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.
Do you see the 945 in that table? I bolded it above and it appears in column 1, rows 3 and 8 of the EBRI table, right after the words, Tax deduction of employer cost as business expense. This is the value of the tax deduction that the employer gets to take as the result of paying for the benefit through a corporate plan.
If the employer dumps an employee into Part-D, he no longer has that expense, hence he no longer has that deduction, and federal tax receipts increase by $945. In addition of course, the government does not any longer provide the $665 subsidy payout for that employee, meaning that the government's cash balances are $1610 better off.
Any questions on that part?
Yeah... why would you make the assumption that will increase federal tax receipts? That's a very stilted worldview. There are plenty of other uses for money that is no longer spent on retirees' benefits, many of which ALSO result in tax deductions.
Waxman is bringing in the CEOs April 23 for "hearings" on how the Democratic Senate and Congress just handicapped our largest industries. It makes one wonder- if they were this carelss at reducing the competitiveness of our major manufacturers and increasing unemployment, what other "suprises" will pop up in this carelessly drafted bill.
You don't know much about what this or any bill actually says or does. You apparently still believe that a 21.4% cut in Medicare reimbursements is going to happen as of April 1 as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Again, Sag-
1. The losses due to maintenance of the retirees is an annual cost
2. The corporations now have the option of-
a. dumping retirees exclusively to medicare (can't with union contracts)
b. laying off existing employees and or not hiring new employees due to increased cost
c. moving manufacturing facilities to other countries
There is an annual cost to losing the double-dip, but it is not what is reflected in the NON-CASH charges recently posted. Those reflect revaluation of an asset that AT&T and others booked long ago on the basis of the old tax laws. The new laws require that the booked value of such assets be reduced, and that the amount fo the reduction be disclosed if it is significant by recording a non-cash charge in one's earnings report.
The rest of your garbage was debunked the last time you posted it. The increase in actual annual operating costs is trivial. It could come to as much as .03% of revenues. That again is the equivalent of $2 a month to a person earning $80K per year. No one not suffering from acute Princess-and-the-Pea Syndrome will take such amounts into any sort of significant consideration at all. All you are doing here is bloviating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Saggy, how long does it take to clear out a congressional office with staff? Do they have a "service" that does this? It may be a good buisness come November and in 2012.
It takes just a few days for the major work, and yes, there is a service. It takes much longer actually to set up the new people than it does to clear out the old. What may actually be a good profession to be in this post-November would be psychology, the better to be able to extract money from dumbfounded right-wingers plunged into depression after not making any significant inroads in Congress at all.
I guess it never occurred to the dumb a$$holes that voted for the bill to read it first.
I wouldn't be surprised if they read it and new the loophole was still there. The GOP just figured lets give another handout to Big Business and add more Corporate Welfare.
I wouldn't be surprised if they read it and new the loophole was still there. The GOP just figured lets give another handout to Big Business and add more Corporate Welfare.
If so (and I think you're full of.....let's say mistaken), why did a Democrat not point it out?
The reality is more likely that it was read, by both sides, and the implications were missed.
I wouldn't be surprised if they read it and new the loophole was still there. The GOP just figured lets give another handout to Big Business and add more Corporate Welfare.
How's that resultant government Medicare cost of $1,209 per senior instead of the $665 "corporate welfare" subsidy per senior going to work out for the Dems?
How's that resultant government Medicare cost of $1,209 per senior instead of the $665 "corporate welfare" subsidy per senior going to work out for the Dems?
Your math doesn't make sense.
First of all, the subsidies were sometimes much higher than $665. And those subsidies aren't going away, are they???? No, they are still in place.
Only the tax loophole is going away. The company doesn't get money, and then get to declare a deduction on their taxes for the money that the government gave them.
It's like the government giving you $1000 to donate to charity, and you then take the $1000 that the government GAVE you off your taxes as a charitable donation. That makes sense to you?
If so (and I think you're full of.....let's say mistaken), why did a Democrat not point it out?
The reality is more likely that it was read, by both sides, and the implications were missed.
Well they did vote against it, and I believe one of the arguments against it was a give away to Corporations. Regardless, its a loophole that should have never been there in the first place.
you mean like the projection back in 1965 on what medicare would cost??????? That year, Congressional actuaries (CBO wasn’t around then) expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion in 1970. In 1969, that estimate was pushed to $5 billion, and it really came in at $6.8 billion. House Ways and Means analysts estimated in 1967 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were off by a factor of 10—actual spending was $110 billion.......today that ANNUAL medicare cost is 500 BILLION
Want to put those numbers into constant dollars? Want to to lay out a year-by-year timeline of legislative changes to Medicare? Want to go ahead and invent something that does a better job than projections of letting you do cost comparisons of policy alternatives?
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.
