Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!) (updated: 04/28/2015)

Welcome to the Bankruptcy Forum. Bankruptcy (BK) Forum is known as BKForum.com and will be referred to as BKF hereinafter. In order to ensure a long term success of our vibrant community, we have established certain rules and guidelines to which everyone must adhere to. Please take your time to carefully read our rules, before you start to participate in the community.

Things you agree to do:
BKFORUM.com (BKF) users agree to use the search function before starting a new thread. This prevents duplicate discussions and allows for better organized topics.

All BKF users agree to read the sticky posts which may be available at the top of a forum page. These Sticky posts often contain valuable information. They may also outline more rules and guidelines specific for that particular forum, stickies are put in place by that forums moderator(s) or admin(s).

Things you agree not to do:

All BKF users agree not to call people names or write a post simply to make a personal attack, or get a negative reaction; this behavior is not allowed on our forum. The use of derogatory language aimed at anyone will be severely dealt with. There is no need to agree with each other, or to even like each other. However, by signing onto BKForum.com you agree to treat each member and guest with the respect they deserve. No threats or personal attacks will be allowed.

All BKF users agree not to discuss, engage, or encourage any behavior or activity which violates the law. Discussion of drugs, violence, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud or any other issue which could be used to help individuals break the law is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to "bump" old threads, unless there is a specific benefit to the community by doing so. But in most cases, please don't post in very old threads, instead start new threads.

All BKF users agree not to attempt/use another members account. It is against BKF rules to use any account other than your own. Impersonating another member will result in an immediate ban. It is also against the rules to open more than one account in your own name without permission from a moderator or administrator. If you have been banned for any reason, it is against the rules to open another account. If you were banned temporarily and you are caught using another account you will be banned permanently. Choosing a moniker which is similar in either sound or spelling as a moderator or administrator is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to private message any moderator, admin, or other member with questions related to their personal circumstances (Questions about the forum or issues with the forum are ok). This forum only works when members share their experience and insights with everyone.

Things you agree not to post:
All BKF users agree not to post any derogatory/racist/or sexist remarks. This includes attachments, links and all information contained within posts, signatures, and avatars, failure to comply with this rule will result in a permanent ban.

All BKF users agree not to post any copyrighted or trademarked information without the express written permission of the owner(s) / proper citation of source.

All BKF users agree not to post any real names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, or any other personal details (their own or other people's).

All BKF users agree not to post links, pictures, attachments, videos, or the like of pornographic content, objectionable material or extreme violence, whether cartoon or real.

All BKF users agree not to use BKF for advertising purposes without a written contract between yourself/company/agent and the administration of BKF. Blatant advertising will result in a ban.

All BKF users agree not to spam the forums. Spam includes but is not limited to posting erroneous, non-relevant-useless, off-topic, or meaningless posts. Spam may also include posts which contain no text, or large areas of blank space between lines. Simply posting emoticons without text is considered spam. BKF is the largest bankruptcy message board and all the content is intended to help other users. Please help us improve the quality of our forum by making sure that your posts are well-worded, spell checked, grammatically correct and syntaxed.

Regarding actions of moderators and administrators:

The forum is no place to air out your opinion or be judgmental of our staff and its capabilities.

All BKF users agree not to abuse or mistreat moderators or administrators. It is against BKF rules to post any information regarding bans or any other action taken by a member of the moderating or administrative team. If you wish to discuss bans or warnings please do so via PM. To place a complaint against a moderator, send a PM to a super moderator. All Moderators are equal, any decision made by a moderator must be adhered to. If a moderator tells you something you do not like, do not go to another moderator looking for a different answer. If you are caught doing this you will be banned. The moderators work as a team and respect the decisions made by their peers and will help enforce them unless an administrator tells them differently.
If you have an issue with how the forum is run, then notify one of our administrator and we will look into the situation. We have in the past and still do appreciate any input that you offer this forum. But critical input and/or judgmental postings towards the staff will result in you getting banned.


Should you find a thread offensive or out of line, then notify a Mod in a PM so they can evaluate the situation and do the action deemed necessary.

All moderators do have active "other" lives outside of the forum and help moderate this forum in their spare time throughout the days and weeks.

If you have a problem with a member or Mod follow the proper channels of reporting it.

BKF reserves the right to delete any posts which contain anti-BKF comments or discussion. Any bashing of moderators or administrators, or any of their discussion or actions will also be deleted, and the responsible posting party(s) will be banned. Any public anti-BKF advertising, communication, or posts on another forum will result in permanent bans as well.

