The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 1:02 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Quote:
Here Are The New Taxes You're Going To Pay To Pay For Obamacare...
Henry Blodget

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7

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.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Looks like my life will change a whopping zero percent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Lenas wrote:
Looks like my life will change a whopping zero percent.


This.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:02 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Lenas wrote:
Looks like my life will change a whopping zero percent.


/golfclap

Sounds like you're very good at counting other people's money. With that said, yes, it absolutely will have a negative effect on your life. Capital formation in the US is about to be decimated. Why would anyone with enough assets to stay out of markets invest in business (spurring their growth, and creating both jobs and wealth) when their risk is no longer mitigated by reward? Additionally, why would anyone seek to do enough work to see their investment income cut in half?

This farce will do more to push the the American retirement age out into the middle 70's than anything that has come before it.

Your parents will die at their desks, and you likely will as well.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:19 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
I've been planning to die at my desk for years.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
the sky is falling! the sky is falling!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
I'm not seeing anything that would cut investment income in half.

The closest thing would be the assumption that the bush-era tax cuts would expire and not be renewed, at ~44%.

But that's not really a fair addition to the discussion, since they only give the figures for pre-ACA, pre-tax cut expiration to post-ACA, post-expiration.

If the tax cuts don't expire, the increase will be from 15-18%. Not nearly the horrible fate you make it out to be. An increase, sure, but not to 50%.

The figure we're missing is what it would be without the ACA, but with the expiration of the tax cuts. Not putting that in is definitely what I'd consider "poor reporting".

But yes, I don't think this will have a huge effect on many people. I don't think many people made the 7500 mark that won't meet the 10,000 mark. And I think the tax on cadilac health plans is a good thing, although maybe poorly implemented in not giving variance from high cost of living to low cost of living states. 10,200 is a pretty beefy health plan, though.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
TheRiov wrote:
the sky is falling! the sky is falling!


Actual growth of Capital and dividends are not necessarily linked when reporting real gains and losses. Investment that yield high dividends for the purposes of income do not always reflect growth of the actual investment. And investment that loses 10% in a given year can, and often does, report a 5% dividend. So what this serves to accomplish is nearly a 50% tax on money that was lost.

Investment carries risk, and most investment outside of 401K's, 403b's, 457's and other employee sponsored qualified accounts is made by those with higher earnings, because the are the ones who can afford to carry that risk of loss. That risk is calculated and mitigated, however, by the potential upside of gains, and that upside has been greatly diminished by this legislation.

"So what?" you may ask. Well, what we are about to witness, if these tax cuts are not extended, is one of the greatest capital flight driven selling frenzies the market has ever seen, leading to massive job loss as businesses struggle to recapitalize, and the sinking of the entire retirement account system of the United States.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
Again, you're focusing not on the actual ACA tax, which is an additional 3.8 % (relatively minor), but the extension or non-extension of the Bush tax cuts, which is 25%.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Rynar's Linked Article wrote:
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)


To clarify, capital gains and dividends are currently taxed at 15% (0% for low-income filers). Take away the Bush tax cuts, and those rates go up to 20% for cap gains and whatever the individual filer's normal income tax rate is for dividends (i.e. 39.6% for people making over $200k). Add on the ACA surtax, and you get (i) for cap gains, 18.8% if we keep the Bush cuts or 23.8% if the Bush cuts expire, and (ii) for dividends, 18.8% if we keep the Bush cuts or the filer's income tax rate plus 3.8% (i.e. 43.4% for people making over $200k).

In other words, dividends become a bad deal for high income people again, but other kinds of investment income are still favored over regular wage income. More importantly, the bulk of the increase is attributable to the expiration of the Bush cuts, not the ACA surtax.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
RangerDave wrote:
Rynar's Linked Article wrote:
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)


To clarify, capital gains and dividends are currently taxed at 15% (0% for low-income filers). Take away the Bush tax cuts, and those rates go up to 20% for cap gains and whatever the individual filer's normal income tax rate is for dividends (i.e. 39.6% for people making over $200k). Add on the ACA surtax, and you get (i) for cap gains, 18.8% if we keep the Bush cuts or 23.8% if the Bush cuts expire, and (ii) for dividends, 18.8% if we keep the Bush cuts or the filer's income tax rate plus 3.8% (i.e. 43.4% for people making over $200k).

In other words, dividends become a bad deal for high income people again, but other kinds of investment income are still favored over regular wage income. More importantly, the bulk of the increase is attributable to the expiration of the Bush cuts, not the ACA surtax.


In tortured markets like these, the investments that most flock towards are those that pay a higher dividend because the dividend serves as evidence of internally secure financials. There is nowhere else to go in a market like this. I am already witnessing many of our more affluent clients preparing to exit the market.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
So... If I sell my house for 100k and make 100k through all other means I'm boned?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Rynar wrote:
With that said, yes, it absolutely will have a negative effect on your life.


Actually, it's quite the opposite. It will have a positive effect on my life. It's really unfortunate that you're too short sighted to see it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:25 pm 
Offline
The King
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 3219
Don't think rynar is on the side of being short sided here.

