America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by jpotts. 75 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Obama on Obamacare: “We did raise taxes on some things.”
Abrignac Online
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
And by “some things,” he means uninsured families, medical devices, workplace flex accounts, small businesses, Health Savings Accounts, savings income, uni

During his Tuesday remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama admitted that his health care law raises taxes: “So what we did — it’s paid for by a combination of things. We did raise taxes on some things.”

“Some things” is an understatement. Below is just a partial list of Obamacare’s new or higher taxes on Americans:

Starting in tax year 2013:

Obamacare Medical Device Tax: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will make everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive.

Obamacare High Medical Bills Tax: Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income.

According to the IRS, 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction in 2009, the latest year of available data. Almost all are middle class. The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit will be $200 - $400 per year. To learn more about this tax, click here.

Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Tax: The 30 - 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face a new Obamacare cap of $2,500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap.) Now, a parent looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces will find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they would have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars.

Needless to say, this tax will especially impact middle class families.

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Nationwide there are several million families with special needs children 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. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

Obamacare Super Saver Surtax: A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This tax hike results in the following top tax rates on investment income:




Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*


2013+

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%


*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. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Increase:




First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee


Pre-Obamacare

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


Obamacare

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


Starting in tax year 2014:

Obamacare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax: Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as pointed out by the Associated Press: “Most would be in the middle class.”

In addition, 100 percent of Americans filing a tax return (140 million filers) will be forced to submit paperwork to the IRS showing they either had “qualifying” health insurance for every month of the tax year or they obtained an exemption to the mandate.

Americans liable for the surtax will pay according to the following schedule:




1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults


2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285


2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975


2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085


(Delayed by Obama to 2015) Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax: 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 $2,000 for all full-time employees. This provision 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 $3,000. 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).

Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers: Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The tax phases in gradually until 2018. Fully imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

Starting in tax year 2018:

Obamacare Tax on Union Member and Early Retiree Health Insurance Plans: Obamacare imposes a new 40 percent excise tax on high cost or “Cadillac” health insurance plans, effective in 2018. This tax increase will most directly affect union families and early retirees, who are likely to be covered by such plans. This Obamacare tax will be levied on insurance policies whose premiums exceed $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family. Middle class union members tend to be covered by such plans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.


Read more: http://atr.org/obama-obamacare-raise-taxes-things-a7883#ixzz2fvuLPvmB
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Sometimes free isn't free.
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMWow_Sk04&feature=youtu.be
Brewha Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Obamacare requires personal accountability for health care and forces competition in the market place - two core Republican principals. And yet the whining never stops.

I guess the GOP is stuck on Cruz control . . . .
Abrignac Online
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
Brewha wrote:
Obamacare requires personal accountability for health care and forces competition in the market place - two core Republican principals. And yet the whining never stops.

I guess the GOP is stuck on Cruz control . . . .


At what cost?
Gene363 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
ZRX1200 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMWow_Sk04&feature=youtu.be



Well that made my day... crappier. Thanks for posting the link.
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
You're welcome Gene.

Brewha, if you like personal responsibility why do you like big gov't?
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Also it's not really personal responsibility when it only works with credit subsidies who are paid by who? Not the insuree.

This program is designed to fail to get single payer.
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
You're welcome Gene.

Brewha, if you like personal responsibility why do you like big gov't?

Z, "big government" is one of those weasel phrases that sounds like it really means something, but it is just grand standing rhetoric.

Besides, I was pointing out that Republicans should love the idea of people having to take responsibility for themselves. I mean, where is the ubiquitous "boot strap" lecture now?
Brewha Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Abrignac wrote:
At what cost?

You think people should get healthcare for free?
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
The only responsibility being taken is redistribution.

This will not work.
Abrignac Online
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
Brewha wrote:
You think people should get healthcare for free?


I'm thinking you have a brick wall. Have the two of you had your daily conversation?
dubleuhb Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
So forcing the younger generations to pay into something they don't need to pay for those that do is personal responsibility ?

We'll see how they feel about when the bill comes due, LMAO!!
dubleuhb Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Brewha wrote:
You think people should get healthcare for free?

It was highly touted as ''free'' when they pushed it through, but you knew that right ?
rfenst Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Brewha wrote:
You think people should get healthcare for free?


If they must have it and cannot otherwise obtain it; or it will cost us less to openly provide it in the long run than not provide it up front- yes.

And, I have no problem paying taxes used for this.
Brewha Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
The only responsibility being taken is redistribution.

This will not work.

I credit you with being a smart fellow Z. Perhaps you are right. But just seeing the way the mouthpieces of big business are crying about this makes me disagree.

Anyway, we shall see.
ZRX1200 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Oh ^ that is how this was sold????

