Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Latest Email is about Obama Health Plan
Friday, July 13, 2012 12:05 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote: Has anyone truly read "Obamacare" yet? Here Are The New Taxes You’re Going To Pay For Obamacare By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker – 1 hour 3 minutes ago Well, Obamacare is now official, which means that a lot more people in the United States will have health insurance. And it also means a lot more people will be paying more taxes. (You didn't think Obamacare was free, did you?) Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare: A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" 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%. (WSJ) A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ) Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org) The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to $10,000. Right now, any medical expenses over $7,500 per year are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be $10,000. (ATR.org) The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org) A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org) A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org) A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org) A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.) A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com) So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare. Any big ones I've missed? Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making. Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance. Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money. But for those who also care about the money, here are the details. The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance. As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org: The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016. The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation. The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016) No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family. The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula... The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money. However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter. So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels: Less than $9,500 income = $0 $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695 $50,000 income = $1,000 $75,000 income = $1,600 $100,000 income = $2,250 $125,000 income = $2,900 $150,000 income = $3,500 $175,000 income = $4,100 $200,000 income = $4,700 Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare. But here's some more good news for those folks: The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax. By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax: Those who make less than $9,500 Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income Those with "hardships" Members of Indian tribes Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites or Mennonites
Friday, July 13, 2012 12:47 PM
PENGUIN
Friday, July 13, 2012 1:07 PM
Friday, July 13, 2012 4:10 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:06 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Penguin: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/23/chain-email/health-care-law-sales-tax-home-sales-no/ Here's one. And another... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/21/health-care-fact-checking/ King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa
Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:06 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Saturday, July 14, 2012 9:17 AM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:50 PM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: Gee, all those taxes, fees, and penalties for people making over $250,000 a year. I'm really gonna have to worry about paying them, myself-- NOT! Never in my wildest dreams, not even the ones with the cast of Baywatch, or the female cast of Firefly.
Saturday, July 14, 2012 9:59 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Sunday, July 15, 2012 3:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: Gee, all those taxes, fees, and penalties for people making over $250,000 a year. I'm really gonna have to worry about paying them, myself-- NOT! Never in my wildest dreams, not even the ones with the cast of Baywatch, or the female cast of Firefly. I do get this point of view, especially since I'm an overnight "merchandiser" making barely over minimum wage for being willing to come in when it's dark.... But really.... look at my tax group thread and study it over the years, and what was going on at those times politically, and what the national deficit was when those brackets were.... Why would you ever strive to be better if you had a chance if you're just going to pay somebody else (everybody else) for it?
Sunday, July 15, 2012 8:54 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Gosh 6IX, you make it sound like nobody would ever want to make ANY money because they might *gasp* pay taxes!. The reality is that most people excel at their jobs because they WANT to, and when they do they will still be taking home more money than they were before their raise! I understand you about the irresponsible spending, and I'm sure I could find some doozies that would curl your hair, but those are usually pretty small potatoes. The biggest doozies of all are the Pentagon budget (including the Iraq war) and the bank bailout.
Monday, July 16, 2012 4:40 AM
Monday, July 16, 2012 5:02 AM
Monday, July 16, 2012 5:30 AM
Quote:Although, oddly enough, when the very richest among us were paying FAR MORE in taxes, American ingenuity was at its peak, we actually were the greatest nation on Earth, and our deficits and debt were far, far lower. Cutting taxes on the rich spurred nothing. Incentivizing people to make more-more-MOAR money did nothing for us, except make us a nation of fraudsters. We have more than a generation of trickle-down proving that it absolutely does not work. Now it's time to try something else.
Quote:the pension coverage was a relatively minor aspect of the original Social Security plan (Henry J. Aaron and Robert D. Reischauer, Countdown to Reform: The Great Social Security Debate, the Century Foundation Press, 1998)
Quote:The 1935 Social Security Act was a very broad and all-encompassing program extending a social safety net far and wide for those suffering during the Depression and beyond. And except for Title II, all of these programs would be paid for through the General Fund. The original Social Security Act was mostly a white male program. According to Wikipedia most women and minorities were excluded from receiving benefits from all of the various programs through how employment was defined and through specific listing of the job categories that were or were not covered. Certain jobs were just plain and explicitly excluded from the program. For example, most agricultural workers were excluded, as well as nurses, teachers, hospital workers, librarians, and domestic workers to name just a few. Today most people know that the Title II program has an annual cost-of-living (COLA) clause. This was not always the case. The first retirees received the same monthly benefit for the remainder of their life. But that also changed in 1950 when a COLA was enacted by Congress. At that time these increases were not automatic and were enacted by Congress periodically as necessary. It was not until 1972 that Congress enacted legislation providing for an annual automatic COLA based on the average increase in consumer prices. Also in the 1950’sthe disability provisions were strengthened.Lots more at http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/14217/how-social-security-has-changed-over-the-years/ just a few, and Medicare went through changes too. If it were like the original SSI, women wouldn't be receiving benefits! I'm hoping some of the more egregious aspects of the ACA change over time and improve it, just as was the case for SSI and Medicare. The fact remains that we haven't had ANY kind of healthcare reform per se until now. Another fact is that healthcare is bankrupting us, largely because so many uninsured end up going to the ER for treatment, which, again, ALL OF US PAY FOR. So if you look at the taxes it will cause, I think if anyone ran the figures they'd find out those taxes, and upon whom they fall, most of us would be paying less for medical care for the uninsured than we do now. Sure, we won't be paying less taxes (gawd forbid!), but the money SPENT would be less on the uninsured for the vast majority of us. I see it as a first step, and a first step only. As society changed, such as women getting SSI benefits, I hope society will keep changing and the ACA will be improved as it does. Then there's the point Mike made, which to me is accurate. I would say the "something different" we need to try would include BOTH cuts and taxes, not one or the other...and I believe the Dems have already given in on cutting quite a bit, so now it's time to add the other component. JMHO.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL