-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 11:24:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  IRS Tax advice
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: IRS Tax advice  (Read 7647 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
18thofMay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


Goin to the beach


View Profile
« on: April 18, 2012, 10:41:18 PM »

Say I had a rich American that wanted to gift me $200,000 what would be the tax implications for the US citizen. Would they have to pay anything to the IRS or would it be considered a gift?

I have a client that wants to recieve some money from a relative in the USA.
Logged

It’s like he hired a fashion consultant and told her to make him look “punchable.”
Some Guy, 2012
"Donald Trump makes Mike Love look like an asshole"
Me ,2015.
Eireannach
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176

bedårar


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2012, 06:45:01 AM »

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html

The donor stands to pay a lot of tax on $200,000.
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2012, 08:19:56 AM »

f*** the IRS. Taxation is theft.
Logged
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2012, 08:45:32 AM »

f*ck the IRS. Taxation is theft.

Perhaps you would enjoy living in tax-free Somalia, then. Hope you don't expect any roads or national defense, though!
Logged
stack-o-tracks
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1408


The baker man


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2012, 12:52:53 PM »

f*ck the IRS. Taxation is theft.

How's the government going to pay for 800,000 dollar Vegas vacations and Leon Panetta's 30,000 dollar weekend trip homes without the generous donations from taxpayers like us?

The American people were castrated long ago, apparently....
Logged

No mas, por favor.
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2012, 02:55:51 PM »

Paying for holiday homes with taxpayers money = bad

Paying for roads, healthcare, education with taxpayers money = good.


Politicians are dicks, yes. But taxation isn't theft.
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
stack-o-tracks
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1408


The baker man


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2012, 04:06:52 PM »

Paying for holiday homes with taxpayers money = bad

Paying for roads, healthcare, education with taxpayers money = good.


Politicians are dicks, yes. But taxation isn't theft.


The way we're being taxed, and the way those taxes are being spent is basically theft. Your income is taxed, your food is taxed, your other living expenses are taxed, your property is taxed, your business is taxed, and for what? To support a government that's so entitled that most of the money they spend is on things that aren't directly involved with running the country? 200 billion dollars in duplicate agencies? 4 million dollars so Mr. Prezuhdent can take his family on a vacation to Hawaii? However many billions spent fighting in some crappy sandbox on the other side of the world? Mexico could sure use some cleaning up right about now, but nah, there's no resources we're starving for down there, aside from all of the drugs that are being brought over the US border every single day.

Castrated, I tell you. What's it going to take for people to stand up to this sh*t? The government is going to keep growing and running more and more aspects of peoples' lives and Americans are going to keep getting fatter and fatter and not doing anything about it.

The infrastructure is crumbling. Roads, healthcare and education are all extremely underfunded so the government can blow your money on however the 1% (the politicians) sees fit.
Logged

No mas, por favor.
18thofMay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


Goin to the beach


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2012, 04:51:01 PM »

just found this

The federal gift tax applies to all gifts that you make during the course of your lifetime. However, every U.S. citizen is given a lifetime exemption from paying gift taxes. Thus, a gift tax will only be owed if the total value of all of the gifts that you've made exceeds your lifetime exemption from gift taxes.

What Happens Once the Lifetime Gift Tax Exemption is Used Up?
In 2012 gifts valued at $13,000 or less to any one person other than your spouse, or $139,000 for gifts made to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen, are exempt from federal gift taxes due to the annual exclusion from gift taxes. However, while annual gifts that exceed $13,000, or $139,000 for gifts made to a non citizen spouse, are considered taxable gifts and must be reported to the IRS on Form 709, United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, usually the person making the gift will not have to pay any gift tax. Why not? Because, as mentioned above, everyone is given a lifetime gift tax exemption that can be used to offset their taxable gifts. In 2010 the lifetime gift tax exemption was $1,000,000, in 2011 the lifetime exemption increased to $5,000,000, and in 2012 the lifetime exemption is $5,120,000. The gift tax rates range from 18% to 35% for 2010 through 2012.