I just hope the political price is paid before we achieve full Banana Republic status under martial law.
Brewha Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
rfenst wrote:
If they must have it and cannot otherwise obtain it; or it will cost us less to openly provide it in the long run than not provide it up front- yes.

And, I have no problem paying taxes used for this.

No argument. If fact I admire the style of it and agree.

Careful Mr. Fenst, people might start calling you an altruist . . . .
Brewha Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Abrignac wrote:
I'm thinking you have a brick wall. Have the two of you had your daily conversation?

I do not believe that trading forum postings with you constitutes a conversation.
But if you feel that way, I'm good.
Brewha Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
Oh ^ that is how this was sold????

I just hope the political price is paid before we achieve full Banana Republic status under martial law.

Come on man, if you want to carp about something, how about millitary spending? Legislation bought by Monsato? Rap music? Or the needless proliferation of twerking . . . .
Brewha Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
dubleuhb wrote:
It was highly touted as ''free'' when they pushed it through, but you knew that right ?

No, it was touted as "affordable healthcare". You thinking of the "read my lips, no new taxes" speach.
Abrignac Online
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
Such game changing legislation should have been openly debated. It should have at a minimum had bi-party support. Something this like this should have had broad support. Instead it was passed on a party line vote without the opposition even having the oppurtunity to read the bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Dems and Repubs should be renamed winner take all and what goes around comes around.
ZRX1200 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Be an altruist with your own money or convince the public. Not what happened here.

I'll go look for some Monsanto links now.
wheelrite Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
No, it was touted as "affordable healthcare". You thinking of the "read my lips, no new taxes" speach.


Dude,,,

you know the Regime implied to your uneducated masses and they inferred as much, that it would be free,,,,


wheel,
ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Brewha you watch the link? Post 3
Abrignac Online
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
Brewha wrote:
No, it was touted as "affordable healthcare". You thinking of the "read my lips, no new taxes" speach.


Some of us think the current state of affairs merit more than hyperbole, conjecture and sarcasm. Perhaps if people could move past those things we wouldn't be the current situation.

Just a thought...
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Brewha wrote:
No argument. If fact I admire the style of it and agree.

Careful Mr. Fenst, people might start calling you an altruist . . . .


Or a socialist!
Brewha Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Abrignac wrote:
Such game changing legislation should have been openly debated. It should have at a minimum had bi-party support. Something this like this should have had broad support. Instead it was passed on a party line vote without the opposition even having the oppurtunity to read the bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Dems and Repubs should be renamed winner take all and what goes around comes around.

And of course the GOP would never use their "political capital" to push through legislation. They are above "dirty tricks" like shutting the government down when their MINORITY does not get their way . . . . Right, I see your point.

Are you floating the idea that this legislation was never openly debated??? And that having won the election with this issue in hand, the administration was "unfair" in inacting what they were elected to do?
ZRX1200 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Winning an election isn't open debate, you quoting McShame now?

And '"get their way"? There is NO effort to involve or engage the "opposition".
Abrignac Online
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
Brewha wrote:
And of course the GOP would never use their "political capital" to push through legislation. They are above "dirty tricks" like shutting the government down when their MINORITY does not get their way . . . . Right, I see your point.

Are you floating the idea that this legislation was never openly debated??? And that having won the election with this issue in hand, the administration was "unfair" in inacting what they were elected to do?


Brewha the fatal flaw in your post is the assumption that I am Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a Democrat. I'm an American from South Louisiana who is tired of a two party system that is more about beating each other than it is about doing the job set forth in the Consitution.

If you're implying that this legislation was openly debated then you're either living in a dream or you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Have you nothing better to do?
Brewha Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
Brewha you watch the link? Post 3

Yes.
ZRX1200 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Cool
rfenst Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Abrignac wrote:
Such game changing legislation should have been openly debated. It should have at a minimum had bi-party support. Something this like this should have had broad support. Instead it was passed on a party line vote without the opposition even having the oppurtunity to read the bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Dems and Repubs should be renamed winner take all and what goes around comes around.


Since when are partyline legislative votes wrongful? Pretty much the way most votes are decided.

A minimum of bi-party support? Vague. What does that mean and why?

Since when does a law or program require anything more than a simple majority?

Enough of the complaints about needing more time to read the bill/law. It has been available for that long enough. It is the stupidest argument I have heard.

Cruz was on Meet the Press this morning and l think he was both disingenuous and an idiot for thinking his crap was convincing then.
Brewha Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Abrignac wrote:
Brewha the fatal flaw in your post is the assumption that I am Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a Democrat. I'm an American from South Louisiana who is tired of a two party system that is more about beating each other than it is about doing the job set forth in the Consitution.

If you're implying that this legislation was openly debated then you're either living in a dream or you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Have you nothing better to do?

Oh. Well if you had participated in the elections and watched the debates you would have heard about Obamacare before.

Just sayin'
Brewha Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
wheelrite wrote:
Dude,,,

you know the Regime implied to your uneducated masses and they inferred as much, that it would be free,,,,


wheel,

The uneducated masses are largely conservative Republicans. And really, who the hell understands what they think.
Brewha Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
rfenst wrote:
Since when are partyline legislative votes wrongful? Pretty much the way most votes are decided.

A minimum of bi-party support? Vague. What does that mean and why?

Since when does a law or program require anything more than a simple majority?

Enough of the complaints about needing more time to read the bill/law. It has been available for that long enough. It is the stupidest argument I have heard.

Cruz was on Meet the Press this morning and l think he was both disingenuous and an idiot for thinking his crap was convincing then.

SOCIALIST!
rfenst Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Abrignac wrote:
Brewha the fatal flaw in your post is the assumption that I am Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a Democrat. I'm an American from South Louisiana who is tired of a two party system that is more about beating each other than it is about doing the job set forth in the Consitution.

If you're implying that this legislation was openly debated then you're either living in a dream or you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Have you nothing better to do?


I think you have assumed whatever you think he assumed.
Abrignac Online
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
rfenst wrote:
Since when are partyline legislative votes wrongful? Pretty much the way most votes are decided.

A minimum of bi-party support? Vague. What does that mean and why?

Since when does a law or program require anything more than a simple majority?

Enough of the complaints about needing more time to read the bill/law. It has been available for that long enough. It is the stupidest argument I have heard.

Cruz was on Meet the Press this morning and l think he was both disingenuous and an idiot for thinking his crap was convincing then.



Please tell me that you are not implying that is was ok to pass this mess before the bill was made available to ALL committee members who had sufficient time to digest it and consider its ramifications.

You're an attorney Robert. Surely you're not gonna go to trial when your clients case is to be decided on a 10,000 page before you have sufficient time to study it.

"We've got to pass this bill to see what's in it" ~ Nancy Pelosi
Brewha Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
rfenst wrote:
I think you have assumed whatever you think he assumed.

An astute assumption.
Brewha Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Abrignac wrote:
Please tell me that you are not implying that is was ok to pass this mess before the bill was made available to ALL committee members who had sufficient time to digest it and consider its ramifications.

You're an attorney Robert. Surely you're not gonna go to trial when your clients case is to be decided on a 10,000 page before you have sufficient time to study it.

"We've got to pass this bill to see what's in it" ~ Nancy Pelosi

Ah, the fatal flaw in your post was that it was made of crapola.

Perhaps we should shut down the government for the next ninety days so everyone could have a look at it, when they find time, when it is convenient. Debate it. And then have it voted in like it already has been . . . .
Abrignac Online
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
I assume so.
Brewha Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Abrignac wrote:
I assume so.

He was astute. You, not so much . . .
ZRX1200 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
I vote for more than 90 days.
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574

I watched face the nation this morning also... apparently shutting down the gubment is no big deal... ole Tipper did it 12 times.... Mellow
wheelrite Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
The uneducated masses are largely conservative Republicans. And really, who the hell understands what they think.


oh my,,,

the Obama phone, snap card crowd are all Rhode scholars , right ?
Abrignac Online
#46 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
Brewha wrote:
He was astute. You, not so much . . .


What ever you say old stone face.
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Abrignac wrote:
Please tell me that you are not implying that is was ok to pass this mess before the bill was made available to ALL committee members who had sufficient time to digest it and consider its ramifications.

You're an attorney Robert. Surely you're not gonna go to trial when your clients case is to be decided on a 10,000 page before you have sufficient time to study it.

"We've got to pass this bill to see what's in it" ~ Nancy Pelosi


You are correct. I generally would not- so to speak. Instead, I would rely on others' summaries of the vast majority of it, focusing myself on the crucial parts pertinent to the dispute... if only I were a trial lawyer...
wheelrite Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Abrignac wrote:
What ever you say old stone face.


Hey Brewha really is a good dude, although a commie ****,,,

seriously,,,


wheel,
rfenst Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
DrafterX wrote:
I watched face the nation this morning also... apparently shutting down the gubment is no big deal... ole Tipper did it 12 times.... Mellow


It is wrong IMO. Wonder how "dangerous"/stressful it was to do back then.
DrafterX Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
rfenst wrote:
It is wrong IMO. Wonder how "dangerous"/stressful it was to do back then.



I dunno... but they sure make it sound bad now... I never noticed back then.... plus how bad can a 24 hour shutdown be..?? they make it sound like months... just a minor detail left out on accident I'm sure... Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>