Please respect my decision!
- Apr 28, 1999
- Reaction score
- Mesa, AZ
Any reason why they shouldn't pay taxes on those items? What kind of tax are they referring to? I'm assuming sales tax.. They've already put money aside in an HSA or FSA to avoid paying income tax on it..$5 billion Medicine Cabinet Tax Increase on HSAs and FSAs: Approximately, 2.9 million people have HSAs in the small employer health insurance market, and according to industry sources, 20 million Americans have a Flexible Spending Account. Under ObamaCare, they will pay taxes on over the counter (OTC) nonprescribed household health care items when paid from their HSA or FSA.
Currently there is no limit on the amount put into an FSA.. However, there are limits on what funds from it can be used to purchase/pay for and it is use-it-or-lose-it, with employers banking whatever is left over..$13 billion Tax Increase on FSAs: ObamaCare caps the annual contribution to Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) at $2,500 per year. According to industry sources, 20 million Americans use FSAs to pay for routine medical care.
There has been discussion, however, that with the new limit in place, they may remove the limits on what it can be used to pay for.. If that happens, and the usage becomes unlimited, you'll see people using FSAs simply for the income tax break, which then serves to limit government revenues..The Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), a trade group, issued a statement saying it has "heard from employers that many employees elect not to participate in an FSA because they fear losing their hard earned dollars. We have also heard from policy makers who have expressed concern that the use it or lose it rule encourages FSA participants to spend their dollars on unnecessary services and items at the end of the year, which contributes to inefficient health care spending. Eliminating the use it or lose it rule, however, will do away with this perverse incentive for such behavior."
This one may hurt some people, although I've been lucky enough to never have even 5% of my AGI as medical costs.. The whole point of Obamacare or healthcare reform in general, however, is to make healthcare and its related costs more affordable, such that we don't need tax breaks such as this..$15.2 billion Tax Increase on Medical Expenses: Under current law, individuals may deduct the cost of their medical expenses, including health insurance, if their expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). ObamaCare increases the threshold to 10 percent, which increases taxes on Americans with high out-of-pocket expenses.
This only applies to those whose AGI is above $200K or $250K for joint filers..$210.1 billion Tax Increase on “Unearned Income” and New Tax on High Wage Earners: ObamaCare includes a new 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income,” which includes investment income such as home sales and rental property. In addition, ObamaCare adds a new 0 .9 percent tax on high-wage earners.
That last part kinda grabs you, but again, it's only for people who already make over $200K or joint filers over $250K..Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%.
Read more: Here Are The New Obamacare Taxes - Business Insider
The individual mandate is supposed to be the worst part of Obamacare, but it's expected to generate only slightly more in tax revenue than raising the healthcare costs tax break % and capping the FSAs?$17 billion Uninsured Tax Increase: ObamaCare requires everyone to buy ObamaCare-qualified insurance or pay a tax. The 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that only 46 percent of businesses with fewer than 10 workers offer health benefits to their employees. In addition, three-fourths of firms with 10 to 24 employees and almost 90 percent of firms with 25 to 49 employees provide health insurance. In many cases, the business owner or its employees will buy an individual policy for themselves and their family. If they don’t buy a government-approved health insurance plan, they will have to pay an uninsured tax.
Small Businesses and the Affordable Care Act â€“ Fact Sheets | HealthCare.gov$52 billion “Pay or Play” Tax Increase: Employers with 50 or fewer employees will not be subject to ObamaCare’s health insurance mandate. However, if the company grows and decides to hire its 51st employee, the company must “pay or play.” In other words, it must provide ObamaCare health insurance or pay a $2,000 per employee tax if it doesn’t provide coverage. In addition, if an employee uses the ObamaCare tax credit to buy insurance in the exchange, employers still have to pay a penalty.
Honestly, I think the writers of Obamacare were quite crafty.. Either the employers provide quality insurance and don't pay the fines or they don't provide insurance and end up supplementing the exchange pools via the fines paid.. This will either force companies to offer insurance or dump the employees into the exchange pools.. And if an employee's salary is small enough to warrant receiving the Obamacare tax credit, then the employer is called upon to pay a penalty to support the employee's subsidized coverage.. The employers also get tax breaks for providing insurance..Top Things to Know for Small Businesses
* If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
* Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
* Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
* In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
* Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
* Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They don’t have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.
