Biden and Dem’s Put Kibosh on MD FIRE

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Straight up income tax, capital gains, and business taxes. It will be more than 6%. 400k annually isn’t the “billionaire” class, but you have to start class warfare somewhere I guess.

The tax payments are already lopsided with the bottom 50% paying 3% of all income tax. The top 10% pays 71% of all income tax. We all live here and we all benefit from federal government programs and we all need to pay a fair share.
If you make 500k which is above average for pain physician and way above average doctor, your effective income tax rate went up 0.5% with the income tax bump. Capital gains is another story which House Dems and Biden disagree on, but your average upper income earners still have most income from wages and not capital gains.

My post was directed @clubdeac asking to support a statement on the topic that appears to be false.

Members don't see this ad.
 
If you make 500k which is above average for pain physician and way above average doctor, your effective income tax rate went up 0.5% with the income tax bump. Capital gains is another story which House Dems and Biden disagree on, but your average upper income earners still have most income from wages and not capital gains.

My post was directed @clubdeac asking to support a statement on the topic that appears to be false.
Taxes are going up if you make 400k and it will be over 6%. Pretty easy to find the information on your own too.
 
Taxes are going up if you make 400k and it will be over 6%. Pretty easy to find the information on your own too.
There are two separate 3% additional “fees” on those making over $400k buried in the plan so they are actually proposing an increase from 37% to ~46% for most of us on this board

Compare the above two statements.

The first is vague and misleading.

The 2nd is specific and false.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Why does capital gains need such favorable treatment? You’re telling me that an investor’s $100,000 is really doing more more our country than $100,000 of our clinical labor seeing patients to deserve such favorable tax treatment? And why, if they take a loss on their investment do they get to deduct that but when I have to take a 30% pay cut because of COVID, I don’t get to deduct that?
Nothing about the current system makes any sense other than viewed from the standpoint of the Golden Rule - “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
Doctors are nothing more than a blip on the radar of either party. No matter where you throw your vote or your piddly campaign contribution, to paraphrase drusso, they won’t love you back.

Once upon a time, the AMA was one of the most powerful lobbying groups on the Hill. It can be that way again if MD/DO's look after their own interests. It's better to be feared than loved.
 
Why does capital gains need such favorable treatment? You’re telling me that an investor’s $100,000 is really doing more more our country than $100,000 of our clinical labor seeing patients to deserve such favorable tax treatment? And why, if they take a loss on their investment do they get to deduct that but when I have to take a 30% pay cut because of COVID, I don’t get to deduct that?
Nothing about the current system makes any sense other than viewed from the standpoint of the Golden Rule - “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
Doctors are nothing more than a blip on the radar of either party. No matter where you throw your vote or your piddly campaign contribution, to paraphrase drusso, they won’t love you back.
On whether to treat capital gains like regular income, it's a good question.

Consider this: The only "favorable treatment" for cap gains tax is with long term (>1 year). Short term cap gains is treated like regular income. This is to discourage speculative investing and encourage long term investment, which is generally a positive thing for everyone. Instead of money under the pillow, it is used to grow companies, hire people, R&D, etc.

What you are proposing is to treat short term and long term cap gains tax the same. This will elevate speculators to the level of long term investors, pension holders, etc. Not sure that's what we want...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Once upon a time, the AMA was one of the most powerful lobbying groups on the Hill. It can be that way again if MD/DO's look after their own interests. It's better to be feared than loved.
The AMA from what I could see is #5 when it comes to money spent lobbying, so I would argue it's still one of the most powerful.
 
Eliminate cash everything on plastic. All income taxed at 5% with no deductions. Would eliminate criminal elements and bring in more money than ever collected.
 
Eliminate cash everything on plastic. All income taxed at 5% with no deductions. Would eliminate criminal elements and bring in more money than ever collected.
I think conservatives would make a lot of compromises if liberals could accept something ridiculously simple like this.
 
It astonishes me when I meet liberal doctors. A good comparison would be a Jew supporting Nazi Germany
1632051574-20210919.png

Also, Godwin’s Law. Time to close this thread.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 6 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Remember that line by that one old guy way back in the day? “No taxation without representation”

Maybe these days we should switch that order around.
“No representation without taxation”

I wonder how this country would run in that scenario?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RIP Herman: 27% universal flat tax . Keep it simple…
 
Remember that line by that one old guy way back in the day? “No taxation without representation”

Maybe these days we should switch that order around.

“No representation without taxation”

I wonder how this country would run in that scenario?

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RIP Herman: 27% universal flat tax . Keep it simple…
that wasnt his plan

the 9-9-9 plan?