All warnings and bans are decided by individual moderators and administrators. Warnings are preferable to bans however, for serious offenses and repeat abusers bans will go into effect. The length of the bans can vary from several hours to permanent.

All messages posted or sent including through PM are the property of BKforum.com.

All BKF users agree not to advertiser on the forum (Niether by posting, private messaging or using your signature). If you are a company/attorney/legal adviser wishing to advertise on the site or sell a product, you must contact the head administrator and inquire about our advertising packages.

All bankruptcy related opinions expressed on BKForum.com are those of their authors and not necessarily of BKF, its staff or representatives.

You agree not to copy any material/post/content from BKF without written permission from our head administrator .

By posting on this forum you agree to these terms and conditions, including any punishment deemed appropriate by moderators or administrators in the event of an offense.

Administrators/Moderators can change these rules at any time without prior notice.
See more
See less

Health Insurance Discussion

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hereforinfo View Post
    If 2/3 pay income taxes, they're doing it through identity theft. On top of that, they are in the lowest tax bracket and after standard deductions, EIC, child credits, etc. they end up paying ZERO federal income tax and actually get a refund just like any low income worker. That means our tax dollars are actually paying them. The fact that they pay sales tax to the state they live in means nothing to me in another state, as their minimal contribution wouldn't even cover the local services they receive, let alone any of the burden they place on our federal tax system.
    No they don't have to pay taxes through identity theft. Their employer has to withhold taxes. So they are paying in - federal and state and soc. sec and medicare. Now because they are illegal, they don't dare file a tax return because that is when they would be discovered.
    So they don't get those refunds that legal workers making those wages would get.

    Yeah, they don't make a great deal of income because they are doing jobs that most other people aren't willing to do.

    That said, I do think people should come into this country legally. It's almost a separate issue from healthcare. If they get they get documented, it's not an issue. And I do see where it might be an incentive for them to do so if they are excluded from the system.

    I just think it's a lie that "they get everything for free". And it's easy to make them a scapegoat.
    March 2009 - Filed Ch 13 April 2009 - 341 Meeting
    Sept 2009 - Confirmed April 2014 Plan completed May 2014 - Discharged!!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by OhioFiler View Post
      I find it bemusing that we can carry on a discussion about ILLEGAL aliens and never address the concept of removing them.
      This country depends on them. So "let's get them all out by yersterday" simply doesn't work. Sad but if we take advantage of them by paying far less for jobs legal citizens wouldn't even consider for that hourly wage, we can't complain they are still here...

      Somebody has to hire them and is making a profit, right?
      Last edited by IBroke; 09-12-2009, 01:47 PM.
      Filed CH7 9/24/2010, 341 on 10/28/2010, Disch.&Closed: 1/6/2011. FICO EX: 9/2: 672.
      FICO EQ: pre-filing: 573, After BK Public Record: 568, 10/3: 673.
      FICO TU: pre-filing: 589, After BK Public Record: 563, 9/2: 706.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TooMuchCredit View Post
        No they don't have to pay taxes through identity theft. Their employer has to withhold taxes. So they are paying in - federal and state and soc. sec and medicare. Now because they are illegal, they don't dare file a tax return because that is when they would be discovered.
        So they don't get those refunds that legal workers making those wages would get.

        Yeah, they don't make a great deal of income because they are doing jobs that most other people aren't willing to do.

        That said, I do think people should come into this country legally. It's almost a separate issue from healthcare. If they get they get documented, it's not an issue. And I do see where it might be an incentive for them to do so if they are excluded from the system.

        I just think it's a lie that "they get everything for free". And it's easy to make them a scapegoat.
        Their employer can only withhold and pay taxes if they have a social security number. If that's the case the income is being reported to the IRS, they would have to file a return at some point. Unless their income is below the threshold, in which case they wouldn't have to pay taxes on it anyway. If they don't have a social security number, then they are paid under the table and there is no tax paid or withheld.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by IBroke View Post
          This country depends on them. So "let's get them all out by yersterday" simply doesn't work. Sad but if we take advantage of them by paying far less for jobs legal citizens wouldn't even consider for that hourly wage, we can't complain they are still here...

          Somebody has to hire them and is making a profit, right?
          So I'm to understand that because they are working for less than some Americans will work for it's okay to skirt the law? Which other laws do you propose we ignore?

          The unemployment rate is near 17% in this country. In some areas of agricultural California the rate in much higher. Are you trying to make me believe that Americans who are unemployed won't do the work the illegals do? I got an idea. Stop paying unemployment benefits and see how many Americans are willing to pick lettuce.

