jagbender
Registered
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Obamacare summed up in on LONG sentence
- Thread starter jagbender
- Start date
jagbender
Registered
Thats some funny shit!!! Great thread Jag!
Standard Donkey
Registered
it's funny.. but also very un-funny..
jagbender
Registered
forced myself to push play, lmao the whole video. another good one
Young People under Obamacare: Cash Cow for Older Workers
It?s official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[SUP][1][/SUP] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation?s youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.
The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states.[SUP][2][/SUP]That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[SUP][3][/SUP] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact.
Analysts based these estimates on average premiums for 5-year age groups (i.e. 55-59, 60-64, etc.). However, the new rules say that the restriction must apply to 1-year age groups (i.e. 25, 26, 27, etc.). Since health spending rises steadily by age?about 3.5 percent per year between 25 to 64?expected spending for 64 year-olds is higher than for the 60-64 year-old age group as a whole. That means insurance companies will have to charge 18-year-olds at least 10 percent more using the 1-year age groups to ensure their premiums fall within the mandated range of those of 64 year-olds.
The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it.[SUP] [4] [/SUP]In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for ?free-riding? that it was intended to counter.
Clearly, until we observe actual behavior next January, we won?t know precisely how large an adverse selection problem has been unnecessarily created by these new rules. But what we can say for certain is that for young adults who elect to have health coverage, it will be way more expensive next year than it is today.
Is this fair? Ask the typical 20-24 year-old?whose median weekly earnings are $461?whether it?s fair to be asked to pay 50 percent higher premiums so that workers age 55-64?whose median weekly earnings are $887?can pay lower premiums. Think about that. The median earnings for older workers are $420 a week more than those of younger workers, or roughly $20,000 more a year. How is mandating a price break on health insurance for this far higher income group at the expense of the lower income group possibly fair?
The difference in mean health spending for those age 45-64 and those age 18-24 is a mere $4,100?less than $350 a month.[SUP][3] [/SUP]In short, the group benefiting from this transfer earns enough extra in a single week to cover the expense of their high health insurance premiums. I?m in the age category that would benefit from this type of transfer, yet even I can see how grossly unfair it is to the typical young worker.
As well, this unnecessary and undesirable feature of Obamacare is complicating discussions about how to reform Medicare. One very logical tweak to the program is to raise the age of eligibility to age 67 (so that it matches the eligibility age used for Social Security). After all, life expectancy at age 65 has risen by 4.5 years since Medicare?s inception. But because of the restrictions placed on premiums under Obamacare, such a simple change would require the premiums of young adults obtaining coverage through the exchanges to increase by at least eight percent, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study.
This is what comes of ?taxation by regulation.? If older people truly are deserving of help in paying for their premiums, then we should be relying on honest and open subsidies to assist them. This would permit the burden to be borne by society in general in a fashion that we can agree is distributionally fair. In contrast, loading all of these generational cross-subsidies onto young people is manifestly unfair. When we see ?Occupy Obamacare? protests, we?ll know that young people have finally figured this out.
Young People under Obamacare: Cash Cow for Older Workers - Forbes
It?s official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[SUP][1][/SUP] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation?s youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.
The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states.[SUP][2][/SUP]That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[SUP][3][/SUP] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact.
Analysts based these estimates on average premiums for 5-year age groups (i.e. 55-59, 60-64, etc.). However, the new rules say that the restriction must apply to 1-year age groups (i.e. 25, 26, 27, etc.). Since health spending rises steadily by age?about 3.5 percent per year between 25 to 64?expected spending for 64 year-olds is higher than for the 60-64 year-old age group as a whole. That means insurance companies will have to charge 18-year-olds at least 10 percent more using the 1-year age groups to ensure their premiums fall within the mandated range of those of 64 year-olds.The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it.[SUP] [4] [/SUP]In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for ?free-riding? that it was intended to counter.
Clearly, until we observe actual behavior next January, we won?t know precisely how large an adverse selection problem has been unnecessarily created by these new rules. But what we can say for certain is that for young adults who elect to have health coverage, it will be way more expensive next year than it is today.