9% personal
9% corporate
9% consumption

flat tax advocates want a much lower overall rate than 27%
 
To be fair, Liberals were the ones using copious hitler comparisons the past 4 years ;)

i just shot somebody. but, a lot of people shoot others, so its ok, right?

if you are going to make a ridiculous statement like the one you did, at least try to not make it offensive. you managed to disparage docs and jews in one sentence.

also, i guess you get astonished easily:


bottom line is that if you are educated, you are probably a democrat
 
i just shot somebody. but, a lot of people shoot others, so its ok, right?

if you are going to make a ridiculous statement like the one you did, at least try to not make it offensive. you managed to disparage docs and jews in one sentence.

also, i guess you get astonished easily:


bottom line is that if you are educated, you are probably a democrat
Your Surgeon Is Probably a Republican, Your Psychiatrist Probably a Democrat (Published 2016)

"The educated" are hopefully more likely to be able to analyze data, view complex issues with nuance, modify opinion based on new information instead of seeing the world from a red/blue point of view.

Your sentiment is a pretty good way of summarizing why leftists are seen as elitists, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dude you have to be the most clueless, misguided and unpleasant individual on here. Read this article about historical tax rates before you go posting tables you don’t understand

Oh I didn't read article hmmm...

3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

Did you?
Are you saying tax rates were not higher in the 1950'S?
 
Last edited:
Your Surgeon Is Probably a Republican, Your Psychiatrist Probably a Democrat (Published 2016)

"The educated" are hopefully more likely to be able to analyze data, view complex issues with nuance, modify opinion based on new information instead of seeing the world from a red/blue point of view.

Your sentiment is a pretty good way of summarizing why leftists are seen as elitists, though.

call it elitism if you want, but numbers don't lie

FWIW, I have voted for R's in the past, and this certainly isn't one-size-fits-all.

if you read the thread, the link was a counter-argument to the premise that this one poster was "astonished" when he met a liberal doc
 
i just shot somebody. but, a lot of people shoot others, so its ok, right?

if you are going to make a ridiculous statement like the one you did, at least try to not make it offensive. you managed to disparage docs and jews in one sentence.

also, i guess you get astonished easily:


bottom line is that if you are educated, you are probably a democrat
I would argue that is because our teachers (fyi, government employees) are largely democrats. They have been feeding students liberal thought all their lives.
 
Once upon a time, the AMA was one of the most powerful lobbying groups on the Hill. It can be that way again if MD/DO's look after their own interests. It's better to be feared than loved.
If the AMA actually represented doctors and not just themselves, I would agree with you.
 
I would argue that is because our teachers (fyi, government employees) are largely democrats. They have been feeding students liberal thought all their lives.
thats possible.

OR

those that choose to further their education can make more informed decisions on their leadership

likely a combo
 
Why does capital gains need such favorable treatment? You’re telling me that an investor’s $100,000 is really doing more more our country than $100,000 of our clinical labor seeing patients to deserve such favorable tax treatment? And why, if they take a loss on their investment do they get to deduct that but when I have to take a 30% pay cut because of COVID, I don’t get to deduct that?
Nothing about the current system makes any sense other than viewed from the standpoint of the Golden Rule - “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
Doctors are nothing more than a blip on the radar of either party. No matter where you throw your vote or your piddly campaign contribution, to paraphrase drusso, they won’t love you back.
Not saying it's right or wrong, but capital gains gets favorable treatment because it encourages people to invest in companies (usually with money that was already taxed) which encourages GDP growth, more reinvestment, more jobs, more R&D, better retirements, and overall a better situation for everyone.
 
Your Surgeon Is Probably a Republican, Your Psychiatrist Probably a Democrat (Published 2016)

"The educated" are hopefully more likely to be able to analyze data, view complex issues with nuance, modify opinion based on new information instead of seeing the world from a red/blue point of view.

Your sentiment is a pretty good way of summarizing why leftists are seen as elitists, though.
I think that, unfortunately, that's not what actually happens when people get "educated".
 
Dude you have to be the most clueless, misguided and unpleasant individual on here. Read this article about historical tax rates before you go posting tables you don’t understand

please note in that article:
Some of the distributional assumptions in the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman paper are questionable. In particular, the authors assume that the full burden of the corporate income tax falls on owners of capital, which may not be correct. However, the authors note that they “have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects.”
and:
It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.
talk about hedging your own article....
 
i should say...

this is a forum of pain doctors, whos average salaries are far beyond $400k.

talk to the vast majority of doctors - ie internists, pediatricians, family practitioners, maybe gynecologists - and they are not making >$400K.

okay, include ER docs, but they are averaging $350k.


we as pain doctors think we are average. we are a highly paid specialty that, frankly, thinks that we are average doctor, and we are not, in more ways than one.
 
i should say...

this is a forum of pain doctors, whos average salaries are far beyond $400k.

talk to the vast majority of doctors - ie internists, pediatricians, family practitioners, maybe gynecologists - and they are not making >$400K.

okay, include ER docs, but they are averaging $350k.


we as pain doctors think we are average. we are a highly paid specialty that, frankly, thinks that we are average doctor, and we are not, in more ways than one.

