U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-13-2013, 06:46 AM
 
577 posts, read 355,851 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
I don't recall Romney promising shovel ready jobs. However he did say he would be more business friendly which I believe will result in businesses wanting to invest and grow again which then results in hiring. Bottom line, don't look to the government. It's always all about them.

pfft.. yeah being "business friendly".. seriously..

"job creators" have had a BUNCH of tax breaks and incentives to grow business for the last two decades.

Their incomes have increased, while everyone else's has decreased.

We're more productive than ever before (workers) but are paid LESS, meanwhile execs salaries have seen a meteoric rise.

Businesses are making a healthy profit - but just not hiring anymore workers.

Those that are labeled "job creators".. the only thing they do with any incentives they have is trade paper on wall street that don't lead to more jobs - just more riches for themselves...
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2013, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 14,748,382 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom View Post
pfft.. yeah being "business friendly".. seriously..

"job creators" have had a BUNCH of tax breaks and incentives to grow business for the last two decades.

Their incomes have increased, while everyone else's has decreased.

We're more productive than ever before (workers) but are paid LESS, meanwhile execs salaries have seen a meteoric rise.

Businesses are making a healthy profit - but just not hiring anymore workers.

Those that are labeled "job creators".. the only thing they do with any incentives they have is trade paper on wall street that don't lead to more jobs - just more riches for themselves...
Businesses will hire when people have enough money to spend. The real job creators are the middle class. The Country needs an infrastructure work program and a Congress willing to spend the money on it. Fortunately we have the ACA to help ease some of our costs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 08:12 AM
 
3,576 posts, read 5,908,700 times
Reputation: 1431
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Businesses will hire when people have enough money to spend. The real job creators are the middle class. The Country needs an infrastructure work program and a Congress willing to spend the money on it. Fortunately we have the ACA to help ease some of our costs.
Say what??

It's a completely contradicting statement you are making here. If the job creators are middle class, how is the ACA saving them any cost?

Considering total health costs are being jacked up for those making than 400% of poverty (you know, the "middle class job creators". Remember most small business owners make far less than 200/250K a year. The Dems while negotiating the end of the Bush tax cuts said the vast majority of small business owners make less than 200/250K a year.

So the ACA is a backend "tax" on the middle and upper middle class. Yet you are saying it will ease some of their costs?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:19 AM
 
Location: US
3,078 posts, read 3,339,788 times
Reputation: 1629
Do a Google search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Yes, that is the subsidy.
80 million? Lolololol. I think you need to check some stats. That would be nearly half of all workers and their families who have employer provided health insurance. That would be a huge story. It is not happening.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 14,748,382 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Say what??

It's a completely contradicting statement you are making here. If the job creators are middle class, how is the ACA saving them any cost?

Considering total health costs are being jacked up for those making than 400% of poverty (you know, the "middle class job creators". Remember most small business owners make far less than 200/250K a year. The Dems while negotiating the end of the Bush tax cuts said the vast majority of small business owners make less than 200/250K a year.

So the ACA is a backend "tax" on the middle and upper middle class. Yet you are saying it will ease some of their costs?
Some of us understand what is actually happening ,,,,

The Affordable Care Act: Covering More Americans AND Saving Money : The Shriver Brief

Those cost savings will be able to be spent and businesses will hire to meet the increased demand, but you knew that, right?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:55 AM
 
9,897 posts, read 6,600,997 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Some of us understand what is actually happening ,,,,
REALLY

"Federal spending for the major health care programs and Social Security would increase to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2038, twice the 7 percent average of the past 40 years."

CBO | The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 10:02 AM
 
3,576 posts, read 5,908,700 times
Reputation: 1431
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Some of us understand what is actually happening ,,,,

The Affordable Care Act: Covering More Americans AND Saving Money : The Shriver Brief

Those cost savings will be able to be spent and businesses will hire to meet the increased demand, but you knew that, right?
Gotta love the democratic spin. Saw one of Clinton's former advisors on news show last night. He says it's time to stop the spin. He openly admitted "as a democrat". "We've got to fine a way to fix the law".

Premiums "16% lower than anticipated". Any idiot can read into between the fine line. What the max out of pocket expenses in network vs out of network?

Just stop it. I can tell u what the CBO estimates and what happens in real life are two completely different things.