Some Gift Tax Examples
Once the total value of gifts made to a nonspouse family member or friend reaches $13,000, or $139,000 for gifts made to a noncitizen spouse, in any given year, any additional gifts made in the same year to the same person will become taxable for federal gift tax purposes. For example, if a father makes a one time gift of $113,000 to his son for the purchase of a home, then $13,000 of the gift is free and clear of the federal gift tax and the remaining $100,000 is a taxable gift. Or, if the father gifts his son $10,000 in January and then an additional $100,000 in June of the same year, then the first $13,000 is free and clear of the federal gift tax and $97,000 is a taxable gift.

Using the example above of the gift of $113,000 to the son, while the first $13,000 is free and clear of any federal gift tax due to the annual exclusion from gift taxes, the next $100,000 is a taxable gift made by the father to the son. But instead of paying a gift tax the father will reduce his lifetime gift tax exemption by $100,000. Thus, in 2012 the father will be able to give away another $5,020,000 before any federal gift tax will be due:

$5,120,000 lifetime gift tax exemption - $100,000 taxable gift = $5,020,000 lifetime gift tax exemption remaining
Once the entire $5,120,000 lifetime gift tax exemption is used up, a federal gift tax will be owed. As mentioned above, the current gift tax rates start at 18% and max out at 35%.

How to Report a Taxable Gift to the IRS
If you make a taxable gift in any given year, then you are responsible for reporting it to the IRS on Form 709 - United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. The return is due on the same date as your income tax return for the year in which the gift is made - in other words, April 15 of the following year.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 07:21:29 PM by 18thofMay » Logged

It’s like he hired a fashion consultant and told her to make him look “punchable.”
Some Guy, 2012
"Donald Trump makes Mike Love look like an asshole"
Me ,2015.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2012, 07:10:36 PM »

Paying for holiday homes with taxpayers money = bad

Paying for roads, healthcare, education with taxpayers money = good.


Politicians are dicks, yes. But taxation isn't theft.


Roads, health care, and education could be delivered so much more efficiently and much more inexpensively by the private sector.
Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2012, 02:38:09 AM »

Paying for holiday homes with taxpayers money = bad

Paying for roads, healthcare, education with taxpayers money = good.


Politicians are dicks, yes. But taxation isn't theft.


Roads, health care, and education could be delivered so much more efficiently and much more inexpensively by the private sector.

Because private schools and private healthcare are so reasonably priced? I mean, paying for your healthcare in America. That does sound fun. And everybody finds it so easy! No problems there at all!

Stack-o-tracks, you are basically agreeing with what I said. Maybe I'm complacent. Maybe it's because I'm British. But I don't mind paying taxes on my food, booze or cigarettes (although I wish they'd stop raising them on the latter) because I know that some where along the line that 40p or whatever is making a council house or paying somebodies Disability benefits (of course, if you think you shouldn't be paying for these things, we might have a problem here). Its everybody's social responsibility to pay taxes. It's how we fund public services, and I like the sound of that more because private companies f*** things up (a free-market economic model being essential responsible for the mess we're in financially. Cheers, Thatcher/Reagan).

Of course, there's not a snowballs chance in hell I'm going to say it's my social responsibility to fund frivolous expenditure. We had a big hullabaloo about it a year or so ago, MPs claiming ridiculous expenses. Although seeing as we, the taxpayer, pay our politicians salaries, does this mean they cannot have any holidays at all? $4million is insane, mind. Sounds like you need an expenses scandal.  Smiley

This is all a bit dorm-room politics though. I lack the requisite wishy-washy-ness to be a libertarian, in any event.
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
Eireannach
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176

bedårar


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2012, 06:58:48 AM »

Libertarianism, as opposed to standard 2-party American politics, is certainly not wishy-washy.  As a Libertarian, I know that my view on an issue is not going to be informed by some set of talking points on an issue.  Rather, it will be informed by the how the issue affects one's personal liberty.  Sounds pretty decisive to me.  I don't have to explain the ideological inconsistency of holding a view that abortion and drug use should be legal while prostitution should continue to be illegal.  I don't have to do the same with holding simultaneous views that abortion should be illegal but drone strikes killing Americans without trial or due process are legal.  Wishy-washy...yeah.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2012, 09:39:21 AM »

I wanted to add something to this: I live in Pennsylvania, and can speak directly to misuse of taxpayer money, and the kind of hardships these taxes are putting on residents who actually pay their taxes.

