Aren't you disgusted when you look at your gross income vs net income?

Tgfredsde wrote:

I'm a physician and not one involved with questionable science like the OP.

You know nothing of the protocol in question and therefore have no basis upon which to pass judgment either way. All that I've disclosed is that it's outside of the mainstream, which alone tells you nothing about its value or lack thereof. The protocol is nothing more or less than an aggressive strengthening regimen for the deep lumbar muscles - hardly a dubious concept.

unapologetically selfish wrote:

You force Federal subsidies on people who don't want them, then turn around and demand their gratuity.

another statement that seems a bit illogical. who on here votes for or against federal subsidies? Subsidies cannot be forced on you. If you don't want it, then cut a check back to the IRS for the dollar amount. you have more control over this than the "envious little parasites"

"Aren't you disgusted when you look at your gross income?"

Fixed.

And yes.

I never really understood people getting so bent out of shape over gross income vs. net income. Your compensation is reflective of the value of your skill set in the economy.

Your compensation = Net income. Do you really think if the govt went and simply cut income taxes across the board you would be able to buy more goods and be so much better off? Eventually the market would adjust and your salary would decrease and/or the price of goods would go up.

Corporate taxes, taxes on investment income, property taxes etc... are a different issue. Personal income tax? Average people need to settle down.

u crazy wrote:

I never really understood people getting so bent out of shape over gross income vs. net income. Your compensation is reflective of the value of your skill set in the economy.

Your compensation = Net income. Do you really think if the govt went and simply cut income taxes across the board you would be able to buy more goods and be so much better off? Eventually the market would adjust and your salary would decrease and/or the price of goods would go up.

All of this is utterly wrong. Your compensation is your gross income, and your net income is what's left over after government steals an arbitrarily determined amount. If the income tax were abolished, we would all enjoy a dramatically higher standard of living. Businessmen who sell the things that people want would bring greater capacity on-line to accommodate greater demand, and dramatically increased investment would bring into existence new products and services that we can't even imagine. Our lives would be dramatically improved if the income tax were eliminated.

chinocochino wrote:

You are very ignorant of how and how much doctors get paid.

You're not paying attention. I AM a physician. I know infinitely more about this than you do (obviously). You are spouting the same rhetoric as others pretending to have answers for something that fits their liberal agenda. Do us all a favor and leave this to the experts.

Tgfredsde wrote:

You know what I find offensive? Selfish arseholes like you. You took federal subsidies to get your degree, take federal payment for your patients, enjoyed federal grants for the research into your snake oil science, not to mention the numerous other places you take advantage of monies the rest of us pay the govt. You live in a country with one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world, yet you whine because you want it all for yourself. Shut the fuck up!

unapologetically selfish wrote:

You know what I find offensive? Envious little parasites like you who believe that their vote entitles them to expropriate the property of others. You force Federal subsidies on people who don't want them, then turn around and demand their gratuity. You destroyed what was used to be the greatest country in history with your rotten cynicism.

You think people are FORCED to accept federal loans, Medicare payments, or grants? I laugh uncontrollably at your ignorance.

Tgfredsde wrote:

I'm a physician and not one involved with questionable science like the OP.

f the po-lice wrote:

You know nothing of the protocol in question and therefore have no basis upon which to pass judgment either way. All that I've disclosed is that it's outside of the mainstream, which alone tells you nothing about its value or lack thereof. The protocol is nothing more or less than an aggressive strengthening regimen for the deep lumbar muscles - hardly a dubious concept.

The fact that it is out of the mainstream implies that there are no peer reviewed studies that support it. Otherwise I would be aware of it. Good luck pushing your snake oil while accepting federal subsidies that you want everyone but you to fund. Selfish bastard.

HRE wrote:

I'm not disgusted. I've always had enough to live on and have generally been pretty comfortable.

And your complacency is why you haven't done better in life.

How old are you? I don't think you fathom how many people in America one and two generations ago dreamed of becoming a doctor or some such professional. Now young people want to be Mark Zuckerburg who is now in a position to now have to pay a dime of tax the rest of his life. Of course nobody actively looks at the tax consequences of any job and bases their decision on that. But people look at the lifestyle people are living and make judgements off that. These days getting a job in Silicon valley or otherwise creating some product that can be mass produced with foreign labor looks much more compelling and relatively low pressure to boot.

I'm not going to go into all the tax benefits of accumulated wealth. But it provides all sorts of ways to perpetually defer income and let it accumulate tax free. Somebody who owns a nice home and a vacation home outright + $20 million in investments generally pays a much lower tax rate than a doctor making 300K. The doctor gets taxed on all $300K. If the person with wealth decides to take $300,000 out of his tax deferred investment, he gets taxed on all that. But it may or may not be at ordinary income rates and if his wealth is earning a very modest and low risk 3% year than he actually earned $600,000. The other $300,000 just gets added to his accumulated wealth to create ever more wealth.

