|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 11 2015 00:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. The point that KwarK is getting at is that there are a great many Obamacare dissenters who found their dissatisfaction upon a misunderstanding of the ACA and are, in turn, implicating their own inability to manage their finances and take advantage of the safety nets available instead of reflecting on the quality of the law itself. This contrasts with your assumption that the unfortunate Buckyman was pushed down the cracks in the law as opposed to having slipped down them on his own accord. Granted, getting into someone's personal finances is a messy business that ought not be used to prove a point, but Buckyman invited that sort of analysis the moment he out forth his own anecdotal experience in support of a viewpoint.
Maybe the gigantic package of laws and regulations that is Obamacare does provide for him, I don't think with the information provided, anybody here is at all qualified to say one way or the other. I tend to take things at face value, and at face value there is a problem.
Whether that problem is that Obamacare truly does not have some clause somewhere that would provide for buckyman, or whether the problem is that the information provided about Obamacare did not let buckyman navigate his way to the solution for his problem, both are problems in the implementation of Obamacare. When rolling out a complex and new system, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that everybody affected knows what to do to navigate their way through this system. Kwark seems to jump immediately to the conclusion that buckyman is lazy and/or negligent for not navigating his way through this system. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially because the roll out of Obamacare was absolutely not flawless.
Also, there is no shame in acknowledging that some people might have gotten shafted by Obamacare, although politicians hate reality. It's a pipe dream that the system would not cause problems somewhere. The point is still that on the whole it's better than what was in place before. It also doesn't mean that it shouldn't be improved upon for people like buckyball: either by making it easier for him to navigate the rules and find out what exemption he can file, how he can get a subsidy, or medicaid, or what-have-you. Or by fixing whatever crack in the system actually exists for him to fall through.
I believe he is completely justified in stating what he did: that for him Obamacare sucks, and he much prefers the old system. Rather than attacking him over it, acknowledge that there are cases where this for, any one of a myriad of reasons, this might be true, and push your politicians to solve these cases. I'm not saying repeal Obamacare. I'm saying find ways to improve on the minorities that are getting screwed by it. Advertisement campaigns for little known exemption clauses, amendments to add fixes, or pressuring state politicians to accept medicaid.
|
On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it.
Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy.
Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him.
Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare.
|
Except that it's very likely that there is a solution to Buckyman's insurance cost problem. It might not be the most obvious thing in the world, but Kwark pointed out that he can just zero out the withholdings on his paycheck, communicate that his premium is a significant chunk of his paycheck, and then he doesn't have to pay for insurance or a penalty. There is a mechanism in place to protect people in his situation from costs. Obamacare also has a call center with people to help you figure out how to sign up (or in this case, not sign up) for insurance.
Federal regulation is just a pain in the ass to navigate, but if you truly want to save money, a little digging can go a long way. On my first tax filing, I expect to owe nothing. I started in June, so I work about half a year (so my income is half of the actual annualized amount). I contribute a bunch to retirement and move money to other tax deferred/ advantaged account so my taxable income is basically zero.
|
On September 11 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it. Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy. Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him. Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare.
No he lives in a state that chose to refuse the medicaid funding because they thought fucking over their citizens would help them repeal obamacare. The NFIB (a conservative lobby group) fought legal battles in all 50 states, culminating in a supreme court case which ruled that states could opt out of the medicaid expansion. The states that opted out (the south, midwest, and texas) did so because they thought it would win them a political victory in the form of obamacare being repealed. They were wrong.
|
This is a big step forward to holding larger companies feet to the fire. Focusing on the people, rather than the company is a better way to reduce illegal activity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/usa-crime-whitecollar-idUSL1N11G1A020150910
U.S. outlines new policy for investigating corporate executives
The U.S. Department of Justice's No. 2 official was to lay out the rationale on Thursday behind a revised policy for prosecutors to focus on wrongdoing by corporate executives, after criticism they had failed to do so, especially in the 2008-09 financial meltdown and housing crisis.
Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates was scheduled to deliver a speech on white-collar crime at 12:45 p.m. (1645 GMT) at New York University School of Law.
On Wednesday, Yates sent a memo to federal prosecutors across the United States which said that in future investigations a company would not receive any credit for cooperating unless it disclosed all relevant facts about the people involved in suspected wrongdoing or crimes.
Corporations put a high value on getting credit for cooperating with prosecutors because that can mean lower fines or less serious charges against the business itself.
"It's all or nothing," Yates planned to say, according to excerpts of the speech released by the Justice Department. "No more picking and choosing what gets disclosed. No more partial credit for cooperation that doesn't include information about individuals."
Yates' memo also said that corporate investigations would focus from the beginning on individuals, rather than focus solely on wrongdoing by the corporation.
The written changes codify some practices that Justice Department officials have been pushing already, especially after criticism by lawmakers and the general public that the government has not investigated individual executives vigorously enough about their conduct in the lead up to the global financial crisis. (Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Grant McCool)
|
On September 11 2015 01:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Obamacare also has a call center with people to help you figure out how to sign up (or in this case, not sign up) for insurance.