This crosses party lines, both R's and D's are guilty of this. PA has one of the largest bodies of legislature in the country, yet isn't the most populous state. These legislators receive per diem compensation, above and beyond their regular salaries which are highly competitive and even exorbitant compared with other states and considering most are lawyers, business owners, or in other way wealthy enough to not require such a high wage. This per diem, the last i checked (and it could have gone up), included a 120 dollar per day FOOD allowance. 120 dollars per day - my daily food costs on a regular work day like today may include a bowl of cereal and coffee, soup and a sandwich, and something for dinner...as most average working Americans would do. Nowhere near 120 dollars a day. Outrageous.

Next, these legislators get a state car to drive at will. And that includes a gas allowance - basically free gas, and a PA Turnpike pass which means they can hop on the pike and not pay the same tolls I would pay. So the price of gas in my area right now is 4 dollars per gallon for regular 87. These guys - and their families if we look deeper at the expense records - enjoy free gas. Free fucking gas while we - the taxpayers - not only pay our own gas bills, including about 35 cents per gallon PA gas tax added to our bill, but we also have our tax dollars paying for these legislators, their staff, and their families to travel the scenic routes of Pennsylvania.

How is that not outright theft? These folks are wealthy men of means, yet we pay their food per diem, their gas, their transportation, and we have little or no choice in how that tax dollar is spent after it's taken.

Over the past two years we have also seen at least 4 very powerful and high-profile PA legislators go to prison for misuse of funds, mostly centered around paying aides and staff members significant bonuses for working on re-election campaigns on state time. It's more complex than that, but basically it amounts to double-dipping, where we as taxpayers pay the salary of the politician, we pay the politician's staff, then that politician takes more money and pays a bonus to that same staff for campaigning for him as he or she is on the public's payroll during working hours. It's a rip-off, and amazingly some party-oriented folks were crying foul when all of this was revealed and prosecuted instead of welcoming the spotlight to show how much of a rip-off these guys really are.

If we want to take it nationally, there are so many examples of outright abuse and misuse of tax dollars, not to mention hypocrisy of those who will remain nameless who suggest more taxes should be paid yet owe back taxes in the millions of dollars and fight the IRS through legal channels to not pay their ow taxes owed by their financial interests.

Locally, the issue of property taxes is causing many people to lose their homes. Ignore all the mortgage crisis stuff, the price of homes in the real estate market...a major issue is the taxation of that property once you become a homeowner. Many first-time homeowners were brought into home ownership through federal and state initiatives, given great incentives and even assistance to buy that first home and leave the rental world behind them, only to be hit with a tax bill on that property, decided by the local school board and local officials working through state guidelines, that amounted to a yearly payment they simply could not afford. Thus, the house was either put up for a sheriff's sale or fell into foreclosure...due to a school district determining the worth of a person's house for how much that person could be taxed. So we have programs to encourage home ownership, encourage first-time buyers to actually buy and own a home and property, fund incentives to help them reach that goal, then we have a local board literally tax them out of that home.

It happens - it's not reported, but it happens. There are local cases around me where people who have owned a home for decades have had to sell because the tax rate has increased several hundred percent in a matter of years, due to the flaws in the system. people want it changed - no one has the guts to actually change it.

A person's house should not be taken due to local taxes.

That's my soapbox on taxes in 2012.  Grin
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Jason
Guest
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2012, 10:17:26 AM »

Bad criminals go to jail. The rest work for the government.
Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2012, 06:32:26 PM »

Bad criminals go to jail. The rest work for the government.

The rightest thing said in this thread. I don't think anyone should be getting the idea I'm standing up for any politicians in general, just the fundamentals of taxation = public services and the shittiness of privatising things. Guitarfool is also quite right. That sort of thing is ridiculous. Like I mentioned, there was a big fuss about this in Britain a while back, but I don't know what would be able to kick off the same thing in the states.


Eireannach (if that IS your real name), lets just say you haven't convinced me. But I would like you to explain those ideological inconsistencies for me. I like abortion. Should be legal, and a woman should be able to choose. I don't like prostitution. The sex trade is horrifying. Everyone responsible should be jailed. How am I a hypocrite? I'd really like to know.

Also, 'liberty' is a fucking A+ star spangled American news talking point with neon lights hanging off it if I ever heard one. There is an alternative to thinking only in terms of 'liberty'. You could give a sh*t about others less fortunate to afford healthcare, a house, and so on. But I guess they have their liberty, and it's great that that nasty government isn't breathing down their necks, right?

