🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 14:40:05 -0600, Dave Garland
<dave.g...@wizinfo.com> 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).

Odd. I was told I had to sign up for part A, B, and D. My area doesn't
allow the better Part C plan which can give dental and eyewear.