Is this fair? Ask the typical 20-24 year-old?whose median weekly earnings are $461?whether it?s fair to be asked to pay 50 percent higher premiums so that workers age 55-64?whose median weekly earnings are $887?can pay lower premiums. Think about that. The median earnings for older workers are $420 a week more than those of younger workers, or roughly $20,000 more a year. How is mandating a price break on health insurance for this far higher income group at the expense of the lower income group possibly fair?
The difference in mean health spending for those age 45-64 and those age 18-24 is a mere $4,100?less than $350 a month.[SUP][3] [/SUP]In short, the group benefiting from this transfer earns enough extra in a single week to cover the expense of their high health insurance premiums. I?m in the age category that would benefit from this type of transfer, yet even I can see how grossly unfair it is to the typical young worker.
As well, this unnecessary and undesirable feature of Obamacare is complicating discussions about how to reform Medicare. One very logical tweak to the program is to raise the age of eligibility to age 67 (so that it matches the eligibility age used for Social Security). After all, life expectancy at age 65 has risen by 4.5 years since Medicare?s inception. But because of the restrictions placed on premiums under Obamacare, such a simple change would require the premiums of young adults obtaining coverage through the exchanges to increase by at least eight percent, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study.
This is what comes of ?taxation by regulation.? If older people truly are deserving of help in paying for their premiums, then we should be relying on honest and open subsidies to assist them. This would permit the burden to be borne by society in general in a fashion that we can agree is distributionally fair. In contrast, loading all of these generational cross-subsidies onto young people is manifestly unfair. When we see ?Occupy Obamacare? protests, we?ll know that young people have finally figured this out.
Young People under Obamacare: Cash Cow for Older Workers - Forbes
free trade agreements to open up healthcare to the global labor force would reduce costs by 25% alone. but healthcare is a "protected sector" while other sectors like manufacturing, service sector, IT, etc. are not.
the US has the least amount of Dr's and beds (rooms per hospital) out of all the wealthy industrialized country's in the OECD. this keeps income high for doctors who obviously play a major role in the prescription drug industry.
the US has the least amount of Dr's and beds (rooms per hospital) out of all the wealthy industrialized country's in the OECD. this keeps income high for doctors who obviously play a major role in the prescription drug industry.
Domino's: Obamacare requires 34 million pizza nutrition signs in stores
November 29, 2012 | 1:10 pm
New Obamacare regulations targeting the fast food and grocery store market that require signs detailing calorie and nutritional information on every product will force pizza makers like Domino's to post up to 34 million different signs in every store: One for every possible pizza order.
"It's not like a Big Mac. Pizza is customizable, there are options to factor in," said Jenny Fouracre-Petko, legislative director for Domino's and a member of the trade group American Pizza Community. "There are 34 million pizza combinations. We've done the math."
Ditto for the grocery stores, which are shifting to providing more fresh made and baked goods, said Erik Lieberman, counsel for the Food Marketing Institute. "Consider just one fresh-baked blueberry muffin. If one is sold, you need a nutrition sign or sticker. If a half dozen are sold, a different one is required. Same if you sell a dozen."
Lieberman predicted that the new regulations being finalized by the Food and Drug Administration for chains with 20 stores or more will cost the grocery industry $1 billion. He said stores average 1,500 fresh made items each.
Fouracre-Petko said that just posting generic nutrition signs in Domino's will cost $4,700 per location, senseless, she said, because virtually all Domino's customers order by phone and get their food delivered, so most will never seen them. She said that 10 percent of pizza customers enter a Domino's store. "Coughing up almost $5,000 for something like this will hurt," she said.
Lieberman said that consumers will get stuck with the bill. "It's one more cost consumers are going to have to pay for," he said.
Legislation has been introduced to trim the reach of the Obamacare rules which are aimed at advancing consumer health. Congress could pass the "Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2012" this year, said Lieberman and Fouracre-Petko.
Domino's: Obamacare requires 34 million pizza nutrition signs in stores | WashingtonExaminer.com
November 29, 2012 | 1:10 pm
New Obamacare regulations targeting the fast food and grocery store market that require signs detailing calorie and nutritional information on every product will force pizza makers like Domino's to post up to 34 million different signs in every store: One for every possible pizza order.
"It's not like a Big Mac. Pizza is customizable, there are options to factor in," said Jenny Fouracre-Petko, legislative director for Domino's and a member of the trade group American Pizza Community. "There are 34 million pizza combinations. We've done the math."