These all apply to companies.. Yes, some of these costs will be passed on to consumers.. But it may also force companies to become more efficient..$20 billion Tax Increase on Medical Device Manufacturers: ObamaCare includes a 2.3 percent tax on medical device manufacturers, which totals $20 billion over 10 years. President Obama’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concludes this tax increase will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher costs. Furthermore, 84.6 percent of medical device manufacturers employ fewer than 20 employees, according to the latest Census data.
$27 billion Tax Increase on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers: ObamaCare includes a $27 billion tax on pharmaceutical companies. President Obama’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concludes this tax increase will be passed along in the form of higher prices.
$60.1 billion Tax Increase on Health Insurance Companies: ObamaCare includes a $60.1 billion tax on health insurance companies. President Obama’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) believes this tax increase will be passed along to health insurance purchasers in the form of higher health insurance prices.
$2.7 billion Tax Increase on Indoor Tanning Services: According to tanning industry sources, more than 50 percent of indoor tanning salons are owned by women and most are small employers.
Skin Cancer Facts - SkinCancer.orgSkin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually.1
Each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.2
Treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers increased by nearly 77 percent between 1992 and 2006.1
Over the past three decades, more people have had skin cancer than all other cancers combined.3
One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in the course of a lifetime.5
Sorry but unless and until you acknowledge that the cbo's finding has a high degree of uncertainty, i can only conclude that you either don't understand what it says or you're so blinded by obamagovlove that you refuse to see it.I've given my assessment.. You questioned both mine and dtc's assertions that it reduces the deficit.. You wanted sources.. I provided one, the only one that really matters.. And now you want me to decipher it for you, give you more of what I've already stated previously and all just so you can either stand your ground with your current opinion or nitpick it apart? Sorry, not going to do it.. If you care enough about it, you'll read it yourself.
LOL..Sorry but unless and until you acknowledge that the cbo's finding has a high degree of uncertainty, i can only conclude that you either don't understand what it says or you're so blinded by obamagovlove that you refuse to see it.
Beast, no one is disputing that Obamacare will add 1 trillion to our deficit. I think we're past that. What is open for debate is whether the repeal of Obamacare will reduce or increase the deficit. I don't believe in the accuracy of the initial CBO letter, and this is taken directly from the letter:LOL..
Every projection is just that, a projection.. These projections are based on financial models.. Add variables to the model and the uncertainty increases.. Something with as many components as Obamacare will have a large degree of uncertainty..
That said, there's a difference between uncertainty in how much it reduces the deficit vs outright changing what the CBO said to say that it will add to the deficit.. Anyone that understands models and simulations understands that..
Here is a clear explanation on how repealing Obamacare reduces the deficit. FYIWhy Are These Estimates Uncertain?
Projections of the budgetary impact of H.R. 6079 are quite uncertain because they are based, in large part, on projections of the effects of the ACA, which are themselves highly uncertain.
How anyone can be duped into voting for a fiscal train-wreck wrapped in a affordable healthcare act for all is mind boggling. Everyone will agree something needs to be done, but this is not the answer IMHO.But the CBO’s projections are, once again, constrained by only-in-Washington budgeting conventions. These conventions, once unpeeled, make clear that repealing PPACA is extremely unlikely to harm the deficit. (If you aren’t a fan of wonky discussions, just skip to the last section.)
1. CBO does not take into account PPACA’s impact on discretionary spending
2. PPACA includes an unrelated takeover of student loans, which will lead to more loan defaults
3. The CLASS Act generates some near-term revenue at the expense of massive long-term expenditures
4. CBO estimates are highly sensitive to errors in the projected growth of government subsidies
5. PPACA incentivizes employers to dump their employees onto the subsidized exchange, something CBO does not anticipate
6. Because I’m nice, I won’t even bother to deal with some of the other stuff
ADDING IT ALL UP (pleas see previous post or link for summary)
I normally do, and I apologized in advance.....with a reason.When quoting large sections of posts from other sites like a Forbes blog or the National GOP site, usually it's best to tease and link to the site just so the readers have a frame of reference as well as sourcing the quote.
I'm not offended, but at least link to the original. There's no reason not to, especially if you know in advance if you are quoting another site in large part.I normally do, and I apologized in advance.....with a reason.
Edit: I actually did it twice. Sorry if I offended you.
I'm fairly certain that I've seen posters just as recently as this week calling Obamacare a budget buster..Beast, no one is disputing that Obamacare will add 1 trillion to our deficit. I think we're past that.