And I'm going to slap myself on the wrist for arguing about politics on the internet.  Grin
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
Jason
Guest
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2012, 07:07:04 PM »

Part of libertarianism (indeed, liberty itself) is the freedom of choice. As long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights, it should be a non-issue. Granted, abortion is a tricky one. Pre-Roe v. Wade in the United States (to use an example I'm familiar with; I don't know what the laws are in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, or Netherlands), abortion was illegal in most states. Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no say on abortion other than over Washington, D.C. And it was legalized in Washington, D.C. in 1970. However, Roe v. Wade was based on an incredulous lie and allowed for what Americans call "legislating from the bench", which meant that the Supreme Court struck down all state laws regarding abortion and legalized it throughout the United States and its overseas territories. Now...you're stuck on the "right to life" thing. As libertarians, we agree on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I know that's the American terminology but it should be universal). Abortion is an issue that goes directly against libertarianism mainly because you're dealing with an unborn yet living fetus. As far as when life begins, that's up for debate. Some say conception. Some say birth. There's a ridiculous law being debated in Arizona that says that life begins two weeks before conception (I don't know how one would enforce that...banning masturbation?). The problem you're stuck with is the issue of prohibition. Prohibition does not work. When abortion was illegal in most states, there were the infamous "back alley abortions". People bribed doctors. It allowed for an illegal black market. If anything, the practice should be legal if only to prevent people from being exploited by crony businesspeople. I don't personally agree with abortion but it's also not my place to say if people should be allowed to have them or not. I'm also a guy, so...yeah.

Prostitution and illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, marijuana, magic mushrooms) could be legalized quite easily with minimal trouble. Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but legalizing prostitution and drugs will remove the criminal element from the practice, just like what happened with alcohol. The War on Drugs is an utter failure (and like Noam Chomsky said, it's "the War on Certain Drugs") and is just a United States-sanctioned race war. All goods and services should be made available on the free market. I would go one further and say that ALL drugs be offered on the free market, including prescription medications. Why? Simple. It's not the government's job to save people from themselves. People will be stupid regardless of what the government says. You'll note that all of the anti-gun legislation in the United States has done nothing but INCREASE violent crime. Criminals have no regard for the law.

You might say that prostitution cheapens people. Maybe. But if it's a consenting transaction between two individuals, there is no immoral behavior involved. It's a service being offered to someone willing to compensate. You might say that legalizing drugs will just lead more people to take them. Maybe. People will be stupid regardless. If alcohol can be legal there is no reason that cocaine, heroin, and acid can't be legal.
Logged
Eireannach
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176

bedårar


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2012, 12:20:24 AM »

Bad criminals go to jail. The rest work for the government.

The rightest thing said in this thread. I don't think anyone should be getting the idea I'm standing up for any politicians in general, just the fundamentals of taxation = public services and the sh*ttiness of privatising things. Guitarfool is also quite right. That sort of thing is ridiculous. Like I mentioned, there was a big fuss about this in Britain a while back, but I don't know what would be able to kick off the same thing in the states.


Eireannach (if that IS your real name), lets just say you haven't convinced me. But I would like you to explain those ideological inconsistencies for me. I like abortion. Should be legal, and a woman should be able to choose. I don't like prostitution. The sex trade is horrifying. Everyone responsible should be jailed. How am I a hypocrite? I'd really like to know.

Also, 'liberty' is a f*cking A+ star spangled American news talking point with neon lights hanging off it if I ever heard one. There is an alternative to thinking only in terms of 'liberty'. You could give a sh*t about others less fortunate to afford healthcare, a house, and so on. But I guess they have their liberty, and it's great that that nasty government isn't breathing down their necks, right?

And I'm going to slap myself on the wrist for arguing about politics on the internet.  Grin
First, my name is Chris if that makes it any easier than arguing politics with a pseudonym. Wink

Anyway, I won't argue that the people trafficking the unwilling participants in the sex trade deserve to die a slow and painful death, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's one person voluntarily choosing to sell sex.  How does the "keep your laws off my body" adage somehow only apply to abortion and not prostitution?  Why should women only have freedom of choice about abortion but no freedom of choice about sex for money?  That seems incongruous to me.  

