I think it's stupid to be beholden to the US government when you want to go somewhere else.

I live in China and I still have to file US income taxes. It makes sense though, because I'm sending some money to a US bank account to pay off student loans and credit cards, so I guess I sort of have an income in the US. The annoying thing though is that I also have to file state taxes, when I don't even live in the state, and they think I owe them a bunch of money. -.-

Anyway, I have a question too. Back to the Affordable Care Act bit,
I think you said that even people living outside the US have to sign up for it? I'm curious about this, as a US citizen living abroad. Could you share where you came across this information please? I really don't want to be unpleasantly surprised by some fine down the road...

You can get health coverage in china, hence you wouldn't need to get insurance.

That's what I thought too.. But I guess frank made it seem like I had to pay the US too?

Hmm research to do...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 10:29 AM)I and I Wrote:  You can get health coverage in china, hence you wouldn't need to get insurance.

From what I read, that's not correct. I was told it's based on the 'substantial presence test' from the IRS, and that if you spend a total of 30 days in the US in a given year, you have to buy US Obamacare-approved insurance regardless of whether you're covered by China's insurance system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: