• 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!

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

TurtleDude said:
the Obunny position is patently dishonest

as others have noted, Obunny's state of the union early this year claimed that everyone but the rich sacrifices when government spending is cut-but the rich will have to pay more taxes. Meaning the rich don't benefit from government services so why should they pay even more for stuff they don't benefit from

the fact is its pure pandering to class envy. and the obama slurpers who whine that this point is repetitive fail to acknowledge that the tax the rich nonsense is the same old crap over and over and over
Click to expand...

That's why I put up all those other taxes to show how they was going to get hit. They still can't figure it out. Nor even that Obama is going against what Bowles Simpson said. Moreover the Smoke and Mirrors over the Fiscal Cliff. None of anything would even begin to take effect until after the first quarter.

So again the Debt Ceiling issue is far more the sticking point and making sure Obama doesn't expand that Executive Power.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So youre saying we have the funds to meet the liabilities inherent in SS right now? According to every economist Ive read, including Krugman, we do not.

Those things would be the taxes you described---you being obtuse deliberately?
Click to expand...
The SS is meeting all of its obligations, is solvent, and will be so through 2036 at current rates. Very small change would be required to keep it so for another century. You haven't read anything from Krugman saying otherwise.

The point is that it and Medicare are self funded through FICA, so your "2/3 of spending" or whatever .....is covered. They are NOT contributors to the debt....and ACTUALLY....since the doubling of the FICA rates by none other than Saint Ronnie at the the behest of of Saint Greenspan, it has created a surplus that has been used in the general funding of govt.....which is another fact that you cons ALWAYS forget about when you whine about "half not paying federal income taxes".

PS...here is some Krugman for you:


“ [T]here is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the Trust Fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?scp=539&sq=&st=nyt
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
For you and I, that actually look into "alternative" news/views, that makes a difference. For far too many that is not even considered. Many think that what ever the late night comedy entertainers offers is "news". If you ever catch a peek at "Waters world" (on Fox newws), or other "man on the street" interviews, it is truely scary what people "know" about the current events, much less history.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say, but that falls on the person, not the media. All I'm trying to say is alternative views are out there, so I don't think one side has an edge anymore simply because of the availability of BOTH sides. Back in 70s and 80s it could very well be argued that the left-leaning media had the edge, but in an internet, satellite radio, talk-radio, and cable television era I just don't see that edge.

It's the people's concious decision to watch the media they choose to and it's not because of the edge of the media IMO.
 
American said:
They didn't win big, we're right where we were prior to the election. Looks like Obama has problems in the Senate.

White House Swats Away McConnell's Suggestion
Click to expand...
Uh, McConnell has a problem with the Senate....

HIMSELF!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill.
The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him.
McConnell brought up the legislation Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initially objected, seemingly proving the Republican leader’s point that it cannot pass the Senate. But then Reid ran it by his members and, in the afternoon, agreed to hold that same vote. This time it was McConnell who objected.
“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”
 
American said:
Because they don't believe in raising taxes.
Click to expand...

But letting the Bush tax cuts expire is NOT raising taxes.
It is just allowing a temporary tax cut to expire.

When the Bush tax cuts were first passed they were temporay cuts and had a "sunset" attached to them.

Many of these tax cuts were enacted with sunset provisions, meaning they were embedded with predetermined expiration dates, many of which are coming up in 2011 and 2012. These sunset provisions were placed in the tax laws in some cases to garner enough legislative support to get the bills passed, or to get around rules that existed on cutting revenue without passing an offsetting spending cut.
Click to expand...

read more:

How Will The Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You? - Forbes.com
 
MMC said:
That's why I put up all those other taxes to show how they was going to get hit....
Click to expand...

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:
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.



cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


cpwill said:
:shrug: 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.
Click to expand...

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.

cpwill said:
Looking at.... static losses?
Click to expand...

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.

cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


cpwill said:
Improperly phased in?
Click to expand...

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.



cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

GDP.jpg


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.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's why I gave ya the link to show ya 20 others that wont have anything to do with healthcare. Just sayin!
shades.gif
 
upsideguy said:
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...
Click to expand...

A guy from Texas? Your bigotry is noted.