          Anyone who accepts the premise that illegals are here to stay because there are too many or because they provide a valued service has no respect for our nation's laws.
          Well, I did. Every one of 'em. Mostly I remember the last one. The wild finish. A guy standing on a station platform in the rain with a comical look in his face because his insides have been kicked out. -Rick

          Comment


          • Originally posted by OhioFiler View Post
            So I'm to understand that because they are working for less than some Americans will work for it's okay to skirt the law? Which other laws do you propose we ignore?

            The unemployment rate is near 17% in this country. In some areas of agricultural California the rate in much higher. Are you trying to make me believe that Americans who are unemployed won't do the work the illegals do? I got an idea. Stop paying unemployment benefits and see how many Americans are willing to pick lettuce.

            Anyone who accepts the premise that illegals are here to stay because there are too many or because they provide a valued service has no respect for our nation's laws.
            I'm not saying it's OK - I'm just describing the "AS IS"-status and that it will probably stay that way. We all know it's wrong - but please tell me why nobody is fighting it? I tell you why: Because we - as a society - take advantage of them just as they do take advantage of us. It's a give and take. The "action" and so-called "border-patrols" are a joke itself. They should only DISPLAY to the public that this country is fighting illegal immigration. What a joke. If this topic would be important and would actually cause damages to our economy, don't you think we would be more involved?

            Illegals are doing the work American citizens aren't keen on doing, at a rate American citizens couldn't survive on, allowing American companies to offer their products and services at competative prices and as a result, allowing American consumers to get these products cheaper. And why is this done? Because it's working. It's a win-win situation for many people involved and THAT'S why the government stays away from that issue.

            If you want to have them out of the country by tomorrow, you will have to face the CONSEQUENCES.

            Did it ever came to your mind that there are TWO SIDES of this story? Why can illegals work in this country in the first place? Because they are HIRED by companies who violate the law. Now WHY are they hired if it's illegal?

            Back to the lettuce...:
            The companies hiring illegals have only one thing in mind - and that's called PROFIT. True, we have millions of unemployed in this country but they simply won't and can't do the work at the same wage. That's an economical fact. And do you know what's going to happen once these jobs are performed by legal residents who are paid in such way that they can support their families - here in THIS country?

            We will pay TWICE as much for the lettuce - because the companies are still going to get their profits.

            I know that those people who have illegal aliens on top of their agenda also kling to their hard earned money - So be careful what you wish for. In this case, you can't have it both ways.

            Your "Sledgehammer-All illegals out today" might work in a fantasy fairy-land - but NOT in REALITY.
            Last edited by IBroke; 09-12-2009, 07:20 PM.
            Filed CH7 9/24/2010, 341 on 10/28/2010, Disch.&Closed: 1/6/2011. FICO EX: 9/2: 672.
            FICO EQ: pre-filing: 573, After BK Public Record: 568, 10/3: 673.
            FICO TU: pre-filing: 589, After BK Public Record: 563, 9/2: 706.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OhioFiler View Post
              I find it bemusing that we can carry on a discussion about ILLEGAL aliens and never address the concept of removing them. It's as though we've accepted them ans the law means nothing.

              Here's my plan for health care for illegals. If they are sick, treat them in a prison hospital.
              I actually pointed out a few posts before this one of yours that we should seal our border
              May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
              July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
              September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by IBroke View Post
                This country depends on them. So "let's get them all out by yersterday" simply doesn't work. Sad but if we take advantage of them by paying far less for jobs legal citizens wouldn't even consider for that hourly wage, we can't complain they are still here...

                Somebody has to hire them and is making a profit, right?
                The country doesn't have to depend on them. If we didn't pay people to sit on their butts and do nothing then we wouldn't need them. Instead we've created a welfare state where we literally pay some of our citizens just to sit on their butts and do nothing.
                May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
                July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
                September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JRScott View Post
                  The country doesn't have to depend on them. If we didn't pay people to sit on their butts and do nothing then we wouldn't need them. Instead we've created a welfare state where we literally pay some of our citizens just to sit on their butts and do nothing.
                  In theory, that's true. But here's the problem:

                  First, not every unemployed is entitled to a welfare-check every month. Before you can collect from the "cookie-jar", you usually are required to have made regular contributions/deductions from your paycheck when you were still employed. If that's the case, these people are entitled to a certain monthly amount. Now how do you wan't to force them to work for less than welfare? And trust me, THAT'S the payscale where you find many of the jobs performed by illegal aliens. These families only send the head of the household across the border to work. He keeps his own expenses low and transfers the rest of the money across the border. The ironic part is that - even if he would be allowed to bring his family to the US - he couldn't afford the living expenses for them in this country from the money he's earning. And if Jose from Mexico can't manage that, you can be sure that Jack from CA couldn't, either.

