• 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!

Verizon: Obamacare to cost 970 million

cpwill said:
it's welfare to stay off a governemnt entitlement? wow, war is peace slavery is freedom and socialism really is wealth, huh? :)
Click to expand...

And another person demonstrates their inability to understand the written English language.

Let's revisit what I wrote:

"The government is not only paying for their costs but the firm is allowed to deduct costs it never paid. That is welfare."

How on Earth in any sane mind did I argue that staying off entitlement is welfare?

What I actually said was that companies are having their costs paid for by the government and getting to expense costs they never paid. How on EARTH did you come to the asinine conclusion that I argued staying off entitlement was welfare when I directly bashed the use of entitlement was welfare?

Christ sakes, can anyone here read?
 
obvious Child said:
And another person demonstrates their inability to understand the written English language.
Click to expand...

as you continue to indicate that you are either unwilling or unable to think outside of the one point you hold to like an anchor in a storm; logic bedamned. if the government is allowing a corporation to write off expenses in order to keep that corporation from shifting the entire cost of those expenses to the government; then that's one messed up version of welfare. by that argument indeed, any write-off is 'welfare'; including those that provide a net reduction in government expenditures. such an expansion of the term effectively leaves it without meaning.
 
cpwill said:
as you continue to indicate that you are either unwilling or unable to think outside of the one point you hold to like an anchor in a storm; logic bedamned. if the government is allowing a corporation to write off expenses in order to keep that corporation from shifting the entire cost of those expenses to the government; then that's one messed up version of welfare. by that argument indeed, any write-off is 'welfare'; including those that provide a net reduction in government expenditures. such an expansion of the term effectively leaves it without meaning.
Click to expand...

What you are missing is


The government is providing money to the company in order to help pay for that expense. For example (using fake numbers)

Lets says Verizons cost for that program is $100 million, the government covers $25 million of that cost. The actual cost to Verizon is $75 million. The program is tax deductible.

What number should Verizon use to calculate its deductible, how much the program cost it the $75 million, or the cost of the program $100 million.

Remember that $25 million of the cost is covered by the government


What was occuring is Verizon was able to use the $100 million number for tax deductions. Meaning it getting a deduction for part of the program covered by the government.


Now Verizon can only deduct the $75 million as that was what it spent on the program
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You guys realize that tax benefit they are losing amounted to nothing more than corporate welfare. The government provided them a subsidy for the company to provide drug coverage for retirees. The companies were still allowed to right off the expense even though it was taxpayer subsidized. What the Obama administration did was look at that and say why should a company be able to write off an expense when is taxpayer subsidized.

It would be like allowing a food stamp recipient to write off their grocery bills.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. It basically allowed the corporation to keep more of its money which it was then, in turn, expected to put into retirement benefits for its employees. This makes a great deal more sense than putting the money in the government's hands first and then doling it back out.
 
cpwill said:
Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, became the latest company to record a cost related to the U.S. health-care overhaul, saying it will incur a $970 million expense.

..Verizon follows AT&T Inc., the biggest U.S. carrier, Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and other companies in disclosing similar expenses after losing a tax benefit for retiree plans. The costs may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion as companies account for the impact of the health-care reforms, according to benefits consulting firm Towers Watson.

...“This is having an impact on the bottom line and that can cut jobs,” said Chetan Sharma, an independent wireless analyst in Issaquah, Washington. “I am not sure the final story has been told on this” because most companies still don’t know exactly how the new law will affect them, he said.

Verizon had about 223,000 workers at the end of December, with about 35 percent represented by labor unions including the Communication Workers of America. About 58 percent of Dallas- based AT&T’s workforce has union representation.

In a note to employees after the law was passed, Verizon said that the law would make the federal subsidy to provide retiree benefits less valuable to employers and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
..
Click to expand...

Should we call a WAAAAAAAMBULANCE for the corporate assbags at Verizon?
 
cpwill said:
as you continue to indicate that you are either unwilling or unable to think outside of the one point you hold to like an anchor in a storm; logic bedamned. if the government is allowing a corporation to write off expenses in order to keep that corporation from shifting the entire cost of those expenses to the government; then that's one messed up version of welfare.
Click to expand...

Problem is that your assumption is little more then an assumption. You assume that the corporation will not pay the expenses if there was no deductible subsidiary. Furthermore, you ignore that the subsidiary in no way came close to drastically reducing the net outflow to the company.

by that argument indeed, any write-off is 'welfare'; including those that provide a net reduction in government expenditures. such an expansion of the term effectively leaves it without meaning.
Click to expand...

I never argued that welfare was either a net positive or net negative. What we are arguing is welfare is that corporations are allowed to expense items they never paid for. I never ever ever argued what you did.

I take it you support people on food stamps to expense the cost of groceries they never paid for rather then going entirely over to government buying all their food for them?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
What you are missing is
Click to expand...

No, he got that. What his argument is that the expensing of the subsidiary keeps the corporation from moving the entire cost over the government. Now, he has to prove that. We know that Walmart moved the entire cost over to the government when the subsidiary was available suggesting his position is wrong, that the subsidiary effect is relatively minor in the calculation in whether to pay or abandon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom