• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare Subsidies

And, every spring they get that money back. So, no, they don't pay taxes.

A family of four earning about $93,000 a year pays no income taxes?

An individual earning $40,000 a year pays no income taxes?

You're sure about that?
 
A family of four earning about $93,000 a year pays no income taxes?

An individual earning $40,000 a year pays no income taxes?

You're sure about that?

Did I say that? Are you sure you want to be like that? You know damn good and well what I'm talking about.
 
If I'm not mistaken, part of the Obamacare ponzi scheme is to fund the subsidies from some ficticious $500 to $700 billion in Medicare "efficiencies" and savings that the Democrats pulled out of their asses and the subsidies are subsidized further by penalties paid by businesses who don't provide employee insurance plans - recently delayed for one year - and penalties paid by individuals who don't buy insurance.

One thing I haven't seen fleshed out in all the discussions is what happens/who pays when a person without insurance, who has paid the government penalty, seeks medical services and doesn't or can't pay. Are hospitals and doctors now entitled to bill the federal government for the costs of those services since the federal government is in effect collecting a "premium" from them? Or are the hospitals and providers going to have to sue the government for payment?

If I lose my insurance, I'm going to pay the penalty, deduct it from my taxes and I go to the hospital, tell them to send the bill to the government.
 
We're already there. America's credit rating used to be a triple-A. In a few years, it'll be a F-.

A little hyperbole, but you see where I'm going with this.

Greetings, Gipper. :2wave:

:agree: The thing most puzzling to me is the attitude of those in DC, who seem to think that things can go on as they are indefinitely. They seem to think they will not be part of what's heading our way...have they established a colony on Mars or something? What good is it to amass huge sums of money if said money is worthless at some point? There are too many historical examples, to suit me, of what things could be like in the near future. The book that was made into a movie "The Road" was one of the scariest I have ever read, only because the scenario is way too possible! :eek:
 
Ah yes, the old "fairness" argument. Thanks for reminding me...It's been over an hour since I last heard it! Gosh, whatever was I thinking...
Gotta have fairness
, or things just don't make sense at all! :mrgreen:

Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:


Yup ... And "Fairness" is in the eye of the "Fairee" ... or something.

How ya doin' Pol?
 
Greetings, Gipper. :2wave:

:agree: The thing most puzzling to me is the attitude of those in DC, who seem to think that things can go on as they are indefinitely. They seem to think they will not be part of what's heading our way...have they established a colony on Mars or something? What good is it to amass huge sums of money if said money is worthless at some point? There are too many historical examples, to suit me, of what things could be like in the near future. The book that was made into a movie "The Road" was one of the scariest I have ever read, only because the scenario is way too possible! :eek:

Hi Polgie.

The real problem is everywhere. Hell, we the people carry much of the responsibility because, as a collective, we're ignorant and oblivious to the fact that we can't keep going like this, and that we'll be forced to take a more Darwinian stance on fiscal issues to ensure our continued existence. It's not "humane" to admit that some eggs will be lost when making the American omelet, but we don't want to hear it.

Social welfare is a genie in a bottle. Once opened, she doesn't want to get forced back in. You have people abusing the dole for so long that they'll fight tooth and nail when you want to curb back, even if it's for the greater good.

As some wise men said - a government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
 
Hi Polgie.

The real problem is everywhere. Hell, we the people carry much of the responsibility because, as a collective, we're ignorant and oblivious to the fact that we can't keep going like this, and that we'll be forced to take a more Darwinian stance on fiscal issues to ensure our continued existence. It's not "humane" to admit that some eggs will be lost when making the American omelet, but we don't want to hear it.

Social welfare is a genie in a bottle. Once opened, she doesn't want to get forced back in. You have people abusing the dole for so long that they'll fight tooth and nail when you want to curb back, even if it's for the greater good.

As some wise men said - a government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.

:agree: :thumbs: The ironic thing is that the "guy on the street" seems to better understand what is happening than the decision makers sitting on their thrones in the ivory towers in DC, making the laws that they exempt themselves from. The problem as I see it is that the average person who disagrees with DC has no leader to follow, and doesn't understand how DC works well enough to do anything except to be puzzled, and then angry! Where are the warriors?
 
Did I say that? Are you sure you want to be like that? You know damn good and well what I'm talking about.

Did you say that?

I don't know.

That's why I asked you.

You keep insisting that people who will benefit from ACA tax credits pay no income taxes.

And to some extent, if we're talking about effective tax rates, I agree with you.