I never said anything about Obama being a foodstamp president "homs" so why do I need to stick to my guns about any of this? Obama bailed out Wall Steet and in case you haven't noticed he has largely kept in place the Bush tax laws. So yes, I have no problem saying he is in the back pockets of bankers although I hadn't said that before.

f the po-lice wrote:

You know nothing of the protocol in question and therefore have no basis upon which to pass judgment either way. All that I've disclosed is that it's outside of the mainstream, which alone tells you nothing about its value or lack thereof. The protocol is nothing more or less than an aggressive strengthening regimen for the deep lumbar muscles - hardly a dubious concept.

Since this is an anonymous message board, why don't you enlighten us with your protocol? It would seem there is no risk for you.

It would only be fair.

Also, why would the FDA be concerned with a strengthening program?

physical therapist wrote:

Since this is an anonymous message board, why don't you enlighten us with your protocol? It would seem there is no risk for you.

It would only be fair.

Also, why would the FDA be concerned with a strengthening program?

The FDA is involved because the protocol involves injecting animal (chimpanzee) bile directly into the spinal sheath. Get it now, pt boy?

good economics wrote:

All of this is utterly wrong. Your compensation is your gross income, and your net income is what's left over after government steals an arbitrarily determined amount. If the income tax were abolished, we would all enjoy a dramatically higher standard of living. Businessmen who sell the things that people want would bring greater capacity on-line to accommodate greater demand, and dramatically increased investment would bring into existence new products and services that we can't even imagine. Our lives would be dramatically improved if the income tax were eliminated.

I really don't know why I'm taking this thread so seriously....

I noticed your handle is "good economics" and not "good economist". I don't know much about economics, but there are consequences to your theoretical solution. If all taxes were abolished, I can think of 2 immediate consequences.

1) Larger public money supply. Doesn't this lead to inflation? If everyone universally suddenly has more money, wouldn't prices of all goods go up as well since people can and will pay more for them?

2) Elimination of the jobs supported by income tax money. I'm not saying I support government-subsidized jobs, but if all the people working for the government and paid by income taxes were laid off, wouldn't average compensations then drop for middle class workers as well because there would be so many fairly skilled white collared workers competing for job openings?

Also...

"If the income tax were abolished, we would all enjoy a dramatically higher standard of living."

I get all of my financial news from LetsRun, and LetsRun tells that the earnest hard-working high income individuals are the only people paying any taxes (49% of people pay "no" taxes, right?) so wouldn't abolishing all income tax only help wealthier 51% of people thus widening the income gap? Also, if income taxes were completely abolished, revenue would have to come from somewhere else to make up the difference (you mentioned nothing about reducing the budget, so lets at least balance the ins and outs). where might this revenue come from, property taxes and sales taxes? arent these paid disproportionately more by wealthier individuals as well? It seems we would all net about the same.

You can talk about cutting out taxes only after a reduction in government expenditures. I don't have enough life experience and political knowledge to delve into this, so I'll continue to serve to keep the debates honest.

good economics wrote:

All of this is utterly wrong. Your compensation is your gross income, and your net income is what's left over after government steals an arbitrarily determined amount. If the income tax were abolished, we would all enjoy a dramatically higher standard of living. Businessmen who sell the things that people want would bring greater capacity on-line to accommodate greater demand, and dramatically increased investment would bring into existence new products and services that we can't even imagine. Our lives would be dramatically improved if the income tax were eliminated.

I'm not talking about corporate/business taxes, taxes on entrepreneurs, taxes on investment income or imagining a world where there are no taxes. What I'm saying is that if income tax (ie tax deducted from your salary paid by company x) is cut from say 30% to 15%, will you enjoy a better standard of living? Maybe initially, but the labor market is efficient enough to value your skill set and that is reflected in your net income. Your employer knows what you take home. Markets adjust.

I'm saying this not to make a point about the good/evil of taxes, but to make a point about the complexity of the issue. So many bellyachers act like they would kill for that 15% reduction. I think they would be disappointed.

good economics wrote:

All of this is utterly wrong. Your compensation is your gross income, and your net income is what's left over after government steals an arbitrarily determined amount. If the income tax were abolished, we would all enjoy a dramatically higher standard of living. Businessmen who sell the things that people want would bring greater capacity on-line to accommodate greater demand, and dramatically increased investment would bring into existence new products and services that we can't even imagine. Our lives would be dramatically improved if the income tax were eliminated.

