BF2S Forums "I'm going to fire two employees if Obama wins"

God Save the Queen wrote:

youre friends dont like paying taxes?  tell them fuck you from me.  Taxes are paying for my education.

Harmor wrote:

Ever got a job from a poor person?

oChaos.Haze wrote:

Then the doctors you play poker with are idiots.  Go to any hospital in the country and you will soon learn we already have nationalized health care.  You already pay for everyone who can't afford it, and have been doing so for years. 

Every person in the medical field that I know LOVES Obama.  Now maybe you play poker with private practice assdweebs who got into medicine for the money and the chicks, but out of the countless docs and nurses I know, every one of them is for Obama.

oChaos.Haze wrote:

And please tell me how the lower and middle classes would eventually be screwed over.  I'd love to see where in his plan he says, "Oh and let us not forget to tax the shit out of people who have no money."  This is such an irrational extrapolation.

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

If you set up a system where people can make money based on a business decision, isn't that protecting your profits?  And unfortunately that's UnAmerican to do so?  That's backasswards.

I've provided an example on how the new economic policy will encourage businesses to increase unemployment in the short term.

For example:
Doctor pays $85k in taxes, his eight employees pay $15k each or $120k total.  Total collected = $205k.

Doctor fires two people.
Doctor pays $70k in taxes by reducing his income level, his six employees pay $12.5k each under lower taxes or $75k total.  Total collected = $145k.

There is no incentive for the doctor to grow his business as the take home will be less.

I am watching how Obama is addressing this issue, I haven't seen how it makes economic sense to do anything different unless we eliminate tax brackets and go with a different system altogether...which is a whole other can of worms.

.

Pug - your statement "there is no incentive for the doctor to grow his business" is nonsense. You grow your business, you earn more. Simple as that. The size of the business expansion just has to be larger, that´s all (which shouldn´t be too hard in a profession where business is guaranteed). You have given a very specific example here - those who are on the cusp of the tax band. That is a very specific example. What is your suggestion? Your rationale implies reduction of taxes always leads, paradoxically, to an increase in tax take. Why not reduce tax to 1% then? Do you honestly believe that would be viable??? This doctor appears to value his own personal comfort and luxury than keeping his employees in paid employment. That´s fair enough but frankly he´s a fucking crybaby if you ask me. I´ve been hit with a tax increase in the latest Irish budget - do you hear me complaining? No, because we have to collectively pick up the tab in the interests of society in general.

imortal wrote:

Wow.  I am in the medical field.  My wife is in the medical field.  Nearly every one of our friends is in the medical field.  MAYBE 1 in 20 of our medical friends is an Obama supporter.  Oh, and our friends are EMTs, paramedics, nurses and Med Techs.  None of us are particularly rich. And for those of you who are familiar with my history of posting, my wife thinks I and a wishy-washy left-leaning almost-a-liberal (for the record, I am more of a Libertarian than anything else).

imortal wrote:

Take my job.  I work my 40 hours, I get paid.  If I work over 40, I get paid time-and-a-half.  Right up until I hit about 52 hours.  After that,, I hit the next tax bracket, and ALL of the money I make after that point goes to taxes.

If I work 58 hours in a week, I literally make $7 more than in a week I work 52 hours.  That is not per hour, that is 7 total.  7 dollars (after taxes) for 6 hours of work.  So, I hit 52 hours, and go home.  I am not working for free;  however, I will work my butt off if I am getting paid for the work I do.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-10-19 04:57:13)

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

imortal wrote:

Take my job.  I work my 40 hours, I get paid.  If I work over 40, I get paid time-and-a-half.  Right up until I hit about 52 hours.  After that,, I hit the next tax bracket, and ALL of the money I make after that point goes to taxes.

If I work 58 hours in a week, I literally make $7 more than in a week I work 52 hours.  That is not per hour, that is 7 total.  7 dollars (after taxes) for 6 hours of work.  So, I hit 52 hours, and go home.  I am not working for free;  however, I will work my butt off if I am getting paid for the work I do.

Dude, if this is your understanding of the tax system, you definitely should NOT be preparing your own tax returns.  The IRS is making a lot of free money off you.

imortal wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

imortal wrote:

Take my job.  I work my 40 hours, I get paid.  If I work over 40, I get paid time-and-a-half.  Right up until I hit about 52 hours.  After that,, I hit the next tax bracket, and ALL of the money I make after that point goes to taxes.

If I work 58 hours in a week, I literally make $7 more than in a week I work 52 hours.  That is not per hour, that is 7 total.  7 dollars (after taxes) for 6 hours of work.  So, I hit 52 hours, and go home.  I am not working for free;  however, I will work my butt off if I am getting paid for the work I do.

Dude, if this is your understanding of the tax system, you definitely should NOT be preparing your own tax returns.  The IRS is making a lot of free money off you.

Are you kidding?  My WIFE does my taxes; I am not crazy.  I will just tell you what I have observed.

Granted, I have a crap job while I am going to school.  Better than my last crap job, but still no great shakes, as you will see.

When I work 52 hours a week (average) for 2 weeks, my paycheck is for $1012. piddly cents.
When I work 58 hours a week (average) for 2 weeks, my paycheck is for $1019. piddly cents.

I get time-and-a-half for anything over 40 hours.  And since my pay is in the vicinity of 11 an hour (I told you it was crappy), there seems to be a big money devouring hole that develops right at the 52 hour line.  After discussions with my wife and partner (partner at work, get your minds out of the gutter!) that line moves with the number of dependants you declared to the IRS.

And while I am getting raped by the IRS currently, I am assured by people whose job it is to know these things that it will help me not get raped in July.