On the bottom end there ARE people who, if they're not already net recipients of tax benefits currently WILL become such. These ACA credits will drop them to the point where they aren't paying an effective tax.

But there's a large number of people who will benefit from tax credits under the ACA program who do pay taxes and who will continue to pay taxes, just less of them.

And I don't want to lump them in with Mitt Romney's nearly mythical "47%".

That "47%" that pays no taxes, as we know, includes the indigent, those on welfare, children and retirees, veterans' pension recipients, and a lot more.

Essentially, a whole bunch of people who don't work, and who aren't even required to pay income tax, to begin with.

Those people are already benefiting from Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA healthcare system and aren't even candidates for healthcare on the ACA exchanges.

When we start talking ONLY about people who are working jobs, paying some income tax, and qualified for ACA health insurance plans that "47%" number drops precipitously.

I think there's a good chance that MOST people who benefit under the ACA tax credits are going to be people who currently are paying income taxes, both to the extent that they're having taxes deducted from their paycheck and to the extent that they're currently net payers of tax.

So I think you're right that there are some Americans who "don't pay taxes", but I don't know how many of them, if any of them, can be included here.

Do you?

Can you prove to me that some large percentage of Americans are non-tax payers who are going to get MORE back from the government as a result of this?

If so, please do.

You're the one whose always enamored with posting links.

Post some links that prove what you're saying.

Thanks.
 
And, every spring they get that money back. So, no, they don't pay taxes.

Right. They simply loan the money to the government without interest unless they are smart enough to increase their payroll exemptions to reduce it.
 
Did you say that?

I don't know.

That's why I asked you.

You keep insisting that people who will benefit from ACA tax credits pay no income taxes.

And to some extent, if we're talking about effective tax rates, I agree with you.

On the bottom end there ARE people who, if they're not already net recipients of tax benefits currently WILL become such. These ACA credits will drop them to the point where they aren't paying an effective tax.

But there's a large number of people who will benefit from tax credits under the ACA program who do pay taxes and who will continue to pay taxes, just less of them.

And I don't want to lump them in with Mitt Romney's nearly mythical "47%".

That "47%" that pays no taxes, as we know, includes the indigent, those on welfare, children and retirees, veterans' pension recipients, and a lot more.

Essentially, a whole bunch of people who don't work, and who aren't even required to pay income tax, to begin with.

Those people are already benefiting from Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA healthcare system and aren't even candidates for healthcare on the ACA exchanges.

When we start talking ONLY about people who are working jobs, paying some income tax, and qualified for ACA health insurance plans that "47%" number drops precipitously.

I think there's a good chance that MOST people who benefit under the ACA tax credits are going to be people who currently are paying income taxes, both to the extent that they're having taxes deducted from their paycheck and to the extent that they're currently net payers of tax.

So I think you're right that there are some Americans who "don't pay taxes", but I don't know how many of them, if any of them, can be included here.

Do you?

Can you prove to me that some large percentage of Americans are non-tax payers who are going to get MORE back from the government as a result of this?

If so, please do.

You're the one whose always enamored with posting links.

Post some links that prove what you're saying.

Thanks.

Anyone that qualifies for Obamacare susidies doesn't pay taxes. A family making 93 grand won't get a subsidy.
 
Right. They simply loan the money to the government without interest unless they are smart enough to increase their payroll exemptions to reduce it.

What's going to be funny, is when the government starts taking the subsidy out of their tax tefund.
 
Anyone that qualifies for Obamacare susidies doesn't pay taxes.

You clearly have no interest in discussing this seriously, do you?

A family making 93 grand won't get a subsidy.

A family of four making $94,200 is at 400% of the federal poverty level and as such will qualify for a premium subsidy on the exchange.

A family of five can be earning up to $110,280 and qualify for a subsidy.

A family of three can earn up to $78,120 and receive a subsidy.

An individual earning just under $46,000 will qualify.
 
Can somebody please explain what these subsidies are supposed to do.

It is my understanding that the subsidies will be given to people that can prove that they don't make enough money, whatever the cutoff is to pay for the premiums.

Is the subsidy to pay for the premiums or something else?

If the subsidy is to pay for the premiums, how will the person pay for the co-pays and the high out of pocket expenses all policy holders must pay before the insurance kicks in?

They have already proven they don't make enough to pay the premuims ontheir own.

I am a little confused on this.

That is mostly correct. The subsidies are given to people who claim they don't make enough money, that cutoff being 400% of the poverty line for your family. The provision to check people to make sure that they were honest about their financial situation was delayed for a year by the Administration.
 