I'm not talking about corporate/business taxes, taxes on entrepreneurs, taxes on investment income or imagining a world where there are no taxes. What I'm saying is that if income tax (ie tax deducted from your salary paid by company x) is cut from say 30% to 15%, will you enjoy a better standard of living? Maybe initially, but the labor market is efficient enough to value your skill set and that is reflected in your net income. Your employer knows what you take home. Markets adjust.

I'm saying this not to make a point about the good/evil of taxes, but to make a point about the complexity of the issue. So many bellyachers act like they would kill for that 15% reduction. I think they would be disappointed.

I agree with you on several points here, but also disagree on several others.

First, you ask how old I am presumably to make me appear young, then you continue to tell me what the "young people" want to do with their lives as if I'm out of touch with the exact generation you're assuming I belong to? Pick one.

Concerning young peoples' professional goals, do you have any idea how many well-qualified students apply to low- and mid-range medical schools year after year and never get in? Probably not since you're so much older and more mature than the uneducated "young people". There is absolutely no lack of hard working young people looking to get into medicine and become doctors. I promise you that. I was surrounded by people who planned to go to med school when I was in college. Even several of my engineering classmates are currently in medical school! The limiting factor on the number of doctors in the US is more the restrictive medical school system than the under-22 population. My completely proof-less theory is that the medical "complex" tries to keep it this way so the supply of doctors stays low, thus increasing pay rates.

I understand the tax benefits and deferrals of investing, but your comparison to a wealthy person with 2 houses and $20M in investments is completely backwards. Assuming we ignore the minor mortgage tax benefits, that rich person paid for his/her houses with either income or inheritances, both of which would have been taxed right off the bat (assuming you can't pay for a house with stocks...) just like a doctor's $300k is taxed. There is no special unfairness. Also, what is preventing an MD from taking advantage of tax deferrals? Can MDs not contribute to 401k plans or other tax deferred retirement plans?

The Bush Tax cuts?? WHAT??? Are you really simultaneously arguing that doctors earning $300k are taxed too much AND that the Bush Tax cuts, affecting households earning $250k and above, should expire, thus causing high income earners like this doctor to be taxed MORE??? I will admit to being off base before when I said it before, but now I say it again: PICK A SIDE AND STICK TO YOUR GUNS!!

physical therapist wrote:

Since this is an anonymous message board, why don't you enlighten us with your protocol? It would seem there is no risk for you.

It would only be fair.

Also, why would the FDA be concerned with a strengthening program?

The protocol is low-force, high-intensity strength training utilizing a specialize machine that isolates the deep muscles of the lumbar spine. Strengthening these muscles is vital, and sometimes all that is necessary for the treatment of lower back pain, and they cannot be effectively exercised in any other except with a properly designed machine, of which there are only two kinds available (neither of which I have any financial interest in promoting). Although it doesn't heal deranged discs and joints, strengthening the muscles that stabilize the vertebrae at the segmental level does wonders to relieve pain. The FDA won't allow the makers and users of these machines to claim that they can be used to treat back pain, because that would qualify them "medical devices" and therefore subject to the agency's regulatory authority.

f the po-lice wrote:

The protocol is low-force, high-intensity strength training utilizing a specialize machine that isolates the deep muscles of the lumbar spine. Strengthening these muscles is vital, and sometimes all that is necessary for the treatment of lower back pain, and they cannot be effectively exercised in any other except with a properly designed machine, of which there are only two kinds available (neither of which I have any financial interest in promoting). Although it doesn't heal deranged discs and joints, strengthening the muscles that stabilize the vertebrae at the segmental level does wonders to relieve pain. The FDA won't allow the makers and users of these machines to claim that they can be used to treat back pain, because that would qualify them "medical devices" and therefore subject to the agency's regulatory authority.

This actually sounds interesting and something that would probably be good for my deteriorating spinal health.

Why not seek approval from the FDA? Submit for a 510(k) filing. This would take some time, but the company would explode if it went through and was approved. If the machine manufacturer doesn't want to, offer to work with them and do the legwork (by hiring an engineer to do it for you - seriously, I know a lot of great start-up contacts for new 510(k) submissions, i can get you in touch if you want). As I said in an early post, there is an absolutely obscene amount of money in medical devices.

"With the 33% federal tax bracket, I paid 29% of my income this year to federal income tax."

So that means that your gross income was $379,150 and you had basically no deductions. If you had an AGI of 379,150, the amount of federal income tax you would owe would be 110,015, or 29.02%. If you made any less or had any deductions, then your federal income tax would be lower than 29%.