This is why I am in favor of the "Fair Tax" consumption tax, because 182 pages of tax law sure beats 52,000+ pages, and I might have a fighting chance at understanding it.

Pug wrote:

Last night in my poker game - I play with a few doctors.

They all have their own seperate offices and clinics, so I playing with about 8 other business owners.  All of us will be looking forward to an increase in tax when Obama comes aboard.  So here's some quotes for you to consider:

"I'm going to fire two employees if Obama wins.  I can't afford to have these people on staff if the tax increases.  I will actually make more money if I'm in the lower tax bracket.  So I'm going to only work four days a week."

"The healthcare issue is really going to screw us over.  Insurance right now is renegotiating everything already.  With Nationalized health care we're going to see the fees be negotiated even further.  Dealing with the slow-pay of medicare is enough already.  You can't tell me the new system will be anything but slower."

"It was hard enough motivating myself to work 1/3 of the year and give that all to the government.  I'm not looking forward to working a half a year for free."

"I think I might open a clinic on the Canada side of Niagra Falls.  Get married, fuck, and then I'll check your eyes.  Then you can go back to Buffalo, hitched & sticky with glasses, and end up paying less for the whole thing.  I'll have more money that way too."

"Well at least if Obama wins I will see more patients, since healthcare will be universal.  But I'm already booked solid year round, so it looks like they'll just be paying me less and slower."

"I guess I'm unAmerican because I don't want to pay more tax."



As per usual, I was silent.  I don't discuss politics with friends.  Yes, these are doctors.  Yes, they are rich.  Yes, they all have their own businesses.  So do you see the issues of being self-employed within this wonderful election we are having?

Discuss

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Look up "tort reform". The government doesn't protect doctors in any way, shape, or form.

By making it difficult for foreign doctors to move to the US and get jobs, the government prevents perfectly able doctors from poorer countries from moving to the US where they'd be more than happy to undercut the current doctors earnings.
http://www.shusterman.com/medguide.html

After reviewing the resumes received and interviewing any applicants who profess to be qualified for the position, the employer must demonstrate to the Labor Department that there are no U.S. physicians ready, able and qualified to perform the job.

U.S. immigration laws require that all H-1B physicians be paid the prevailing wage for their occupation in the geographic area where they will be employed or the actual wage being paid by the employer to other similarly employed physicians, whichever is higher. Severe penalties may be imposed on any employer who violates this requirement.

So you can't hire a foreign doctor unless you pay them the current rates (total wage protection) and there are no Americans who want the job.

These are government immigration laws. They prevent lots of perfectly qualified foreign doctors from moving to the US and undercutting the current wages, thusly driving down the wages of doctors via free-market competition.

Have you ever actually been to a hospital (teaching or otherwise) in the US? At least half of the doctors are foreign. It's not like it's difficult for a foreign person to come over and get credentialed in the medical field here.

The way the law is described above...it sounds remarkably like a union situation.

The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves.

Congress controls the supply of physicians by how much federal funding it provides for medical residencies — the graduate training required of all doctors....Even doctors trained in other countries must serve medical residencies in the USA to practice here.

Last edited by PureFodder (2008-10-20 08:14:39)

FEOS wrote:

Bringing down the wages of doctors won't work until there is tort reform. How else will doctors afford ridiculous malpractice insurance payments?

Surprisingly, U.S. malpractice payments (including both cases that resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff and cases resulting in a settlement) were lower, on average, than those in Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2001 the average payment in the United States was $265,103, which was higher than in Australia but 14 percent below Canada and 36 percent below the United Kingdom.22 While U.S. media and public attention have focused on multimillion-dollar awards at the upper end of the range, the average was actually smaller than in Canada and the United Kingdom in 2001.

Possibly the most important and best summary measure of the magnitude of malpractice awards is total payments divided by total population. On this measure, the United States is only slightly higher than the other three countries: $16 per capita in 2001, compared with $12 in the United Kingdom, $10 in Australia, and $4 in Canada. In all four countries, however, malpractice payments represent less than 0.5 percent of health spending.

These figures do not include the legal costs of defending malpractice claims. Legal costs are estimated to average $27,000 per claim in the United States, which adds approximately $1.4 billion in costs to the $4.4 billion paid in settlements and judgments.23 The costs of underwriting insurance against malpractice claims are estimated at an additional 12 percent, or $700 million.24 The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims, including awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs, was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001—0.46 percent of total health spending.


Have claim payments been growing more rapidly in the United States? Between 1996 and 2001, U.S. total malpractice payments grew at an average annual rate of 5 percent over inflation. These increases are commonly blamed for the rapid rise in U.S. malpractice premiums. The growth in malpractice awards was even more rapid in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom: 10–28 percent above inflation (Exhibit 3Go). These rates indicate that malpractice payments are a growing problem in these countries.

Insurance market dynamics and investment return rates also affect malpractice insurance premiums.29 Insurance markets are organized differently in the four countries. British and Canadian physicians are protected from malpractice litigation risks by a single national organization, with premiums subsidized by the government. Australia has a private insurance system more similar to the U.S. system, but the Australian government subsidizes physicians’ malpractice premiums and reinsures high-cost claims. These arrangements may provide more insulation from malpractice insurance market dynamics for physicians in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom than for U.S. physicians.30 Nonetheless, the rapid increases in malpractice costs have stimulated debates over new policies in these countries.

FEOS wrote:

No, there's also massive amounts of college loans that must be paid off, as well.

I'm not saying doctors are barely getting by. They make gobs of money. Never implied otherwise.