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.
I worked for 20+ years and never saw anyone cut back their hours because of rising income.
And its not FREE MONEY. It's a tax credit against your next year's taxes.
Oh I betcha people don't realize that.
If you got too much in subsidies you have to pay back Uncle Sam.
I agree with you fellow HappyTexan, and understand what you are saying, however, workers will not want to earn more income, even a dollar more, if it throws them out of eligibility for very lucrative subsidies for their healthcare. That is human nature and the way the current law is written. I've been reading about this consequence since the law was passed and people had a chance to "read what is in it".
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-05-2014 at 08:01 AM..
When did health insurance become the driver of jobs ?
I must have missed the memo.
Don't these people want to save for a home or retirement or have more discretionary money ?
It boggles the mind doesn't it ?
ACA was sold on being just the opposite, a removal from health insurance from being the driver of jbos.
We were told that it would create millions of jobs, not lose them.
We were told it would allow people to leave companies because they arent tied to health insurance
We were told premiums were going to fall
We were told everyone would be insured
Everything we were told was WRONG, and the Demcorats were told this ahead of time but didnt listen.
ACA was sold on being just the opposite, a removal from health insurance from being the driver of jbos.
We were told that it would create millions of jobs, not lose them.
We were told it would allow people to leave companies because they arent tied to health insurance
We were told premiums were going to fall
We were told everyone would be insured
Everything we were told was WRONG, and the Demcorats were told this ahead of time but didnt listen.
At 400% FPL you're getting people making $80K a year jumping on this nanny Government bandwagon.
You're now dragging middle class folks DOWN, not up.
And this is not a free subsidy..it's a tax credit against your 2014 income.
The ones who are enrolling are the sick and old. These folks didn't have insurance before and worked.
Are people now going to start turning down raises because it bumps them out of the 400% FPL category ?
At 400% FPL you're getting people making $80K a year jumping on this nanny Government bandwagon.
You're now dragging middle class folks DOWN, not up.
And this is not a free subsidy..it's a tax credit against your 2014 income.
The ones who are enrolling are the sick and old. These folks didn't have insurance before and worked.
Are people now going to start turning down raises because it bumps them out of the 400% FPL category ?
But if your 2014 income is over the subsidy limits, then you are going to have to reduce your income so you qualify.
You surely arent going to ask for a pay cut, the only thing left to do is have your hours cut.
But once again, people are getting sidetracked from the report.
The issue isnt that people are going to ask for hours being cut, the question is, where the hell is 92,000,000 hours of labor going? Companies need people to work so if you are asking to have your hours cut, then that means the employer needs to hire someone to fill in those hours, but the report says they wont.
ACA has now become a job killer on top of everything else.
At 400% FPL you're getting people making $80K a year jumping on this nanny Government bandwagon.
You're now dragging middle class folks DOWN, not up.
And this is not a free subsidy..it's a tax credit against your 2014 income.
The ones who are enrolling are the sick and old. These folks didn't have insurance before and worked.
Are people now going to start turning down raises because it bumps them out of the 400% FPL category ?
If you make 80,000 you have a $1,000 subsidy yearly with a family of four. If you boss increases your pay to 94,000 you lose the $1,000. Or if your wife goes back to work and earns 40,000 and now your income is $120,000 you also dont have a subsidy. This will mostly apply to a select number of people young low income people with kids who would have to pay childcare or older people with physical problems that arent bad enough for a disablity. Staying home and raising kids is a conservative value.
If you make 80,000 you have a $1,000 subsidy yearly with a family of four. If you boss increases your pay to 94,000 you lose the $1,000. Or if your wife goes back to work and earns 40,000 and now your income is $120,000 you also dont have a subsidy. This will mostly apply to a select number of people young low income people with kids who would have to pay childcare or older people with physical problems that arent bad enough for a disablity. Staying home and raising kids is a conservative value.
lol. finally a leftist has arrived to desperately try to spin this into a positive
If you make 80,000 you have a $1,000 subsidy yearly with a family of four. If you boss increases your pay to 94,000 you lose the $1,000. Or if your wife goes back to work and earns 40,000 and now your income is $120,000 you also dont have a subsidy. This will mostly apply to a select number of people young low income people with kids who would have to pay childcare or older people with physical problems that arent bad enough for a disablity. Staying home and raising kids is a conservative value.
Once again.. If you are earning more, ask ask for your hours to be cut so you can continue to collect your government welfare, why isnt the employer making up the hours by hiring others?
If you make 80,000 you have a $1,000 subsidy yearly with a family of four. If you boss increases your pay to 94,000 you lose the $1,000. Or if your wife goes back to work and earns 40,000 and now your income is $120,000 you also dont have a subsidy. This will mostly apply to a select number of people young low income people with kids who would have to pay childcare or older people with physical problems that arent bad enough for a disablity. Staying home and raising kids is a conservative value.
In you hypothetical scenario people are going to give up a $14K raise so they can keep a $1K tax credit ?
There are few SAHMs these days my friend. Go drive through any middle class suburb with a park and you'll be hard pressed to see any SAHM's loafing about.
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 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.
