Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 157
Thanks Tree65Thanks

Thread: How the Obamacare "work less" incentive exposes the left's agenda...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    How the Obamacare "work less" incentive exposes the left's agenda...

    Kudlow lays it out very neatly:

    In the Obama scheme, an industrious person climbing the ladder of opportunity is penalized heavily for his or her success. Health-care subsidies are reduced as a result of her higher income, while marginal tax rates go up as she shifts into a higher tax bracket. So she loses the government benefit and her effective federal tax climbs higher.

    There is no ladder of opportunity here. It's really a work trap that becomes a poverty trap.


    RealClearMarkets - Obama's Work Trap Denial Is Indefensible

    And here's the bottom line - this is exactly what they want. There should be no incentives to succeed, because that places you above the working class on the income scale. There is less incentive to succeed so that those with no skills (and/or no ambition) are not left behind. It is a Marxist equality of outcome agenda achieved through government controlled economic incentives in an ostensibly market based economy. The 2.5 million fewer workers is only the beginning...

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,228
    Thanks
    3182

    all while duplicitous progressives incessantly whine about "wealth gaps"

  3. #3
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    all while duplicitous progressives incessantly whine about "wealth gaps"
    Exactly. The very 2.5 million workers "choosing" to not work will necessarily negatively impact wealth inequality. And that will fuel progressives' further demands for even more wealth redistribution, which then further reduces incentives to work. Rinse and repeat, until no one has more than anyone else. Any lefty who supports this agenda who claims to be really (really) a capitalist is either lying or really (really) dumb.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Telecaster's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,933
    Thanks
    1507

    From
    Near Austin TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke View Post
    Exactly. The very 2.5 million workers "choosing" to not work will necessarily negatively impact wealth inequality. And that will fuel progressives' further demands for even more wealth redistribution, which then further reduces incentives to work. Rinse and repeat, until no one has more than anyone else. Any lefty who supports this agenda who claims to be really (really) a capitalist is either lying or really (really) dumb.
    Absolutely. This paradox always brings me to wondering how it is some of our liberal-progressive-Democrat supporting friends here cannot see where it is the new Left Democrat party is taking us.

    I've recently told everyone here how my family, with no current sight of employment and income beyond SS benefits still does not qualify for a subsidy. My guess is the system is looking at my current bank account balances and decides I can pay full price. So then, what does that say? It says I must dwindle down my worth to a point where I am truly needy.

    And I assume the same will be true in about two weeks when I wire $180k of those accounts to the purchase of a new home. Then, I assume the Feds will expect me to spend down what I have saved, sell my new home, spend that down, and then they'll talk about subsidies. As it is my solution is to just keep looking for work and hopefully find something that allows me to keep up with the basics of life. The big problem I foresee is being able to keep up with ACA expense and still be able to pay for gasoline, utilities and groceries. But all of this falls well into line with a Leftist philosophy that seeks to make as many of us dependent on it, all for the purposes of social justice.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    Absolutely. This paradox always brings me to wondering how it is some of our liberal-progressive-Democrat supporting friends here cannot see where it is the new Left Democrat party is taking us.

    I've recently told everyone here how my family, with no current sight of employment and income beyond SS benefits still does not qualify for a subsidy. My guess is the system is looking at my current bank account balances and decides I can pay full price. So then, what does that say? It says I must dwindle down my worth to a point where I am truly needy.

    And I assume the same will be true in about two weeks when I wire $180k of those accounts to the purchase of a new home. Then, I assume the Feds will expect me to spend down what I have saved, sell my new home, spend that down, and then they'll talk about subsidies. As it is my solution is to just keep looking for work and hopefully find something that allows me to keep up with the basics of life. The big problem I foresee is being able to keep up with ACA expense and still be able to pay for gasoline, utilities and groceries. But all of this falls well into line with a Leftist philosophy that seeks to make as many of us dependent on it, all for the purposes of social justice.
    Yes, you simply must be punished for your thrift...

  6. #6
    Senior Member Telecaster's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,933
    Thanks
    1507

    From
    Near Austin TX
    It is seeming that way to me, anyway.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Tom Joad's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks
    1488

    From
    Banana Republic of Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    Absolutely. This paradox always brings me to wondering how it is some of our liberal-progressive-Democrat supporting friends here cannot see where it is the new Left Democrat party is taking us.

    I've recently told everyone here how my family, with no current sight of employment and income beyond SS benefits still does not qualify for a subsidy. My guess is the system is looking at my current bank account balances and decides I can pay full price. So then, what does that say? It says I must dwindle down my worth to a point where I am truly needy.

    And I assume the same will be true in about two weeks when I wire $180k of those accounts to the purchase of a new home. Then, I assume the Feds will expect me to spend down what I have saved, sell my new home, spend that down, and then they'll talk about subsidies. As it is my solution is to just keep looking for work and hopefully find something that allows me to keep up with the basics of life. The big problem I foresee is being able to keep up with ACA expense and still be able to pay for gasoline, utilities and groceries. But all of this falls well into line with a Leftist philosophy that seeks to make as many of us dependent on it, all for the purposes of social justice.
    In other word you think you should be able to have a $180,000 in the bank and still get food stamps?

    You know, in a sense I agree with you.

    I think everyone should get an allotment of Food Stamps no matter how rich they are.

    It would be just like Social Security is.

    I'd even give the Koch brothers an allotment.

    That would remove the stigma of having to be on them.
    Thanks from labrea, vikingbeast and HadEnough2

  8. #8
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Joad View Post
    In other word you think you should be able to have a $180,000 in the bank and still get food stamps?

    You know, in a sense I agree with you.

    I think everyone should get an allotment of Food Stamps no matter how rich they are.

    That would remove the stigma of having to be on them.
    AND reduce the sting when your jack booted collectivist thugs come for their assets...
    Thanks from Rev. Hellh0und

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6,633
    Thanks
    4189

    From
    North Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke View Post
    AND reduce the sting when your jack booted collectivist thugs come for their assets...
    Do you mean when you have to pay for your own health insurance?

    Would that put insurance providers in the "jack booted collectivist thug" position?
    Thanks from Panzareta

  10. #10
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Do you mean when you have to pay for your own health insurance?

    Would that put insurance providers in the "jack booted collectivist thug" position?
    Now that they have the IRS forcing us to buy their product at inflated prices, you really have to ask?

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed