(March 6, 2016 at 2:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Now, Tibs...you know that no one actually pays a "death tax" here in the states, right? 99.8% of estates aren't subject in the first place, the remaining .2% can write off. Works up the plebs though, keeps em pulling the lever.
Ah, I wasn't aware. In the UK anything over ~$500k is taxed at 40%, which means children who inherit relatively modest houses (in certain areas) from their parents could end up having to sell them in order to afford the taxes on them. It's utterly ridiculous; money/assets should only be subject to taxes once.
(March 7, 2016 at 5:51 am)Aractus Wrote: Absolutely not. USA does not have universal healthcare, therefore people who get a chronic NCD that requires ongoing treatment such as cancer will need private health cover, and as there's no way to know in advance whether a person will get cancer or some other expensive health problem in the future, they need to be protected now in the present. The penalties could conceivably be abolished in the future at such time that universal healthcare does exist, however that's not going to happen any time soon.
Right, but surely it's a person's own choice whether they get coverage or not. This isn't a situation where lack of coverage affects other people like with cars. If a person doesn't want health insurance and they get sick, that's their own fault. Besides, some people just can't afford private insurance, and live in a state which has an Obamacare Gap, meaning they can't get discounted insurance via the state either. Why should those people be punished by a penalty (meaning they lose more money)?
I'm not against Obamacare btw, I think it's a step in the right direction, especially in terms of pre-existing conditions, but I disagree with the penalties, especially in regards to people who cannot afford the premiums in the first place.
