Page 39 of 76 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 758

Thread: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

  1. #381
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Great Idea, lets talk about investment. who do you think does it more-you or me?
    I invest in people daily. You?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #382
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    That's why I put up all those other taxes to show how they was going to get hit....
    Those Obamacare taxes are mostly pentalty taxes will will only effect a very small percentage of people who earn less $250,000.
    Another fact you and Forbes seem to ignore is that the money saved by having health insurance will most likely save the tax payers more on health care than the penalty taxes they pay out.
    Last edited by minnie616; 12-07-12 at 10:38 AM. Reason: typo
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  3. #383
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Those Obamacare taxes are mostly pentalty taxes will will only effect a very small percentage of people who earn less $250,000.
    Another fact you and Forbes seem to ignore is that the money saved by having healh insurance will most likely save the tax payers more on healh care than the penalty taxes they pay out.
    And that is why health insurance, and health care providers cost keep going up. Not down like Obama promised. Interesting how you ignored that fact. Further there are all kinds of taxes being imposed not just the penalty tax. When you add up all the taxes and the rising cost of health insurance and providers because of Obamacare, this is the biggest tax hike in US History.

    Here you go

    Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan

    Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike

    Complied by Americans for Tax Reform

    WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.

    $123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).

    Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

    $86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013):

    $65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):

    Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

    Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

    Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

    (Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

    $60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

    $32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

    $23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

    $22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

    $20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

    $15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

    $13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

    $5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

    $4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

    $4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

    $2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

    $1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

    $0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

    $0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

    $ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

    $ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  4. #384
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,077

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I agree. What I also think (and what you did not address) is that people invest to maximize return while minimizing risk, US business is not the only place to invest. Lower the return while keeping risk a constant (or rather, actually, mildly increasing it), and you make other investment venues more competitive relative to US Business. Canada (whose corporate tax rate is now 15%), for example, will do rather well off of a decision by us to hike up the capital gains rate.
    of course we're not the only game in town, and i agree that we're nuts for not dropping the corporate rate. however, if we only focus on spending cut austerity, that's going to have a serious chilling effect on the demand side. we have to balance it. we need new revenue, and we need spending cuts.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On this we would agree. Sadly, though he has mentioned it several times, the President seems to have no desire whatsoever to do so, and I imagine would infuriate a significant section of his base if he tried to.
    his base is going to have to suck it up, and it's his responsibility to explain to them why it's a good idea. individuals make money using the corporation. that's where it should be taxed. corporate taxes usually hurt the smaller corporations more anyway; the big ones can find their way around it. i'd vastly prefer a much lower rate that was actually collected from everyone.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    We tried to spend our way into prosperity and, once that didn't get us there, tried to borrow and spend our way into prosperity. We are in for some pain. Let's get it over with.
    once again, doing it all at once will put a serious chill on both the demand and the supply side, and it's not necessary to do it that way. what we are doing with all of this is making a clear statement to the world that we have a serious plan to fix things long term. let's face it, money is largely perception, and we don't want our currency perceived as potentially in trouble. if we let it happen all at once, that also looks bad, because we will be sending the world a message that we can't agree on anything even with our backs to the wall. not to mention that the recession that results will likely have an effect on Europe, and Europe can't take much more right now.

    we've got to get this done.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Looking at.... static losses?
    no solution is going to be perfect. i offered the cap and tax as income plan as an alternative; personally, i doubt it's going to happen. instead, those making $250+k a year are going to get pinched, and those making ten times as much will probably keep skating by. i'm interested to see the "loopholes" that we're going to close to collect from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Oh. So in fact they do not do this, but you are imagining that they might.

    To answer your follow on question - the proposals that the Republicans have put forward include limiting the total size of deductions, getting rid of the state tax deduction, limiting the mortgage interest deduction to a primary residence below a lower worth cap, and a few others. Their plan is explicitly modeled after the Presidents OWN Simpson Bowles Commissions' model, which got rid of the vast majority of deductions and loopholes.
    it doesn't bring in enough revenue, and still puts the burden primarily on the demand side. it needs to be more balanced.

    what needs to happen is that we raise all rates back to the 1990s levels. that would be significantly more fair than just raising the top rate.

    we also have a chance to simplify the code somewhat, but chances of that happening approach zero.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Improperly phased in?
    yes, like all at once. this isn't jumping into a cold pool; it will have consequences that last for years to come. as i explained earlier in the post, a serious multi-year plan will allow us to reap the benefits and minimize the immediate and mid-term harm that raising and cutting all at once would cause.