As for my views on healthcare, you make quite a number of assumptions about my views.  I totally support the right of state and/or local municipalities to draft their version of "universal" health care or some form of single-payer plan.  I totally support the plan the Mitt Romney put in place in MA for the state of MA.  I just don't like the Federal Gov't getting mixed up in healthcare since the Constitution here is supposed to restrict their authority to a set number of enumerated powers (healthcare not being one of them).  I live in Colorado, which has extremely low taxes (because most people here vote them all down, but I'd vote to triple the state income tax if the Federal burden wasn't so heavy.

What about people owning a home?  How is that anti-libertarian?  

The Real Beach Boy covered my other points in that criminalizing behaviors (that don't infringe on another person's Constitutional rights) only puts money in the pockets of the criminals.  The War on Drugs?  How's that working out.  Do less people use drugs in the US since we started that war?  How about the drug warlords that have turned Mexico into Somalia?  The War on Drugs doesn't work.  What about prostitution?  Did making in illegal do anything except to make the whole industry underground?  When is the last time you saw someone rich and powerful get busted for prostitution despite the existence of high-end call girl businesses in most major cities?  I can only think of Elliot Spitzer - what about all the other people keeping those working girls employed?  Only lower income "johns" get busted.  How about all the gun-free zones which have become the scene for mass shootings?  Why didn't the gun laws stop those mass murderers?

Anyway, I hope that helps explain my position a bit better.  I just get annoyed at being labeled "wishy washy" when I think the libertarian viewpoints I embrace are consistent with one another.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 12:22:01 AM by Eireannach » Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2012, 04:47:00 AM »

That makes a lot of sense.

What does confuse me is that people often use that term as an excuse to push back government, along with other odious terms, so no mandated healthcare, less housing benefits, etc, become 'not being under control from Washington' or something. I thought that was the angle you were coming from, but I was wrong. 12 hour days in the library will stunt your reading comprehension  LOL

In terms of the criminality of things, that was where my 'wishy-washy' term came from. I don't think the free-market model really applies to a lot of the things you said, and it's sort of like talking about communism or what's underneath Mike Love's hat - it works in theory, but it's never been tried wholly true and so it becomes very idealised - 'well, it WILL work'. Things go wrong when they are applied to reality. And there's still criminality involved in the running of, say, a pub (meet my extended family and their charming boozer), so who's to say legalising pot or heroin is going to remove all traces?

It might not be the governments job to save people from themselves, but I'm sure glad I didn't have access to, idk, heroin or anything more self-destructive than booze during bad times of my life. As would a lot of people, I'm sure. This is what I mean. I have no problem with heroin being illegal. It's fucking nasty. Kills people. Ruins lives. etc. I don't think suddenly legalising crack or something would make the effects any less destructive. Psychedelics, and pot, yes. Those drugs aren't harmful. If that sounds like a double standard, I suppose it is. But that's comprehending the realities of people who take mushrooms vs. people who take heroin, I suppose.

Gun laws also don't stop mass-murderers because it is still possible to walk into a shop and buy a gun. Sure, it ain't easy. And it bloody well shouldn't be. Short of having an amnesty of firearms, no gun control law is going to stop people shooting each other because you can still go to a shop and buy a gun, or indeed you can easily find a legally purchased firearm somewhere in the house/office/whatever. The laws are almost pointless in this discussion. I guess this is a cultural divide thing. I mean, I get uneasy when I see police officers with guns. If I actually saw someone walk towards me with a gun, I'd run for the hills. And I'm glad I have that reaction tbf. I honestly don't think people should be so comfortable with offensive weapons. And I'm glad the couple of times I've been mugged that I knew for sure the guys had knives, not guns.

I guess that's what I mean - legalising harmful things because you believe everything should be on the free-market is incredibly ignorant of the reality of the situation, theorising from your ivory dorm room or whatever. Would you honestly be happy if the government threw up their hands and said 'Look folks, we don't care what happens. Buy a gun and some smack at Best-Buy, you're free'? What do you reckon would happen? It's incredibly unrealistic. But I guess we are at cross-purposes as to what the government's role should be.
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
Eireannach
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176

bedårar


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2012, 06:02:49 AM »

I think that's a good post, and I can certainly understand your critique.  My response to the legalization of drugs is that I think money (a lot less than we use in the "war on drugs") would be better spent on treatment programs to help people who are addicted.  Right now we treat drug users as criminals when we should be treating them for addiction.  Additionally, if they suddenly legalized all narcotics tomorrow, it's not like people are going to rush right out to buy and use all the drugs that were previously prohibited.  But it sure would be nice to have a lot more stoners than drunks, which is what happens in places that have legalized medicinal marijuana.