Ditto for the grocery stores, which are shifting to providing more fresh made and baked goods, said Erik Lieberman, counsel for the Food Marketing Institute. "Consider just one fresh-baked blueberry muffin. If one is sold, you need a nutrition sign or sticker. If a half dozen are sold, a different one is required. Same if you sell a dozen."
Lieberman predicted that the new regulations being finalized by the Food and Drug Administration for chains with 20 stores or more will cost the grocery industry $1 billion. He said stores average 1,500 fresh made items each.
Fouracre-Petko said that just posting generic nutrition signs in Domino's will cost $4,700 per location, senseless, she said, because virtually all Domino's customers order by phone and get their food delivered, so most will never seen them. She said that 10 percent of pizza customers enter a Domino's store. "Coughing up almost $5,000 for something like this will hurt," she said.
Lieberman said that consumers will get stuck with the bill. "It's one more cost consumers are going to have to pay for," he said.
Legislation has been introduced to trim the reach of the Obamacare rules which are aimed at advancing consumer health. Congress could pass the "Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2012" this year, said Lieberman and Fouracre-Petko.
Domino's: Obamacare requires 34 million pizza nutrition signs in stores | WashingtonExaminer.com
jagbender
Registered
Our Government cannot legislate health or morality. Why does the government want to warn people of what they already know. IF I am eating at a fast food restaurant I "ALWAYS" look at the calorie content.
Does anyone remember when the government issued warning lables on Cigarettes or Alcohol. I am sure that made a great impact on smokers and drinkers. Not lets try that on "eaters" WTF???
Mayor Bloomburg how is your Soda regulation in NYC working out for you?
jagbender
Registered
It all makes sense now. Gay marriage & marijuana being legalized on the same day.
Leviticus 20:13- "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned."
We were just interpreting it wrong.
Leviticus 20:13- "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned."
We were just interpreting it wrong.
Of course you find facts boring as you don't care about them or know any. As would be the default position of the lazy non-thinking ideologue.
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). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:
Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*
2012
15%
15%
35%
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. 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): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
$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
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
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
Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010#ixzz1zTXuZUYl
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). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:
Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*
2012
15%
15%
35%
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. 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): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
$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
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
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
Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010#ixzz1zTXuZUYl
fever
Registered
Bump
LMAO! you might want to actually learn about the credibility and motives behind various sources of information. you have zero knowledge in analyzing data, you simply post links to info that shares your ideology. ATR is Grover Norquist and he's about a un-american as a person can get.
really the OECD is "leftist" as is the IMF, FRB and World Bank? ha...ha...ha...remember the radical right does not exist anywhere else in the world so either the entire rest of the world is wrong or the radical right in the US is...gee I wonder which one is more likely? the one with the states who's economic ideology has them ranking at the bottom for everything?
want to see a moron, simply look in the mirror....
the fact that you support a flat tax shows you have ZERO comprehension in the study or understanding of economics
Five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force on January 1st. 2013
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven?t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country?s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one?s adjusted gross income.
The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children?s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
For further proof, note the ObamaCare ?medicine cabinet tax? which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.
4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
And, last but not least...
5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It?s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply ?move on? after the Supreme Court ruling.
Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven?t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country?s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one?s adjusted gross income.
The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children?s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
For further proof, note the ObamaCare ?medicine cabinet tax? which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.
4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
And, last but not least...
5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It?s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply ?move on? after the Supreme Court ruling.
Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News
Nice copy and paste job. Care to provide links to the parts of the healthcare bill that supports these claims? Links to the parts of the actual bill or at least list the sections where they are located will do.
i'm not your teacher. don't be lazy. do your own homework if you don't believe it and prove it wrong. i challenge you to do so.
Standard Donkey
Registered
i totally agree with you bro, but i gotta be impartial here.. the burden of proof actually rests on your shoulders
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
- Points
- 0
Grover Norquist strikes again: Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News
i totally agree with you bro, but i gotta be impartial here.. the burden of proof actually rests on your shoulders
the link is on my post. you know the highlighted blue part at the bottom?????
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
- Points
- 0
Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven?t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country?s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
- The medical device industry is not being singled out. The excise tax is one of several new levies on sectors that will gain business due to health reform.The expansion of health coverage will increase the demand for medical devices and could offset the effect of the tax.
- The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt.
- The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care.
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven?t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country?s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