    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well, that was the Ryan Argument as well - to means test and then simply reduce payouts to higher net worth individuals in order to protect lower net worth individuals. Frankly I think that reality is a bit starker than that. The alternative to drastic reductions in our entitlement expenditure is to at some point not too far in the future (think, within the next 15 years) that we cease having an entitlement structure. Then we really are going to face the choice of kicking grandma out in the cold. If cuts in spending have to be made, let them be made first on those who do not require these services.
    as i said before, i'm fine with means testing. i don't like the idea of cutting anyone out of the system, but if we have to begin looking at these programs like we look at welfare, i suppose that's an unpleasant compromise that would have to be considered.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    there is no such thing as an unbiased economist for the simple enough reason that there is no such thing as an unbiased human being. That being said, you will note that the economist I cited was Christina Romer, who is not exactly a noted Grover Norquist type.

    I see no historical evidence to suppose that raising rates will increase revenue; especially given that revenue is tied to growth, and that over the past 4-5 decades rate hikes have been recessionary. Growth is screwed if we hike rates. It is not screwed if we slash spending, unless we do it in such a way as to destroy the security guarantee that the US Navy provides to global trade.


    we did fine in the 1990s. this chart shows, however, that we need to cut spending, as well. that's why i advocate the two-sided austerity method. however, once again, we have to phase it in.

    as for military spending, i don't see a way around cutting it. i share a part of your apprehension, though : i work in NIH-funded research, so i'm probably going to take a personal hit when they cut that.

  5. #385
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Those Obamacare taxes are mostly pentalty taxes will will only effect a very small percentage of people who earn less $250,000.
    Another fact you and Forbes seem to ignore is that the money saved by having health insurance will most likely save the tax payers more on health care than the penalty taxes they pay out.
    That's why I gave ya the link to show ya 20 others that wont have anything to do with healthcare. Just sayin!

  6. #386
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,342

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Yes, I guess the concept was a bit sophisticated for a guy for TX, so prehaps I should break it down for you.

    There is a tax cut on all taxable income up to $250K (remember the 2001/03 tax cuts were temporary, they will expire on 12/31, making these cuts permanent is a tax cut), a huge tax break (roughly 60%) on capital based income (interest, dividends and cap gains) and a very small increase on taxable income over $250K. Given that everyone, including those making over $250K enjoy the roughly 3-5 percentage point break on this tax. If you are making $250K of taxable income and say $30K of that was interest,dividends and cap gains, there is roughly a $15K tax break on that income. Given the proposed tax increase is 4.6%, it would take $325,000 of income over 250K (taxable) before that person was worse off under the Obama plan than he would be had the temporary tax cuts been allowed to expire.

    Now, $250K of taxable income is not the same as gross income (everyone has deductions, credits, exemptions)... its really more like $300K... and it takes a another $325K of income before you are worse off... so, lets see, $300K + $325K is $625K of annual income before you have a tax increase. Perhaps its a stretch, but most people that I know that have $625K of annual income are millionaires...
    A guy from Texas? Your bigotry is noted.

    Yes, it is a stretch, because 625,000 still isn't a million.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #387
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,342

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    Actually more than 80 percent agree with a tax increase for the "rich':



    read more:

    More than 80 percent of Americans want to tax the rich | SF Politics
    67% of Americans oppose Obamacare's individual mandate. Does that mean the Dems are going to strike it down?

    New Poll Shows 67% Oppose Obamacare’s Individual Mandate
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #388
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    According to this article the CBO says that "Obamacare" will lower our deficit:


    President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will reduce rather than increase the nation's huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama's contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans.
    read more:

    CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  9. #389
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    In other words, polls show people want handouts to continue and want someone else to pay for them. Is that really a surprise?
    I don't know to what handouts you refer. Are talking about SS/Medicare that people have paid into all of their lives?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #390
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    And that is why health insurance, and health care providers cost keep going up. Not down like Obama promised. Interesting how you ignored that fact. Further there are all kinds of taxes being imposed not just the penalty tax. When you add up all the taxes and the rising cost of health insurance and providers because of Obamacare, this is the biggest tax hike in US History.

    Here you go

    Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan

    Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike

    Complied by Americans for Tax Reform

    WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.

    $123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).

    Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

    $86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013):

    $65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):

    Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

    Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

    Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

    (Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

    $60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

    $32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

    $23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

    $22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

    $20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

    $15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

    $13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

    $5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

    $4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

    $4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

    $2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

    $1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

    $0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

    $0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

    $ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

    $ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
    This mess was created by ideologues who, like Obama, had no real world experience, and was passed by an irresponsible legislatoirs who were encouraged tp pass the bill without reading it, which they did.

    And there are those in the electorate who believe that this will not only save money, a ridiculous idea, but that it will also be 'free'.

    The injustice here is that intelligent, honest, hard working Americans are going to have to pay for those ever increasing numbers of people who feel that the government, meaning their fellow citizens, can supply all their needs. Encouraging people to become dependent on government sucks the spirit right out of them and will eventually lead to a national collapse. There is no end game plan to any of this.

Page 39 of 76 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •