keepthefaith

The big myth is that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the rich when actually every bracket with income at or above $32K I believe received a tax cut. What will be really interesting is if the cuts are allowed to expire, virtually everybody that is employed full-time will see a tax increase. I know what Obama will want to do is extend the cuts to the lower brackets and allow the upper bracket cuts to expire increasng taxes on the upper earners. However, the makeup of Congress at that time might not be receptive, so in order to keep his campaign promise that he would not increase taxes on the "middle class" he might have to extend the cuts and include the rich! Otherwise it's an increase for everyone. Oh my lord, he's really in a pickle.

We need free psychological care also for everyone as all this will make us crazy for sure.

Chances are that if you are able to fund your own retirement the Dems will make sure your SS contributions go to somebody that needs the money more than you do.

When 70+ % of people think we need to reform health care and about 40% like the plan that is proposed, something is wrong. When so many citizens speak out so loudly and in opposition to the plan that is on the table and a majority of elected officials disregard those citizens and move forward with the unpopular plan, something again is wrong. This issue was one that really did cut across party lines and there was a very nice opportunity to devise a solution that would be popular and one that a majority of citizens would have supported. Obama could have shown some leadership by listening to the concerns that were raised and telling Congress, "go back to the drawing board". "Come back with something that more Americans will support, something that addresses their concerns and then I will sign it". He could have showed on this issue that he works for all or a majority of Americans. He didn't. He showed once again that he works for only some and he showed again that he simply wants the producers in this country to subsidize the non-producers. He showed again that in his enormous Presidential toolbox, he has few tools other than the tax tool, the spend tool and the control it with the government tool. Pelosi and Reid have done the same.

Last night, 3/21/2010, the House passed the Senate’s health care act (The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, HR 3590), which will send the matter onto the President. The President is expected to sign it this week. To avoid reconsideration by the Senate of the House’s changes, the changes are in a separate budget reconciliation bill (The “Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act”, HR 4872), which now goes to the Senate for consideration, scheduled to begin tomorrow 3/23/2010. Since the House’s changes are in the form of a budget bill, it needs only 51 votes to pass and is not subject to filibuster. Therefore, directly or indirectly, these provisions are a “done deal” unless the Senate changes any of the House’s provisions in HR 4872, which is not expected. The following is a summary of the tax issues in these bills, which is treated as really one bill for this discussion. Coverage required. Individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare or other government-sponsored coverage are required to maintain minimum health insurance coverage. Effective – beginning after 2013. Failure to do so brings a nondeductible penalty. The penalty is the greater of – A flat penalty Year 2014 – $95 per person Year 2015 – $325 per person Year 2016 – $695 per person Thereafter – $695 from 2016 as indexed for inflation A percentage of income penalty – Year 2014 – 1% of income Year 2015 – 2% of income Year 2016 and thereafter – 2.5% of income Fine print. “Income” is modified adjusted gross income. For those under age 18 or in college, the flat penalty is one-half of the above amounts. If the flat penalty exceeds triple the percentage of income penalty, then the penalty is limited to triple the percentage of income. If the taxpayer is not required to file a return because their income is below the filing minimums, no penalty would apply. Employer mandate. Employers that fail to offer minimum coverage during any month with a full-time employee is liable for an additional tax. The penalty is $2,000 per employee, calculated monthly. Thus the monthly payment is $2,000, times 1/12, times the number of full-time employees during that month. The penalty applies to employers with 50 or more workers, but the first 30 workers are exempt from the calculation. Example. XYZ Inc. has 52 full-time employees in a particular month. It does not offer health insurance for full-time workers, and thus is subject to the penalty. The penalty for the month is $2,000 x 1/12 x 22 (the first 30 employees are exempt), or $3,666.67. Fine print. Businesses with fewer than 50 full-time employees would be exempt. Employers with extended enrollment waiting periods (exceeding 90 days) are liable for an additional tax. Additional information returns will be required to document the individuals covered, the amount of coverage, and the amount of the premium paid by the worker. Small business credit. A tax credit is provided to small businesses who provide coverage. A small business is one with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages under $40,000. Beginning in 2011, the credit is up to 50% of the employer’s contribution towards the employee’s premium. For employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages under $20,000, the credit is up to 100% of their contribution. Also, participation in a state exchange pool for small employers would be available. Medicare taxes. Additional funding taxes are imposed after 2012. The Act imposes an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on earned income in excess of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. The Act imposes a Medicare tax of 3.8 percent on investment income for individuals with AGI above $200,000 and joint AGI above $250,000. Fine print. Both additional Medicare taxes are applied to the employee portion of the tax only. The employer Medicare tax does not change. Neither the $200,000 nor the $250,000 limits are indexed for inflation. Net investment income is defined as interest, dividends, royalties, rents, capital gains, and passive business income. It does not include distributions from qualified retirement accounts, IRAs, and 403(b) and other plans. The tax also applies to self-employed individuals, and the Medicare tax on investment income also applies to estates and trusts. Tax on high-cost insurance. Beginning in 2018, a 40-percent excise tax is imposed on insurers if annual premiums exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. For those in high-risk professions and for retirees age 55 and older, higher limits are available of $11,850 for individual coverage and $30,950 for family coverage. Fine print. These amounts are indexed for inflation. Employers are required to disclose the cost of health insurance on form W-2. Dental and vision benefits are not considered when determining if the premiums exceed these limits. FSA changes. Certain changes are made after 2012. The definition of qualified medical expenses for health flexible spending accounts (“FSAs”), health savings accounts (“HSAs”), and health reimbursement arrangements (“HRAs”) is changed to agree with the definition of deductible medical expenses. This means that over-the-counter medications are no longer eligible for FSA, HSA, or HRA tax-free payment. FSA contributions are capped at $2,500 per year, indexed for inflation. Cafeteria plans would have to reduce their plan limits accordingly. Penalties for distributions from HSAs that are not used for medical expenses is increased from 10% to 20%. Similar penalties for Archer medical savings accounts (“MSAs”) are increased from 15% to 20%. Deductible medical expenses. Currently, itemized medical expenses are subject to a floor of 7.5% of adjusted gross income. In other words, medical expenses must exceed this minimum before they provide an itemized deduction benefit. After 2012, this floor is increased to 10% of adjusted gross income. However, for tax years 2013 through 2016, if the taxpayer or spouse attained age 65 during the tax year or in any prior tax year, the floor of 7.5% remains. Premium tax credits. The bill enacts tax credits to help those of lesser income to afford health insurance. The credit generally extends to those with household income up to 400% of the federal poverty level (current $88,000 for a family of four, $43,000 for single individuals). The credits are on a sliding scale from 2 to 9.8 percent of income.