                  Second, if you would be forcing unemployed people to perform these jobs, the work STILL has to provide them with a SUFFICIENT income. Ultimately, that would lead to a huge cost-increase to specific services and goods which would have to be passed on to us, the consumers - UNLESS the government jumps in to fill these gaps. But if the government gets involved - "socialism".

                  American labor is good labor - but it certainly isn't the cheapest. So again, replacing illegals will be expensive.

                  If the jobs in CA would provide a worker with a wage you could actually survive on - IN CALIFORNIA - I'm convinced they wouldn't be vacant for too long. But are $6 or more for a bag of lettuce really competative? I guess that's why the jobs are still open...
                  Last edited by IBroke; 09-13-2009, 01:54 AM.
                  Filed CH7 9/24/2010, 341 on 10/28/2010, Disch.&Closed: 1/6/2011. FICO EX: 9/2: 672.
                  FICO EQ: pre-filing: 573, After BK Public Record: 568, 10/3: 673.
                  FICO TU: pre-filing: 589, After BK Public Record: 563, 9/2: 706.

                  Comment


                  • I think maybe we have something. Why not have the people actually on unemployment insurance, actually do 10-20 hours during the weeks when they actually receive unemployment. Have them work on community projects. Almost like the CETA program from the 1980s. (CETA - Comprehensive Employment and Training Act)
                    Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                    Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                    Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


                    I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by justbroke View Post
                      I think maybe we have something. Why not have the people actually on unemployment insurance, actually do 10-20 hours during the weeks when they actually receive unemployment. Have them work on community projects. Almost like the CETA program from the 1980s. (CETA - Comprehensive Employment and Training Act)

                      I believe anyone receiving any tax dollar funded assistance should be required to work a certain amount of community service each week. I don't care if its HUD, WIC, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc. We should not be giving them a free ride.
                      May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
                      July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
                      September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IBroke View Post
                        In theory, that's true. But here's the problem:

                        First, not every unemployed is entitled to a welfare-check every month. Before you can collect from the "cookie-jar", you usually are required to have made regular contributions/deductions from your paycheck when you were still employed. If that's the case, these people are entitled to a certain monthly amount. Now how do you wan't to force them to work for less than welfare? And trust me, THAT'S the payscale where you find many of the jobs performed by illegal aliens. These families only send the head of the household across the border to work. He keeps his own expenses low and transfers the rest of the money across the border. The ironic part is that - even if he would be allowed to bring his family to the US - he couldn't afford the living expenses for them in this country from the money he's earning. And if Jose from Mexico can't manage that, you can be sure that Jack from CA couldn't, either.

                        Second, if you would be forcing unemployed people to perform these jobs, the work STILL has to provide them with a SUFFICIENT income. Ultimately, that would lead to a huge cost-increase to specific services and goods which would have to be passed on to us, the consumers - UNLESS the government jumps in to fill these gaps. But if the government gets involved - "socialism".

                        American labor is good labor - but it certainly isn't the cheapest. So again, replacing illegals will be expensive.

                        If the jobs in CA would provide a worker with a wage you could actually survive on - IN CALIFORNIA - I'm convinced they wouldn't be vacant for too long. But are $6 or more for a bag of lettuce really competative? I guess that's why the jobs are still open...
                        If you remove the illegal immigrants and remove folks from the welfare lists, then folks will gravitate to jobs that will support them. If a job pays subpar then they will find no employees and will go out of business....that's the free market.
                        May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
                        July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
                        September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JRScott View Post
                          I believe anyone receiving any tax dollar funded assistance should be required to work a certain amount of community service each week. I don't care if its HUD, WIC, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc. We should not be giving them a free ride.
                          There's huge fraud in non-taxpayer supported services as well. For example, privately-held auto and health insurance fraud is also rampant. Should we force everyone who buys insurance to provide some designated service as well because some abuse it?

                          On a practical, non-ideological front, if we require everyone who receives tax-funded assistance to give a certain number of hours a week towards community services, what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this? How about folks with development disabilities who aren't capable of providing community services? How about those who work at low-income full-time jobs who need these services to fill in the gaps? Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less.

                          It's a fantasy to believe that everyone who gets tax-dollar-funded services is an able-bodied adult just sitting at home living off the dole. Are there some using these services who take advantage? Sure. Is it the majority? Absolutely not.

                          Let me know once you figure out a way to stop human beings from being untruthful and self-serving. It's the ONLY way fraud and abuse in ALL private and government services will stop.
                          I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice nor a statement of the law - only a lawyer can provide those.