First, I don't see how anyone can be duped into thinking Obamacare is going to add $1trillion to the deficit. Second, I'm not taking much stock from a partisan piece against the legislation when it's characterizing what I think you'd agree is a clear savings from student loans as some sort of negativity. Further, when it says DOE will lead to more defaults, it's overlooking the fact that it's almost impossible to get away without paying a student loan guaranteed by DOE. They collect forever and it never goes away even in bankruptcy and the change your article bemoans is taking back the profit and oversight from lenders who were not assuming any risk and simply adding to the costs.Beast, no one is disputing that Obamacare will add 1 trillion to our deficit. I think we're past that. What is open for debate is whether the repeal of Obamacare will reduce or increase the deficit. I don't believe in the accuracy of the initial CBO letter, and this is taken directly from the letter:
Here is a clear explanation on how repealing Obamacare reduces the deficit. FYI
Why Repealing Obamacare Will Reduce the Deficit - Forbes
How anyone can be duped into voting for a fiscal train-wreck wrapped in a affordable healthcare act for all is mind boggling. Everyone will agree something needs to be done, but this is not the answer IMHO.
So you disagree with the CBO when they say Obamacare will cost between 1.7-1.9 trillion dollars? dtc, your premise that the uninsured person is going away are inaccurate. Even with Obamacare, there is still an estimated 30 million people who will remain uninsured. Do you really think the 2K fine will cover all those healthcare costs? After doing more research, I'll amend a previous statement that said an individual would be forced to pay one way or the other, either higher insurance premiums or higher taxes. Obamacare doesn't present you with a choice of how you will pay, you will pay both. It is estimated that an additional 30 million Americans will remain uninsured despite Obamacare. And what guarantee so you have the American people will pay the 2K fine to remain uninsured and it makes it's way to the balance sheet as revenue?First, I don't see how anyone can be duped into thinking Obamacare is going to add $1trillion to the deficit. Second, I'm not taking much stock from a partisan piece against the legislation when it's characterizing what I think you'd agree is a clear savings from student loans as some sort of negativity. Further, when it says DOE will lead to more defaults, it's overlooking the fact that it's almost impossible to get away without paying a student loan guaranteed by DOE. They collect forever and it never goes away even in bankruptcy and the change your article bemoans is taking back the profit and oversight from lenders who were not assuming any risk and simply adding to the costs.
Here's another really serious problem with all the talk about Obamacare and the budget that's overlooked. Assuming you're correct and the government is going to see costs of Obamacare increase beyond CBO's predictions, the article and arguments miss the fact that those costs are already costs we consumers pay through our taxes and inflated health care premiums. Moving the place holder for those expenses to the government's sheet instead of mine doesn't reduce or increase my costs. It may end up leading to higher costs for Obamacare and even to increased taxes, but those costs are not part of a new cost that isn't already being borne unfairly by the insured and those who pay taxes.
I wonder why the shift in thinking: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...s-for-supporting-obamacares-cuts-to-medicare/AARP had long lambasted cuts in fees to Medicare doctors because reduced payments would mean fewer doctors who accept patients with the insurance. Yet in its campaign for ObamaCare, it argued the money the health law strips from Medicare—by imposing price controls on hospitals—would improve "care." When the organization tried to sell the line to its own people, it didn't go well. Ms. Super told Obama officials in June 2009: "It was actually a heavy lift for us to convince many at AARP that Medicare 'savings' (which they read as cuts) is not bad for beneficiaries." Note the "savings" quote marks.
As you know if you’ve been reading this blog, Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare in order to pay for its $1.9 trillion expansion of coverage to low-income Americans. It’s one of the reasons why seniors are more opposed to the new health law than any other age group. So why is it that the group that purports to speak for seniors, the American Association of Retired Persons, so strongly supports a law that most seniors oppose? According to an explosive new report from Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), it’s because those very same Medicare cuts will give the AARP a windfall of $1 billion in insurance profits, and preserve another $1.8 billion that AARP already generates from its business interests.
Yes, as opposed to voting for something that neither you or I fully understand. In fact, is there anyone who understands it? The implications and ramifications far exceed the ideal. If you vote for Obama I would hope it is based on more than the merit of the ACA.So based solely on the uncertainty of the CBO's projection, you're willing to say that the national debt will not only not decrease, but increase by more than $1T? And that there's no debating that, when the CBO itself is at best uncertain?