You might have a comment on this..... My oldest will be starting college next year. She wants to study in a health sciences field, possibly Pharmacy, Radiology, Physician's assistant or another related field. Several universities here in the midwest offer the undergrad and graduate programs required and in every case, the programs are very limitied in terms of student numbers and very competitive in terms of admission. Placement rates in many of these fields now are quite high. Seems to me that the industry is using the University system to limit the numbers entering this workforce. I'm not saying that's bad but it seems to me that those numbers have to grow now in order to provide the forecasted level of service and in talking to these schools very recently, they don't seem to have any plan to do that.

It's going to send him and many members of Congress to an early retirement. Don't worry, though, they'll all have nice retirement benefits and the book deals will be great.

Our current governor in Illinois, the fill-in for the departed Blago was on the radio recently and said that the propoerty tax system is not fair because it is not based on the "ability to pay". He actually tried to defend the statement. Apparently if you buy a house and your next door neighbor has one of the same value and the neighbor has a greater income, the neighbor should have a larger property tax bill. Unbelievable.

Let's start a new health insurance company. Here is the marketing plan: 1. Sell to employers that have younger workforces 2. Do zero advertising (don't want to attract higher risk customers) 3. No public website

They can't deny a pre-existing condition but I'd bet they can deny to pay for services rendered prior to your date of insurance. That and turnaround time on a new application might be very S L O W.

What are the terms of our loans with other countries? If our credit rating drops does the interest rate change? Certainly if we go to borrow down the road the lower rating would likely mean a higher interest rate.

I would like nothing more than to have debates of substance on issues with people from the left. Debates that include numbers, other facts or at least well founded points of view. Very few here on the left have offered any of that.

I don't know why you even post on this board except for the entetainment value that many of us get from your comments. When it comes to this an similar subject matter, you haven't a clue how anything that involves business or fiscal issues really works. You don't even understand how car insurance works for crying out loud. Spend 10 years in the real world and come back to us then. Until then, ears and eyes open and mouth shut might be a good approach for you.

Fantastic. Hopefully Sharpton keeps up the rhetoric. Obama won't get the benefit of the doubt in '12 as he did in '08.

You realize that when your friends buy car insurance, the liability portion (which protects other motorists and other people's property) is the manadatory part and that buying insurance to protect your own property is optional.

Plenty of Republicans and conservatives were willing to take Bush to the mat for some of his bone-headed moves or inaction on important issues. His approval rate was in the 20's for much of his 2nd term which means he didn't have a lot of support among Republicans. Libs on this board and all over would gain a lot of credibility if they simply stepped out of line once in a while and recognized some of the shoddy work being done in Washington as shoddy.

Virtue? Virtues like honesty, integrity, personal responsibility and self sufficiency?

I think you'd find that conservatives are quite benevolent. I think you'd also find that conservatives would support taxation if they felt that the taxing body was responsible and efficient in spending tax dollars. Our Federal government (and llinois as well) are anything but that. Many would also argue that when you provide entitlements to people you aren't helping those that are able minded and able bodied. You're simply supporting the habit like that of a junkie. We have millions of people in this country that are addicted to handouts and a political party that is willing to exploit them and keep them "down" in exchange for their vote. That's your party. Just like kicking a lazy 25 year old kid out of the house is a good decision, so is limiting entitlements for the unproductive. Government policy and taxation should drive productive behavior, not limit it or provide a disincentive.

How about a big thank you to those of us that fund your benefits plus the freedom and protection you are provided?

The bill is mostly a thinly veiled entitlement to provide free or subsidized coverage to the less productive class. Just another brick in the Obama wall of social and economic justice. What is really disturbing to me is how the screaming voice of the majority of citizens can be to a great extent ignored by members of Congress and that they can push forward such a poorly constructed and expensive solution. Immigration reform may take on a very similar personality with the majority of Americans wanting our borders secured and for illegal immigrants to leave. Those positions will be well supporterd by numbers in terms of costs and jobs yet the Democratic Congress and White House are expected to push forward what will in the end be an amnesty plan.

Have not.

Completely agree. Biden would be a huge improvement because he couldn't possibly muster the arrogance or bull **** necessary to carry out Obama's agenda of social and economic justice for all.

Still sounds very high. I pay under $9k per year for family of 5 coverage without dental or disability. $2k annual family deductible but includes co-pay doctor and prescription coverage. If we don't have a disaster - we save a lot and over the past 7 years we've averaged about $1000/year out of pocket.

I don't think you're looking at the correctly. Think of the value they would yield from these trailers. Both Paterson and the former Spitzer know tha value of getting laid. Besides, don't you feel that conjugal visits are a civil right just like healthcare?

Worth the 7 minutes. Thanks for posting this. She and Meg Whitman would be great additions for California.