As for guns, they make me pretty uncomfortable too.  I have more of a problem with restrictions, however, knowing that criminals will always have guns - period.  There's also that pesky Constitution.

Also, no ivory dorm room tower here - I'm 37.
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2012, 09:24:38 AM »

It all goes back to personal liberty. Look at tobacco and alcohol - two of the deadliest substances in the world, but they're legal. People go apeshit when they're drunk; doesn't mean we ban alcohol. Same with drugs. You prosecute those involved in the criminal acts and deal with them.

Government is an entity that, when allowed unlimited room to grow and expand under the guise of "protecting your liberty", will always be on the road to tyranny. Government in both the United States and the United Kingdom is WAY too big for its britches...look at some of the laws being passed in the United States nowadays. Almost everything is illegal. And Americans, by and large, are ignorant and stupid; happy to partake in ever-increasing amounts of reality TV and all manner of government-mandated bread and circus. It's not that much different from Rome, if you think about it. Keep them fat and happy and they won't question too much. sh*t, public support for Obama is still high even after he signed the NDAA FY 2012, HR 347, and potentially CISPA. THAT is how stupid Americans are. Not to toe the party line or anything but if those same bills were signed by a president with an (R) after his name, the outcry would have been immense. This is coming from someone who despises both Bush 2.0 and Obama (aka Bush 3.0).

As far as health care is concerned...no one has a right to health care. You don't pay, you don't play.
Logged
stack-o-tracks
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1408


The baker man


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2012, 09:40:13 AM »

People have been and will continue to abuse drugs regardless of if they're illegal or not. The government spends a ton of money on the arrest, prosecution & jailing of somebody caught with a bag of smack. A bag of smack that came into the country via a drug mule and is very likely to have been adulterated because there's nobody regulating it. They aren't protecting anybody by doing what they're doing, they're taking away resources that could be used for education and treatment. They don't teach you about the life crippling effects of addiction in school. We get "drugs are bad, mmkay" DARE propaganda.
Logged

No mas, por favor.
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2012, 11:11:40 AM »

But stack-o-tracks, if heroin was legalised and thus made more easily available, it stands to reason that more people would take heroin (not all in one great rush, but I imagine thirsts would be easier to quench). I don't think that's a good way to start in. You'd spend more money on treating people because there would be more people to treat!

Eireannach, I keep throwing in strange zings - it's been a hell of a week, I'm not getting mad or anything! I think I get you now. Have I managed to  successfully argue politics on the internet?!  LOL

TRBB, I find that healthcare thing weird. I guess the American method seems to be not so much the 'right' to it as to how much you can afford. I personally do not understand why there was such uproar about the whole healthcare thing back when Obama went to bat for it - republican scaremongering and so forth. Are you (as a nation) so adverse to the idea? Some can't afford it, do you suggest they suck it up? Why is that the prevalent discourse? And so on.

I mean, in Britain we tend to get quite sentimental about the NHS even as the Tories erode it away.  Angry


Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
Eireannach
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176

bedårar


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2012, 11:40:44 AM »

We're good.  What fun would Internet politics be without some zingers?
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2012, 12:47:54 PM »

TRBB, I find that healthcare thing weird. I guess the American method seems to be not so much the 'right' to it as to how much you can afford. I personally do not understand why there was such uproar about the whole healthcare thing back when Obama went to bat for it - republican scaremongering and so forth. Are you (as a nation) so adverse to the idea? Some can't afford it, do you suggest they suck it up? Why is that the prevalent discourse? And so on.

Well, for one, all of the government meddling in health care is the reason it is so expensive - between tort laws, all of the ridiculous drug laws and regulations, it's a wonder even rich people can afford treatment. For the record, Obamacare is by no means close to the systems in Canada and the UK. That does not "provide" health care to people, it just forces them to buy it. The federal government has no authority under our Constitution to mandate that a product be purchased. The individual states DO have said leeway under the Constitution, much like with car insurance (and the argument that "well, you NEED car insurance" is a fallacy; no one forces you to buy or rent a car).