I would say that probably the HOPD docs are making $600K from juicing the vig on the SOS.
 
Oh I didn't read article hmmm...

3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

Did you?
Are you saying tax rates were not higher in the 1950'S?
So I guess to answer your question, yes I would 10000x go back to the rates of the 1950s over today. When accounting for inflation, my tax burden would likely be much lower based on your table posted above

"The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950"

"The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with."

"All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
please note in that article:

and:

talk about hedging your own article....
You have to remember though they are including all taxes in these numbers including taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. You're comparing that number to 37% which is just the top marginal federal income rate. Plus I don't know about you but I'm not close to the top 0.1% or 0.01% of income earners.
 
Also this is a good reminder, “Though the rich in the U.S. are doing well, they also pay the greatest share of taxes. The top 1% earned 21% of the country’s income, and paid 38.5% of federal individual income taxes. The top 1% paid a greater share of income tax to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 90% combined (29.9%).”


This article will also tell you how much you need to make to be at duct’s level of 0.01%

 
And we would be sick of hearing your spiel.

Other's aren't...juice it! You scratch my back and I scratch yours...


RESEARCH ARTICLECONSIDERING HEALTH SPENDING
HEALTH AFFAIRSVOL. 40, NO. 5:

Hospital Employment Of Physicians In Massachusetts Is Associated With Inappropriate Diagnostic Imaging

Gary J. Young, E. David Zepeda, Stephen Flaherty, and Ngoc Thai
AFFILIATIONS
PUBLISHED:MAY 2021No Accesshttps://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01183

Abstract
The transition among many US physicians from independent practice to hospital employment has raised concerns about whether employed physicians will be more inclined to refer patients for hospital-based services that are unnecessary or inappropriate. Using claims data for 2009–16, we conducted a difference-in-differences analysis to investigate whether this form of hospital-physician integration is associated with inappropriate referrals for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a widely used mode of diagnostic imaging, for three common medical conditions: lower back pain, knee pain, and shoulder pain. Study findings indicate that the odds of a patient receiving an inappropriate MRI referral increased by more than 20 percent after a physician transitioned to hospital employment. Most patients who received an MRI referral by an employed physician obtained the procedure at the hospital where the referring physician was employed. These results point to hospital-physician integration as a potential driver of low-value care.
 
You have to remember though they are including all taxes in these numbers including taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. You're comparing that number to 37% which is just the top marginal federal income rate. Plus I don't know about you but I'm not close to the top 0.1% or 0.01% of income earners.
yes
The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.
you are right on your second point.
Also this is a good reminder, “Though the rich in the U.S. are doing well, they also pay the greatest share of taxes. The top 1% earned 21% of the country’s income, and paid 38.5% of federal individual income taxes. The top 1% paid a greater share of income tax to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 90% combined (29.9%).”


This article will also tell you how much you need to make to be at duct’s level of 0.01%

yes we are not at the 0.01%.

given all that the wealth inequity has significantly increased in the past 50 years.

the problem is that income is only one aspect of total wealth. the rich do pay more income taxes, but that is not where most of their wealth and wealth accumulation is occurring.


weath inequality 1.GIF


the rich are hiding their wealth.


(technically about Scandinavian wealthy but I post to show how US citizens are probably also doing)


article about ways to make changes.
same author, from a conservative source:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Other's aren't...juice it! You scratch my back and I scratch yours...
pretty sure everyone is sick of seeing it

nice article. but i couldnt find any articles on medicaid spending for private practice pain groups. wonder why that is......
 
How long do you think you can be in business and not go broke without getting an SOS on the 'Caid's?

no time at all. i wouldnt expect a PP to accept 'caid and lose money doing it. but hospitals do that all the time. sometimes with a huge percentage of medicaid patients.

the answers are to increase reimbursements for medicaid and to decrease the SOS (d).

time to start providing solutions, rather than constant bitching and complaining
 
no time at all. i wouldnt expect a PP to accept 'caid and lose money doing it. but hospitals do that all the time. sometimes with a huge percentage of medicaid patients.

the answers are to increase reimbursements for medicaid and to decrease the SOS (d).

time to start providing solutions, rather than constant bitching and complaining

Everyone agrees what the solution is, but the hospitals are greedy and just want their employed MD worker bee's to churn...
 