                          06/01/06 - Filed Ch 13
                          06/28/06 - 341 Meeting
                          07/18/06 - Confirmation Hearing - not confirmed, 3 objections
                          10/05/06 - Hearing to resolve 2 trustee objections
                          01/24/07 - Judge dismisses mortgage company objection
                          09/27/07 - Confirmed at last!
                          06/10/11 - Trustee confirms all payments made
                          08/10/11 - DISCHARGED !

                          10/02/11 - CASE CLOSED
                          Countdown: 60 months paid, 0 months to go

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lrprn View Post
                            On a practical, non-ideological front, if we require everyone who receives tax-funded assistance to give a certain number of hours a week towards community services, what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this?
                            I'm actually for giveback to the community uynder these programs. I suggest a waiver for people who cannot giveback, due to childcare issues and/or mobility issues.

                            My problem... I actually know a 31 year old person with absolutely no disabilities, on unemployment and food stamps. This person also has no children, never married, has a working vehicle, etc, etc.

                            My point on CETA was that it was an actual employment program, and that it does in fact provide jobs.
                            Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                            Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                            Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


                            I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lrprn View Post
                              There's huge fraud in non-taxpayer supported services as well. For example, privately-held auto and health insurance fraud is also rampant. Should we force everyone who buys insurance to provide some designated service as well because some abuse it?

                              On a practical, non-ideological front, if we require everyone who receives tax-funded assistance to give a certain number of hours a week towards community services, what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this? How about folks with development disabilities who aren't capable of providing community services? How about those who work at low-income full-time jobs who need these services to fill in the gaps? Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? This is more government, not less.

                              It's a fantasy to believe that everyone who gets tax-dollar-funded services is an able-bodied adult just sitting at home living off the dole. Are there some using these services who take advantage? Sure. Is it the majority? Absolutely not.

                              Let me know once you figure out a way to stop human beings from being untruthful and self-serving. It's the ONLY way fraud and abuse in ALL private and government services will stop.
                              what do you suggest we do with people's under-school-age children without child care while they do this? Same thing they do when they go out to eat and don't take the kids or go shopping, they can leave them with the other spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, parents, grandparents, or hire a sitter.

                              How about folks with development disabilities who aren't capable of providing community services? If they truly are not capable of doing anything allow a waiver, but even the disabled can do many things even if its just helping file papers or go get lunch for folks at the courthouse. Plus it gives them a sense of accomplishment.


                              How about those who work at low-income full-time jobs who need these services to fill in the gaps? Assuming they are only working 40 hours a week a small community service assignment isn't going to hurt them. If they work say more than that then cut down the community service time at least they are working. Doesn't have to be a large commitment could be just 8 hours a week or something.

                              Will everyone who receives tax-funded services have to be screened to determine if they can provide community services? Supposidly they are being screened to get their services and that should include enough information on what service jobs they could do without drastically increasing paperwork. It would increase the load on the Magistrate or whoever assigns community service such that additional ones might be needed.

                              It's a fantasy to believe that everyone who gets tax-dollar-funded services is an able-bodied adult just sitting at home living off the dole. Are there some using these services who take advantage? Sure. Is it the majority? Absolutely not. While perhaps not a majority there is a large number of cases where folks actually could work. I think the system is largely broke especially where children are concerned, there are sadly a large number that see they can get a free ride and have children knowing that the government will basically keep them up and they will have to do nothing. That's not good policy and not good for the kids either.


                              All the current system does with its no pain approach is teach folks to raise up more generations dependent upon the same government aid and little to any personal responsibility to improve oneself. I see it a lot around here in rural America. There are generations of families that get into welfare and intentionally construe their lives to stay on it for free hand outs and that needs to stop.
                              May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
                              July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
                              September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

                              Comment


                              • I do agree somewhat with some of what you saying in that people on public assistance keep popping out babies because that keeps the welfare check rolling in. Yet they don't know who the father is etc.

                                It might be harsh, but I almost think the only way to stop that is to have as a requirement to receiving any public assistance (with exceptions for those that truely are disabled and unable to work) you must sign something promising not to have any children while on public support. If you break that, a woman has to have her tubes tied and a man has to have a vasectomy. All of which are reversible so when you are back on your feet you can have kids - but you must also pay to have it reversed since you broke the promise in the first place. Now it will cost public $ to fund the initial operations, but it might stop the vicious cycle and cost less in the long run. If you are on public assistance and are able bodied, it is not the time to start or enlarge your family since you are unable to support even yourself.
                                March 2009 - Filed Ch 13 April 2009 - 341 Meeting
                                Sept 2009 - Confirmed April 2014 Plan completed May 2014 - Discharged!!

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X