Yes, it is a stretch, because 625,000 still isn't a million. :rofl
 
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.
Click to expand...

read more:

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit
 
Fletch said:
In other words, polls show people want handouts to continue and want someone else to pay for them. Is that really a surprise?
Click to expand...

I don't know to what handouts you refer. Are talking about SS/Medicare that people have paid into all of their lives?
 
Born Free said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
This site answers FAQ's about the health care reform.

Here is a <SNIP>
Q-8: How is the new 3.8% Medicare tax calculated?

A: The new 3.8% Medicare tax is assessed only when Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is more than $200,000/$250,000. (See Q-2 above.) AGI includes net income from interest, dividends, rents and capital gains, as well as earned compensation and several additional forms of income presented on a Form 1040 Income Tax Return.

The tax is NOT imposed on the total AGI, nor is it imposed solely on the investment income. Rather, the taxable amount will depend on the operation of a formula. The taxpayer will determine the LESSER of (1) net investment income OR (2) the excess of AGI over the $200,000/$250,000 AGI thresholds. Thus, if net investment income is the smaller amount, then the 3.8% tax is applied onlyto the net investment income amount. If the excess over the thresholds is the smaller amount, then the 3.8% tax would apply only to the excess amount.


Q-9: Give me an example.

If AGI for a single individual is $275,000, then the excess over $200,000 would be $75,000 ($275,000 minus $200,000). Assume that this individual’s net investment income is $60,000. The new 3.8% tax applies to the smaller amount. In this example, $60,000 of net investment income is less than the $75,000 excess over the threshold. Thus, in this example, the 3.8% tax is applied to the $60,000.

If this single individual had AGI if $275,000 and net investment income of $90,000, then the new tax would be imposed on the smaller amount: the $75,000 of excess over $200,000.

Rules of thumb for predicting the application of this tax year to year are not readily determinable, largely because the proportion of net investment income compared to AGI will vary from year to year and from individual to individual.
Click to expand...

read more:

Health Insurance Reform - FAQs: Medicare Tax on Net Investment Income
 
Ok, so Obama is looking to eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, increase the taxes only on the rich (which will amount to nothing), and not address entitlements.

Does that sound like a guy looking to pay down the debt and balance the budget?
 
minnie616 said:
According to this article the CBO says that "Obamacare" will lower our deficit:



read more:

CBO says Obama's health law will reduce deficit
Click to expand...

As is always the case with CBO estimates, you have to pay attention to what they were told to assume. In practice the law isn't going to have many of the spending cuts they put in initially.

The bottom line is that the CBO's numbers are most likely bogus. Yes, it is going to be much more expensive than they say.
 
keymanjim said:
And we run yearly deficits in excess of $1 TRILLION. The amount generated would cover about .65% of what we OVER spend.
Click to expand...

Except that's only part of the solution, remember?
 
Erod said:
Ok, so Obama is looking to eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, increase the taxes only on the rich (which will amount to nothing), and not address entitlements.

Does that sound like a guy looking to pay down the debt and balance the budget?
Click to expand...

No it was Mitch McConnels idea and as usual any idea the Republicans have that Obama likes they are against it. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending. One would think that has been made real clear. However, knuckle draggers cant get the concept.
 
Erod said:
Ok, so Obama is looking to eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, increase the taxes only on the rich (which will amount to nothing), and not address entitlements.

Does that sound like a guy looking to pay down the debt and balance the budget?
Click to expand...

The whole plan is to collapse the national economy, opening the door for a dictator to be installed.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The whole plan is to collapse the national economy, opening the door for a dictator to be installed.
Click to expand...

At one time I would have laughed this off as just another conspiracy theory but it seems the collapse of the economy is being done deliberately. The very real problem is why so many Americans went along with it. Do they really and sincerely believe that taxing the rich will make a difference?
 
Grant said:
At one time I would have laughed this off as just another conspiracy theory but it seems the collapse of the economy is being done deliberately. The very real problem is why so many Americans went along with it. Do they really and sincerely believe that taxing the rich will make a difference?
Click to expand...

I think it's been a reality since January 2009. Whatelse could explain the seriously damaging and goofball decisions made by the current junta?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom