🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Garland wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 8:40 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2018 9:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate
>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and
>> interest.
>>>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as
income--
>>>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to
shareholders
>>>> rather
>>>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>>>
>>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress
takes
>>>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>>>
>>>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>>>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>>>> to waste.
>>>
>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>>
>> Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>> they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>> Obama admin.  Soc. Sec. is already shifting from providing cash for
>> the recipients to withholding for Medicare.
>
> "Gutting"? Last time I checked, the US military budget was the biggest
> in the world, greater than the next 9 countries *combined*. Now, it's
> true that we've chosen to fight a 30 years war in Afghanistan, and
> more in Iraq and Syria. And Trump wants to have military parades that
> will outshine Moscow and Beijing..
>
> SS only withholds for Medicare if you choose to get Part B
> (out-of-hospital coverage). That's not required (though I think it
> would be stupid not to).

It's not "required" but the SSec administration ensures that the
post card which gives you the choice to deny the insurance arrives
after the deadline date.

I have Part D without my permission.  It got added on sometime in
the past but it hasn't been listed on the 1099s nor the anuual
statements Soc. Sec. sent me.

/BAH