You've got your liberal warm fuzzy and could care less about how all this plays out. Remember, it's your leadership that stated"we have to pass it to find out what's in it.". Pathetic.

Also consider that five politicians have said that had it been presented as a tax, they would not have voted for it. It would not have passed.

The death of America. One liberal good deed at a time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Aizle wrote:
Rynar wrote:
With that said, yes, it absolutely will have a negative effect on your life.


Actually, it's quite the opposite. It will have a positive effect on my life. It's really unfortunate that you're too short sighted to see it.

How is a drastically worse economy better for your life?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
Again, what you're painting as the cause of a "drastically worse economy" is not due to the ACA, primarily.

It's due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

The ACA has a very small effect, relatively speaking.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
I expect they will be allowed to expire.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:14 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I'm not overly pleased that $25-30 has to come out of each of my paychecks so that someone who is not working or making similar/less money can have healthcare. I guess I'm just selfish, but how much healthcare is a person going to get for $700. I wonder how many uninsured people it will take to pay for one persons subsidized plan? Also is this money just going to go into the General fund just like my FICA does.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
This greatly simplifies my retirement plan...

I can start as soon as this goes into effect!

\o/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
ACA beats me paying 5 times as much when the untreated little problems become big problems and then I'm forced to pay for it anyway.

The only people really hurt by the ACA are the ones that have enough money to not need to buy health insurance at all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:07 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Treat the little problems while they are little Xeq. Wow that was easy.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:50 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
ACA will increase the cost of healthcare and decrease the availability of providers across the board, but you wouldn't know that since you haven't read the actual bill. Florida's Medicare costs will double to $40,000,000,000.00 next year under the provisions that go active in January. It will double to $80,000,000,000.00 after the rest of the provisions go into effect in 2014. I think you seriously underestimate the steaming pile of **** you've been sold by a tainted court. That's one state. California, Maryland, and Connecticut are facing similar economic difficulties just dealing with the statutory requirements of the bill before anything possibly useful goes into effect.

Let's not forget that Elena Kagan presented the initial arguments for these challenges to a very different court. Let's not forget that with John Roberts's obvious and predictable 'yes', the man was a devoted student of Earl Warren, you still don't have a valid decision because by all rights ... Kagan should have recused herself.

And all the ACA does is tax the healthy for being healthy. You are aware that the majority, over 70%, of total healthcare costs in this country affect only 2 demographics--children and adults over 60. You are also aware that these people by and large don't pay taxes? Of course you aren't, it wouldn't even be remotely reasonable to levy a 2.4 trillion dollar a year tax without considering who got the benefits and how to pay for them. I'm sorry you bought into the rhetoric; I'm sorry you bought into a politicians figure of uninsured people that included 24 million native Americans in the 33 million uninsured Americans pool.

And I'm sorry you're still believing the lies. Don't ask me to respond, because it's obvious too many of you believe outright lies.

Just in case you're wondering, including over-the-counter drug consumption, the average person between 18 and 59 spends $180 a year on health care. Maybe a federal catastrophic illness pool to replace Medicare would have been better; then at least you'd have a solution that solves the problems people are talking about without creating problems no one needs.

Common sense is a **** super power, and most of you apparently lack it.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
Khross wrote:
ACA will increase the cost of healthcare and decrease the availability of providers across the board

And all the ACA does is tax the healthy for being healthy. You are aware that the majority, over 70%, of total healthcare costs in this country affect only 2 demographics--children and adults over 60.


These are my big two issues with it. It will not decrease costs unless it is rationed, in which case it becomes a matter of value rather than cost. The second thing is it will be my son and daughter paying for me when I retire. This is not only a huge burden, but an unsustainable one if social security and medicare are any indication, not to mention Europe.

Something will have to give at some point depending on demographics, immigration, global economies etc. I suppose you can say that about any program but I cant help but feel it's yet another program designed to pick up the slack of the lowest common denominator in society financed by the responsible.

And of course you need to take into account the immediate issue of the economy. How wise is it to introduce massive entitlements during a huge downturn? Not very. I think that's why the "you can stay on mommy's insurance til 26" is so important. Kids cant find work out of college.

On the bright side, it does help people who legitimately need it too. There's no question our current system is uh... sub optimal.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
Oh, I think the ACA is a problem ridden proposal.

I just don't like it when people bring up what I consider "bogus" arguments against it, rather than focusing on the core issues (as you did).

Tying the expiring bush tax cuts to the ACA to show how the ACA is going to tank the economy due to an increase from 15% to 44% on dividends isn't a valid argument against the ACA.

The problems with the huge and unsupported cost of the now "required" healthcare, on the other hand, are quite valid.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:23 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
NephyrS wrote:
Tying the expiring bush tax cuts to the ACA to show how the ACA is going to tank the economy due to an increase from 15% to 44% on dividends isn't a valid argument against the ACA.

I don't understand your beef here. The author lays out the only two scenarios that could happen, the Bush tax cuts do not expire in which case taxes go up X%; however, the intention is that the temporary Bush tax cuts expire (as they were intended to do) so taxes could go up X% between both. There is no world in which the Bush tax cuts expire but there is no cost for ACA.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 259 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group