I posted a while back the vast majority of 40 year olds could get 2013 premiums for nice $3000 deductible that are tax deductible hsa plans for around $200/month. That comes out to $2400 a year in 2013.

The article you link says the CBO now estimates 2014 "silver" premiums for same 40 year old man to be "much lower than anticipated at $3936 a year and we all know the silver max of pocket cost for silver plan is around $2000-3000 dollars which are not hsa compatible.

Gotta love liberal spin. Paying $3900 a year in premiums for 2014 (is cheaper?) compared to paying $2400 a year for very much the same plan in 2013 for the vast majority of 40 year old men.

How do you like them apples.

Last edited by aneftp; 12-13-2013 at 10:17 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: US
3,078 posts, read 3,339,788 times
Reputation: 1629
Just so I understand. You are complaining about tax exemptions on insurance people buy from their paychecks at a premium much less than an Obamacare policy, which exemption you say is 25%. You have no problem though with Obamacare (1) providing employer tax credits of up to 50% or (2) with people buying Obamacare policies at exorbitant rates and getting subsidies/tax credits which are much more than 25% (they do not pay "full cost" as you indicate below, but somehow I think you knew that).

For example, from an Obamacare website, a family of four making $94,200 will spend 9.4% on their premium contribution, or $8949, but will get a $3550 tax credit, thus paying $about $5400 for their premiums per year. That's nearly a 40% tax credit. Now the family still has to pay out that $8,949 for the year until they file their tax return and get the tax credit.

I would think you would prefer the little 25% "subsidy" as the lesser of all evils as far as what the taxpayers are having to pay. But let's just be honest. You're not upset about the little tax exemption on employer benefits. You really don't even care about the tax credits I've described above. You want American citizens to really just pay the exorbitant premiums and deductibles--the tax that Obamacare really is and was intended to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
All benefits are a form of wages. Employer insurance is wages. It is wages that are exempt from tax meaning that the government is effectively subsidizing 25% of the premium for most workers. The tax exemption on benefits should be eliminated. Why should people who buy their own insurance from their wages like unemployed or retirees have to pay the full cost with after tax dollars, while people who work for another get a tax break?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
27,898 posts, read 37,916,030 times
Reputation: 17436
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolac View Post
Just so I understand. You are complaining about tax exemptions on insurance people buy from their paychecks at a premium much less than an Obamacare policy, which exemption you say is 25%. You have no problem though with Obamacare (1) providing employer tax credits of up to 50% or (2) with people buying Obamacare policies at exorbitant rates and getting subsidies/tax credits which are much more than 25% (they do not pay "full cost" as you indicate below, but somehow I think you knew that).

For example, from an Obamacare website, a family of four making $94,200 will spend 9.4% on their premium contribution, or $8949, but will get a $3550 tax credit, thus paying $about $5400 for their premiums per year. That's nearly a 40% tax credit. Now the family still has to pay out that $8,949 for the year until they file their tax return and get the tax credit.

I would think you would prefer the little 25% "subsidy" as the lesser of all evils as far as what the taxpayers are having to pay. But let's just be honest. You're not upset about the little tax exemption on employer benefits. You really don't even care about the tax credits I've described above. You want American citizens to really just pay the exorbitant premiums and deductibles--the tax that Obamacare really is and was intended to be.
What I really object to is people like me who get no subsidy and no tax deduction on their insurance payment either. But, the point here is that people who get employer insurance also get a "subsidy" too. It may or may not be as much as an exchange subsidy, but it is a one nonetheless.

And to correct an error in your post, a family does not have to pay the 8949 until they get a refund. They have the option of having the subsidy applied to the monthly premium which would mean they pay only the $5400 over the course of the year.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 11:17 AM
 
Location: US
3,078 posts, read 3,339,788 times
Reputation: 1629
I understand. Thanks for letting me know about the option of the subsidy being applied to the monthly premium.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
What I really object to is people like me who get no subsidy and no tax deduction on their insurance payment either. But, the point here is that people who get employer insurance also get a "subsidy" too. It may or may not be as much as an exchange subsidy, but it is a one nonetheless.

And to correct an error in your post, a family does not have to pay the 8949 until they get a refund. They have the option of having the subsidy applied to the monthly premium which would mean they pay only the $5400 over the course of the year.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top