You clearly have no interest in discussing this seriously, do you?

A family of four making $94,200 is at 400% of the federal poverty level and as such will qualify for a premium subsidy on the exchange.

A family of five can be earning up to $110,280 and qualify for a subsidy.

A family of three can earn up to $78,120 and receive a subsidy.

An individual earning just under $46,000 will qualify.

Is that pre-tax, adjusted, what?
 
Actually, that is not entirely correct. Taxpayers cannot even come close to paying the bills we already have, so the money must be borrowed. Your grandkids will be stuck with the bills.

Taxes like the medical device tax make even less sense. Government imposes a tax on healthcare devices, which will drive up the cost, which will drive up the cost of healthcare, which the government will then subsidize.

in the 80's we learned our tax dollars are enough to pay the interest on the debt and that is about it.

so the subsidies are coming from deficit spending, not taxes.
 
And for the record here folks, I'm not in favor of the ACA.

Being in favor of it, and trying to understand it, are two different things.
 
Is it calculated off of your previous years earnings, or your current earnings annualized?

That I don't know.

I went through the whole calculation on the Healthcare.gov site (since there is no NJ exchange) and it only asked me for my yearly income.

It didn't specify what year, or at least I don't recall it having done so.

I would hazard to guess, since there's no calculator to annualize current year income, that they're going off of prior year.

I can't see them expecting the majority of people who use the exchange to be able to do those calculations on their own.

I'll also add that I don't recall seeing anything about using AGI or MAGI, it just asked for income.

I should add that I was just doing this for fun. We earn several times the minimum qualifying amount even at 400% of the poverty level so I was just "fudging" numbers to see what kinds of prices it'd spit out.

But again, my honest answer to your question, despite all that speculation, is that I don't really know.
 
That I don't know.

I went through the whole calculation on the Healthcare.gov site (since there is no NJ exchange) and it only asked me for my yearly income.

It didn't specify what year, or at least I don't recall it having done so.

I would hazard to guess, since there's no calculator to annualize current year income, that they're going off of prior year.

I can't see them expecting the majority of people who use the exchange to be able to do those calculations on their own.

I'll also add that I don't recall seeing anything about using AGI or MAGI, it just asked for income.

I should add that I was just doing this for fun. We earn several times the minimum qualifying amount even at 400% of the poverty level so I was just "fudging" numbers to see what kinds of prices it'd spit out.

But again, my honest answer to your question, despite all that speculation, is that I don't really know.

So, people facing an annual increase in income will be oversubsidized, but people facing a loss of income will be screwed?

Yeah, that sounds about as well thought-out as the rest of this plan.
 
So, people facing an annual increase in income will be oversubsidized, but people facing a loss of income will be screwed?

Yeah, that sounds about as well thought-out as the rest of this plan.

It could work out that way, and I agree, given how FUBAR this thing is it would come as no surprise.

But I have to reiterate, I don't really know how income is calculated.
 
Can somebody please explain what these subsidies are supposed to do.

It is my understanding that the subsidies will be given to people that can prove that they don't make enough money, whatever the cutoff is to pay for the premiums.

Is the subsidy to pay for the premiums or something else?

If the subsidy is to pay for the premiums, how will the person pay for the co-pays and the high out of pocket expenses all policy holders must pay before the insurance kicks in?

They have already proven they don't make enough to pay the premuims ontheir own.

I am a little confused on this.
A sobsidy is the government paying the government with your money because you can't afford to pay the government with your money.
 
Can somebody please explain what these subsidies are supposed to do.

It is my understanding that the subsidies will be given to people that can prove that they don't make enough money, whatever the cutoff is to pay for the premiums.

Is the subsidy to pay for the premiums or something else?

If the subsidy is to pay for the premiums, how will the person pay for the co-pays and the high out of pocket expenses all policy holders must pay before the insurance kicks in?

They have already proven they don't make enough to pay the premuims ontheir own.

I am a little confused on this.

It's an income tax break designed to offset the cost of the premiums. You pay the premiums for 12 months and get some of it back in your tax return. So, basically, you suck it up 12 months a year.
 
It could work out that way, and I agree, given how FUBAR this thing is it would come as no surprise.

But I have to reiterate, I don't really know how income is calculated.

How do you not know? At the end of the year, you get a little piece of paper that tells you how much you made that year. Have you never had a job?
 
Is it calculated off of your previous years earnings, or your current earnings annualized?

Current year. Biggest problem with that is getting the pay raise mid year that pushes you over the edge. Then you don't get the tax break you were expecting.
 
Back
Top Bottom