I have had bad experiences with the call center.
I signed up through the call center. I did tell them about my income situation. They advised me to sign up anyway. That was their job, to get people to sign up.
I have had a couple of other bad experiences with the call center. After being on hold for several hours trying to update my plan, when I got through they couldn't do anything because their back end was overloaded. Repeat.
I also got inconsistent information from them regarding tax strategy - a "yes you can" when I signed up and a "no you can't" on my tax forms and when I called in about the "incorrect" tax forms. (A bit of pro bono help from an actual expert said "yes you can" was the right answer after all)
|
Trump is continuing to peak in the polls are Clinton continues to struggle.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-hits-highest-support-national-poll/story?id=33653834
Donald Trump is showing no signs of slowing down.
Donald Trump has won over the support of almost a third of Republican voters in the country, stretching to 32 percent support -- his highest national number this election cycle - in a new CNN/ORC poll out this morning.
So what's behind the real estate mogul's eight-point boost since August? Two groups: women and college grads. Trump is up 13 percentage points among Republican women in the last month, according to CNN/ORC polls. He's also climbed 12 points among Republicans with college degrees.
And now, a bare majority of Republican voters -- 51 percent -- say they think that Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination.
Trump is trailed by neurosurgeon Ben Carson, up 10 points since August to 19 percent support, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with 9 percent. Carson and Trump - who both have never been elected to public office - combine to garner support from 51 percent of Republican voters.
But while the Republican frontrunner continues to tick upward in national polls, a new Iowa poll shows Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's lead completely gone for the first time.
A new Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday morning shows Bernie Sanders at 41 percent and Hillary Clinton at 40 percent in Iowa - a virtual tie. Clinton is down 12 points since early July, while Sanders is up 8 points in the same timespan.
The results highlight a stark gender gap among Democratic voters: 49 percent of men support Sanders, while 28 percent support Clinton. But 49 percent of women support Clinton, while 35 percent support Sanders.
Vice President Joe Biden, who is still weighing a White House bid, clocked in at 12 percent.
Clinton continues to struggle in her trustworthiness amid questions about her private email server. 30 percent of Democrats say she is not honest and trustworthy, compared to only 5 percent for Biden and 4 percent for Sanders.
|
The ACA is a burden for a lot of people. End of story. Drilling down to the root causes doesn't change that fact. Some of you guys are such hacks.
|
On September 11 2015 01:35 heliusx wrote:
The ACA is a burden for a lot of people. End of story. Drilling down to the root causes doesn't change that fact. Some of you guys are such hacks.
And it saved a lot of people from crippling medical debt.
|
On September 11 2015 01:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 01:35 heliusx wrote:
The ACA is a burden for a lot of people. End of story. Drilling down to the root causes doesn't change that fact. Some of you guys are such hacks. And it saved a lot of people from crippling medical debt.
And the sky is blue. And and and.
|
On September 11 2015 01:38 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 01:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 01:35 heliusx wrote:
The ACA is a burden for a lot of people. End of story. Drilling down to the root causes doesn't change that fact. Some of you guys are such hacks. And it saved a lot of people from crippling medical debt. And the sky is blue. And and and.
You're the one coming in there with the "Ground Breaking" revelation that the ACA isn't a perfect system. Did you expect us to be thankful for your revelation?
|
On September 11 2015 01:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 01:38 heliusx wrote:On September 11 2015 01:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 01:35 heliusx wrote:
The ACA is a burden for a lot of people. End of story. Drilling down to the root causes doesn't change that fact. Some of you guys are such hacks. And it saved a lot of people from crippling medical debt. And the sky is blue. And and and. You're the one coming in there with the "Ground Breaking" revelation that the ACA isn't a perfect system. Did you expect us to be thankful for your revelation?
The burden of proof is never on the guy making sweeping statements.
Just ask Trump.
|
On September 11 2015 01:52 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 01:45 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 01:38 heliusx wrote:On September 11 2015 01:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 01:35 heliusx wrote:
The ACA is a burden for a lot of people. End of story. Drilling down to the root causes doesn't change that fact. Some of you guys are such hacks. And it saved a lot of people from crippling medical debt. And the sky is blue. And and and. You're the one coming in there with the "Ground Breaking" revelation that the ACA isn't a perfect system. Did you expect us to be thankful for your revelation? The burden of proof is never on the guy making sweeping statements. Just ask Trump.
The Republican’s paved the way for Trump through years of telling their base they were going to repeal the ACA with full knowledge they couldn’t. Like simple math would have told anyone is was impossible. The modern era of conservative politics, where being told what you want to hear is most important.
|
Vote for me, I promise to design a better system which will of course never make it into law.
|
On September 10 2015 14:28 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 13:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 10 2015 12:51 Buckyman wrote:
1) Federal government takes my health hostage to get the state to change its laws
2) The state refuses to cooperate
3) Blame the state?
