A Quote by Ron Williams
There are several problems with the ACA's reliance on means-based inclusion criteria and mandatory participation in exchanges - the complexity of the exchange mechanism, and the potential for income-based subsidies to become a disincentive to earn if insurance rates escalate for those beyond the income threshold.
Related Quotes
The ACA's reliance on mandatory participation in exchanges as the only way to obtain a health insurance subsidy is fundamentally flawed.
The best tool today is longevity insurance - they call it income insurance. Most people know the value of life insurance. But what if you live? So instead of trying to guess one or the other, you plan for those 20 years and you get this income insurance. If you live beyond 85, you have money that's guaranteed for as long as you live in the form of an annuity.
While easy to understand, the income-based poverty line has limitations. Specifically, the median monthly household income measures only income without considering assets.
King v. Burwell pointed at but did not directly challenge the ACA's most essential weakness: Government-mandated participation in health insurance exchanges as a precondition to receiving a subsidy is not the best or most effective means of achieving its goal of expanded access to health coverage.
Transfer payments discourage the recipients from earning income in the present and from investing in their potential to earn income in the future. People respond to a reduced cost of idleness by choosing to be idle more often.
Remember life insurance is intended as income replacement to help dependents and or/spouse pay for things that your income would have covered. When you get to the point that you're dependents (Your kids mostly) aren't dependent on your income, you could reduce the amount of life insurance you are carrying.
So many people commute in this country by car long enough distances to really cut into their income, their real income, that they would change their vote based on gas prices.
A lot of people out there working hard and finally building up to getting a pretty good income. Higher tax rates on them, you know, the income rates going up, the dividend rates are going up, the capital gains rates all going up before health care kicks in.
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.
In the '50s and in the '60s, the private insurance system originally was a benefit for the bureaucrats in Germany. And this system became ever bigger because the private insurance industry lobbied successfully for making this system bigger. In the '70s and in the '80s, they managed to find a system where they could take everyone beyond 40,000 euros income per year but didn't have to take everyone. So they only took those that had both high income and a secure job and who was not ill at that time.
Only now are increasing numbers of political and social scientists beginning to realize that Kelso's theories provide a private-property-based alternative to the imminent passage of a government-distributed "guaranteed income" or "negative income tax."
Progressive taxation of income and profits means that precisely those parts of the income which people would have saved and invested are taxed away
You can survive your income falling if it's not dramatic. Your income can decrease for a long time before you start living beyond your means.
Let's take the nine states that have no income tax and compare them with the nine states with the highest income tax rates in the nation. If you look at the economic metrics over the last decade for both groups, the zero-income-tax-rate states outperform the highest-income-tax-rate states by a fairly sizable amount.
If the Nation is living within its income, its credit is good. If, in some crises, it lives beyond its income for a year or two, it can usually borrow temporarily at reasonable rates. But if, like a spendthrift, it throws discretion to the winds, and is willing to make no sacrifice at all in spending; if it extends its taxing to the limit of the peoples power to pay and continues to pile up deficits, then it is on the road to bankruptcy.
A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget....As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance.
Related Authors
Bill Gates Quotes
American
Businessman
Charlie Munger Quotes
American
Businessman
Dieter F. Uchtdorf Quotes
German
Businessman
Henry Ford Quotes
American
Businessman
Jim Rohn Quotes
American
Businessman
Joseph B. Wirthlin Quotes
American
Businessman
Mark Cuban Quotes
American
Businessman
Mark Zuckerberg Quotes
American
Businessman
Peter Drucker Quotes
American
Businessman
Richard Branson Quotes
British
Businessman
Russell Simmons Quotes
American
Businessman
Sam Altman Quotes
American
Businessman
Steve Jobs Quotes
American
Businessman
Tom Peters Quotes
American
Businessman
Walt Disney Quotes
American
Businessman
Warren Buffett Quotes
American
Businessman