The wealthy are not hiding their wealth . Many are investing in municipalities and funds that support restoration and growth throughout the country. Obama threatened muni fund taxation, which are historically tax exempt. It still may happen some day. You want to really screw the rich, tax these munis. And expect chaos thereafter…

Might be a better idea to go after Wall Street and the university/colleague reserves first…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Everyone agrees what the solution is, but the hospitals are greedy and just want their employed MD worker bee's to churn...
After all these government incentives, layers on layers of SOS, central management, govt programs, 'caid, 'care and trillions of dollars, is our system ANY better than it was in the 50's?
 
The wealthy are not hiding their wealth . Many are investing in municipalities and funds that support restoration and growth throughout the country. Obama threatened muni fund taxation, which are historically tax exempt. It still may happen some day. You want to really screw the rich, tax these munis. And expect chaos thereafter…

Might be a better idea to go after Wall Street and the university/colleague reserves first…
please explain how offshore accounts and tax havens and shell companies qualify for "investing in municipalities".

it is a false narrative put in place by these ultra-rich.

‘Medicaid for all’… let them have it .
Even the Europeans know the state-run vs the concierge hospitals a mile away.

current government insurance may not be to our expectations, but at least other countries have health insurance.

we rank 34th in the world for percent uninsured - ie people who have absolutely no health insurance.


yet... we spend more money per capita on healthcare by almost twice than all but 3 other countries

 
reiterating taxing the wealthy - who are not us.


yes, he is a CNN contributor... but this is posted on a Fox news affiliate WICZ from Binghamton NY.

Jack Lew: How to get the wealthy to pay the taxes they owe​

Thursday, September 30th 2021, 10:16 AM EDT
Opinion by Jacob J. Lew for CNN Business Perspectives
Imagine you're out to dinner. At the end of the meal, you pay your bill, which helps meet the restaurant's food, rent and wage costs. But some customers slip out without paying. They disappear into the night, leaving the business to pay the same expenses with a fraction of the revenue.
That is what is happening to the US government. Each year, hundreds of billions in taxes owed goes unpaid, and this "tax gap" leaves fewer resources to pay our country's bills. Most working people, whose employers deduct taxes and report their incomes, are paying what they owe. It is disproportionately very wealthy people who find creative, and sometimes illegal, ways to slip out that door. And they get away with it, in part, because the Internal Revenue Service lacks the resources to go after them.

As part of a plan to rebuild the IRS after a decade of decline, President Biden has a sensible solution: require financial institutions to report additional information about taxpayers, which the IRS can then use to determine who might be evading taxes.
The requirement would be straightforward, and the additional burden on banks would be minimal. Banks would simply add two numbers they already have — total annual inflows and outflows for each account — to an existing form that they already provide to the IRS. Individual taxpayers would not need to do anything, and no detailed transaction data would be shared.
Reporting this data is so critical because it gives the IRS a heads up when a taxpayer's true financial position — as reflected in aggregate account flows — differs from what was reported.

Third-party reporting — independent information that helps the IRS to verify tax returns — increases tax compliance from under 50% to over 95%. For the wealthiest taxpayers, income often falls outside of existing reporting streams. The single largest source of the tax gap is this low-visibility income, like royalties, capital gains, and certain types of business income, which disproportionately flows to the nation's wealthiest. As much as about one-fifth to half of this income goes unreported, so gaining visibility is essential to closing that shortfall.
This incremental reporting is crucial to revitalizing the IRS. The number of auditors examining returns has substantially shrunk over the years, and less than 1% of partnerships (such as LLCs) are audited each year. But needed investments to rebuild audit staffing and upgrade outdated computers can only achieve their full potential if paired with the right information.
Improved reporting also addresses severe economic and racial inequities in tax enforcement. Auditing the complex returns of high-income taxpayers can take hundreds of hours per return. With neither sufficient staff, nor a clue where to target its audits, the IRS is about as likely to audit a low-paid worker who receives the Earned Income Tax Credit as a person in the top 1%, even as the amount at stake is much lower.
It is an outrage that the wealthy, who are more likely to avoid paying taxes, so often receive a pass. Improved reporting, together with more agents trained to decipher complex tax returns, will allow the IRS to target high-end enforcement actions instead of focusing on low-income taxpayers.
Lobbyists who want to protect the status quo claim that improved reporting would discourage people of color from using the banking system. These claims are wrong. They ignore that the policy is carefully designed to protect privacy and imposes no burden on individuals, and in fact would raise revenue to pay for initiatives that encourage households of color to become banked. Monthly Child Tax Credit payments, for instance, can be directly deposited to bank accounts.
Better tax enforcement will advance the interests of honest taxpayers, who deserve to know others are paying what they owe, and honest business owners, who face unfair competition from tax cheats. That is why a bipartisan group of former secretaries of the Treasury, including me, endorse it.
Congress should embrace this important provision. Doing so will generate substantial revenue and create a more equitable tax system, where all people — not just ordinary American workers — pay what they owe.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.
 
Top