I'm all for getting the government out of the health care business. There is no government service that the private sector cannot provide at a lower cost with higher efficiency. If you allow free market incentives as well as market delivery of medical care, the prices would be bargain basement compared to what current insurance rates and premiums are now. This is the same reason I stated above that all drugs should be available on the free market. With the advent of the internet there is a wealth of information on medications. There is no "lack of education"; that is a scare tactic used by the left and the right to dissuade and meddle in the free market. Medical care is just like any other good or service. It should be delivered by the market place. It's not that there is a lack of availability in the United States; once you cut out all of the middlemen in insurance companies, the government, the drug companies or what have you, you're still left with a wealth of medical professionals who know their trades. In a market economy, one should be able to 1) see a doctor for whatever reason and have the doctor recommend treatment, or 2) skip the doctor and immediately seek the care one deems necessary for whatever condition they may have. Now, you may say that's against the Hippocratic Oath, but if it's a consenting, voluntary exchange between the consumer and the vendor (in this case, patient and doctor), there is no moral wrong being committed.

I've heard a wealth of information about the systems in Canada and Western Europe. I would be willing to go along with them if I wasn't required to sign away over 40% of my wages in order to prop up the system (I have a British friend in my area who left the UK specifically because he was sick and tired of paying 60% of his wages for an ineffectual system). And THAT is the problem. This is a similar situation to insurance companies in the United States. It's a socialized system. The other main reason I don't want the United States government delivering medical care is a simple one but one that goes over even the most astute and logical of heads. In business they tell you to ONLY associate with vendors that have "not a lot of debt". The United States government is $16 trillion in the hole. Do you REALLY want that corporation delivering your medical care? The United States is bankrupt and nobody wants to admit it. That's the BEST reason I can think of to want the government OUT of the medical business.

If the United States were to try and implement a socialized system akin to that of Canada or the UK, the government would collapse under all of the extra cost (between that and trying to start World War III with our buddies, pals, and friends in the Israeli and Saudi regimes). EVERYONE would be left with no coverage. People my age and even twenty years older than me are paying into Medicare and Social Security Ponzi schemes that the government has been borrowing from left and right to finance the terrorist state. They won't be there when we need to collect. And once those checks and the welfare checks start bouncing, you're going to see a second American Revolution. The Brits will be able to sit this one out. Smiley
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2012, 01:56:55 PM »


I've heard a wealth of information about the systems in Canada and Western Europe. I would be willing to go along with them if I wasn't required to sign away over 40% of my wages in order to prop up the system (I have a British friend in my area who left the UK specifically because he was sick and tired of paying 60% of his wages for an ineffectual system). And THAT is the problem. This is a similar situation to insurance companies in the United States. It's a socialized system. The other main reason I don't want the United States government delivering medical care is a simple one but one that goes over even the most astute and logical of heads. In business they tell you to ONLY associate with vendors that have "not a lot of debt". The United States government is $16 trillion in the hole. Do you REALLY want that corporation delivering your medical care? The United States is bankrupt and nobody wants to admit it. That's the BEST reason I can think of to want the government OUT of the medical business.

Business is the key word. Too many government agencies do not depend on making a profit in order to be sustainable. Most depend on public funding - taxes - in order to operate. If they run into financial hardships, there isn't quite the same motivation to improve much of anything if a system is in place which will dictate how much more the taxpayers will have to pay in taxes in order to make up for the shortfalls or the outright failures of the government operations. If "Operation X" is running into a funding crisis, government as an entity will suggest stripping some funding from "Operation Y" in order to give more money to "Operation X" to save it for another year, then it may suggest raising taxes to "increase revenue" to not only re-fund "Operation X" but also to re-energize "Operation Y" and keep them both going.

Meanwhile, lost somewhere in that maze is the business element of making improvements, re-thinking strategy, developing new initiatives, and perhaps replacing some employees in favor of new ones with fresh ideas or more experience and/or knowledge. There is no motivation to improve if the funding is not dependent on performance in a competitive field.

If there is no motivation to improve in order to "do better" in a financial sense, as any business would do when setting a goal for the day, week, month, quarter, year, etc. in order to adapt their business practices accordingly, I worry that we will settle for even more mediocrity and corruption than we've already seen. That is one of my worries re: health care.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.71 seconds with 21 queries.