LMAO Cornell students erupt over health care fee LOL

Originally Posted by Richard

Two of my three sons went to college in Texas and, even with our family coverage and them being under 22, they had to pay the university's 'health fee' (along with several other assessed fees) per semester even if they chose not to use the services.

I suspect there would also be more fees today - universities are looking for ways to add to their operating coffers any way they can.

Richard

Universities are having to supply more services than ever before, because students demand them.

Originally Posted by tonyz

My commentary generally points out the irony of those complaining. Particularly amusing is Cornell's acknowledgment of the continued rising costs of health care. Afterall, I thought Obamacare cured all? And, As I read things, portions of this new fee allegedly goes to service old debt and not for servicing current healthcare costs.

Anyway, in a free market and at a private university let them impose as many fees as the market will bear.

Still, watching budding community organizers complain about fees for stuff they will never use remains amusing.

And, I agree with you, I too want EMS service and I pay through the nose in multiple locations for it. All these years of paying and paying and paying and thank God we have yet to use it.

On the other hand, the crackhead, welfare recipient, renter, nontaxpayer, down the street has used municipal services of various types (some might say disproportionally to their contribution) over the past few years...

And, I agree with you again...the kids are getting a taste of reality and a glimpse of their future...fees, and fees and fees and fees and fees...

Renters are taxpayers...they pay the landlord, who pays the property taxes.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by WCH

Renters are taxpayers...they pay the landlord, who pays the property taxes.

Yup, but not always, i.e., when rent is actually subsidized...the renter is then using taxpayer funds (subsidy, housing voucher, whatever) to pay the rent. For illustration purposes only, it feels different to me to say that I "pay" property tax with my own money...versus paying tax with your (govt subsidy) money.

It is true that owner pays the property tax.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by tonyz

It is true that owner pays the property tax.

And corporations pay corporation tax. NOT! There are only two sides to a profit/loss balance sheet. Rental property property taxes are paid by the tenants. Corporation taxes are paid by the consumer. Always has been and always will be. Social Security taxes are only paid by the employee. Unemployment insurance is only paid by the employee. That is the reality.

Learning economics by watching Scrooge McDuck cartoons have made this nation economically ignorant.

Pat

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by PSM

And corporations pay corporation tax. NOT! There are only two sides to a profit/loss balance sheet. Rental property property taxes are paid by the tenants. Corporation taxes are paid by the consumer. Always has been and always will be. Social Security taxes are only paid by the employee. Unemployment insurance is only paid by the employee. That is the reality.

Learning economics by watching Scrooge McDuck cartoons have made this nation economically ignorant.

Pat

Pat,

uh oh, time for more cartoons -

(1) Income statements,

(2) Balance sheets,

(3) Statement of cash flows

All separate and distinct financial reporting statements.

The balance sheet reports assets, liabilities and shareholder equity.

A profit or loss statement measures, well, profit or loss.

Cash flow...well.

You seem to have created a hybrid of sorts to make a point. Incorrect, but let's go with it.

But, to the extent that a tenant pays rent I will concede that a portion of that rent will go to payment of property tax by the landlord - no matter the source - govt subsidy or otherwise. Now, I guess everyone just became a taxpayer.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Pat,

uh oh, time for more cartoons -

(1) Income statements,

(2) Balance sheets,

(3) Statement of cash flows

All separate and distinct financial reporting statements.

The balance sheet reports assets, liabilities and shareholder equity.

A profit or loss statement measures, well, profit or loss.

Cash flow...well.

You seem to have created a hybrid of sorts to make a point. Incorrect, but let's go with it.

But, to the extent that a tenant pays rent I will concede that a portion of that rent will go to payment of property tax by the landlord - no matter the source - govt subsidy or otherwise. Now, I guess everyone just became a taxpayer.

Smoke and mirrors, amigo. If I expect a certain return on my investment and the government adds regulations and taxes to it, I will find a way around it. Because, to me, it's profit and loss only. Now, CPAs and tax lawyers are going to help me, so that adds to my loss side and rents or consumer prices go up. I'm only going to lose until I feel I can't recover and I'll shut down my business. Unless I'm a landlord and the city/county decides that rents should be frozen. Taxes aren't frozen, utility costs aren't frozen, insurance costs aren't frozen, inflation isn't frozen, repair costs aren't frozen. So, if the profit side of the balance sheet nears or falls below the cost side, what do you expect me to do? I can't sell a losing property. So, I can't keep up the property and get to be called a slum lord. Cool, huh?

Pat

[tonyz]

Let's try to make this simple.

The incidence of a tax attempts to measure where the burden of a tax actually falls.

A landlord, is responsible for payment of property tax on a given property which he or she owns.

A tenant, is responsible for paying rent for the use and occupation of property.

A portion of a rent payment will be used to pay the landlord's property tax.

However, If I pay am paying my rent with money that has been provided to me by a government subsidy -- where does the incidence of the tax ultimately fall? On the tenant that received the govt subsidy or the pool of taxpayers who actually contributed to the renters subsidy?

Reasonable people can differ.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Reasonable people can differ.

Sorry, they can not! Only one is right, because the nation's economy, and existence, depends on it.

Pat

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by PSM

Sorry, they can not! Either one is right, or one is wrong. The nation's economy, and existence, depends on it.

Pat

Ok - then you are wrong.

[alelks]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Let's try to make this simple.

However, If I pay am paying my rent with money that has been provided to me by a government subsidy -- where does the incidence of the tax ultimately fall? On the tenant that received the govt subsidy or the pool of taxpayers who actually contributed to the renters subsidy?

Reasonable people can differ.

And who paid the tax to give them that subsidy in the first place? It wasn't them as they didn't have the money.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by alelks

And who paid the tax to give them that subsidy in the first place? It wasn't them as they didn't have the money.

Bingo.

I hope the Cornell students learn some valuable life lessons from this experience...the Ivy League could benefit from an exchange program with the ultimate education..."the school of hard knocks."

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

A very small percentage of the population is the vast consumer of EMS services, to include many who abuse the program and use it as a free taxi ride. I have seen statistics indicating that some people called for EMS a dozen times or more every month.

Unfortunately, these same abusers are also not taxpayers, so the service really is free for them.

TR

This is one source of high BP for me that I had to resort to willful ignorance as coping mechanism and to remain professional when these folks came by EMS for sore throat, chronic rash, etc. Some even got creative and called EMS from the waiting room so they can skip the long triage ....then they had the audacity to ask for hospital voucher to cover the taxi ride home after discharge. From cradle to grave, indeed.

Originally Posted by WCH

Where I live they would be billed for transport.

not if they "can't afford" the bill