No, I'm blaming the federal government for causing the problem in the first place. Well, if you're going to blame the federal government, blame the Supreme Court for deciding that suddenly holding Medicaid, or in general large federal to stage funding hostage (which had been done multiple times before) was not possible. Seriously, there's no way the people in Congress could have anticipated that decades of precedent would be thrown out. That was how pretty much any Medicaid change was implemented as far as I know. Except that a large % of States didn't accept the Medicaid program to begin with, and its implementation took several years, and there was clear precedent on it that it couldn't be overly coercive, plus the evidence that those "decades of precedent" were actually not in accordance with the Constitution, and were merely a sort of judicial abdication on economic matters. But I do agree with you on a point, that the doughnut hole was a result that could easily be anticipated, meaning that there is a fundamental flaw in the decision: That the Medicaid Expansion was severable from the law as a whole. (By the way, it was 7-2 against the mandatory expansion).
This is just from my post-ACA decision health policy classes, though they were taught by a law professor. I just don't think the idea of differential constitutionality of coercion (edit: versus persuasion) was elaborated on enough for anyone to actually know what they can do with future policy. There are a lot of lingering questions that as far as I know the courts just let sit. Had the ACA withheld 5% of Medicaid funds (like the minimum drinking age did for highways), would it have been constitutional? Is 5% of 10% coercive? Is 10% of 10%?
What if there was a differential in how important the funds being withheld were for different states by proxy of how those states are currently doing economically? If a single state is being coerced, is the law then unconstitutional? Can a law thus be unconstitutional today but constitutional tomorrow purely due to economic changes in the states?
Then there's other considerations. Could the ACA have abolished Medicaid and replaced it with an identical structure plus the additional provisions in one bill? Could that be done in two separate bills? Would both bills then be unconstitutional as coercive? Only the latter?
+ Show Spoiler +It also just incenses me that post-ruling there was still absolutely no sane reason for states NOT to accept the Medicaid expansion and yet some didn't to prove a point and cause their citizens to suffer, but that's politics I guess.
|
United States41982 Posts
On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it.
No, it's both of them. His state government could have implemented a great policy well to get him healthcare. Instead they chose not to. He then misunderstood how it worked and bought healthcare he couldn't afford rather than just going without healthcare which, unfortunately, is the reality of his situation with no money in America.
|
United States41982 Posts
On September 11 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it. Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy. Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him. Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare.
The problem he is describing is user error. He qualifies for the exemption and even if he didn't bother getting the exemption he is, by default, exempt due to his lack of any Federal tax burden.
If you're going to blame user error on the system rather than the user then you might as well attack flu shots because they taste bad, the glass of the needle is all crunchy when you eat them and then you poop blood.
|
On September 11 2015 02:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it. Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy. Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him. Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare. The problem he is describing is user error. He qualifies for the exemption and even if he didn't bother getting the exemption he is, by default, exempt due to his lack of any Federal tax burden. If you're going to blame user error on the system rather than the user then you might as well attack flu shots because they taste bad, the glass of the needle is all crunchy when you eat them and then you poop blood.
Just because you are a highly informed, highly educated guy who knows how to find all the information with relative ease does not mean everybody is. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people get told to sign up for Obamacare, go to the website and follow the instructions. If they run into problems, they phone the call center. They do not perform exhaustive google searches to figure out why the information that was readily available to them was wrong and how they should actually act.
Can you call it user error? Yes. Sure. But working in CS, I also know that most user error is entirely avoidable through good design. Don't hide necessary functionality in a submenu of a tab that you can only reach by clicking on a badly designed icon (unless you are Adobe Photoshop), and expect users to just suck it up.
With something as important as Obamacare, the way it is presented to the end user is equally essential as the system itself. In this case, either the information provided to bucky was not presented in a way he managed to access it. While I agree that you cannot possibly account for absolutely everybody, and no matter how well you design your system there will be someone who it doesn't work properly for. However, bucky's case is not unique and while you can argue that all of these cases are covered by some clause of Obamacare, figuring out which exact clause your case is in fact covered by, was NOT made easy enough.
And apparently the call center didn't help.
EDIT: actual user error would be if someone had told him to avoid signing up and that he is exempt from the fine, and then he went ahead and signed up anyway.
|
If there is one thing I've learned, it's that in the real world information or resources you need or should have are very rarely readily available. At work, I sometimes spend half an hour attempting to find a single fact-- sometimes I find it, sometimes I don't. You can't expect the ACA, a document which as thousands of pages and has gone through thousands of iterations, to be "user friendly". Look at the tax code-- we can all agree it's important, but it's hardly user friendly. That's why we have the big 4 accounting firms, tax software and Jackson Hewitt.
|
United States41982 Posts
Googling "what is the penalty if I don't get Obamacare" and clicking on the top result does not, to me, seem like an undue burden. The top result explains that for this year it is 2% of your income or $325, whichever is higher. It takes the more complicated search of "how is the Obamacare penalty enforced" and the second result to learn that it's toothless.
As for taxes, that's something I feel honestly everyone should have at least a minimal understanding of but I blame the American education system for that more than I do the people. That said, given that it's your money being taken people should show the initiative to learn how their taxes are collected, it'll be some of the best paying hours of work you'll ever do. I even found it fun to learn how the system works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
