U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-14-2010, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,474 posts, read 16,338,489 times
Reputation: 5319

Advertisements

Right now, Medicare is taxed at 2.9% of earned income, half payed by the employer and the other half withheld from employees. This may soon, change, with the 2.9% tax added to "unearned" income:

President Obama and top Democratic congressional leaders said late Wednesday that they were making “significant progress” towards reconciling the House and Senate health care reform bills....Boosting the Medicare payroll tax, either by increasing the rate or extending it to unearned income, is still a live option, according to sources familiar with the talks.

Read more: President Obama pushes for a deal on health bill - Carrie Budoff Brown and Patrick O'Connor - POLITICO.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2010, 11:44 AM
 
43,286 posts, read 47,151,929 times
Reputation: 13720
There is alot o teh table because thay know the so called savings to fund the bil like all savings is a shell gae that never comes true. Right now the real question is will they tax empoyer paid benefits as erned income and allow a deduction on income tax for all people;not allow those that get it to continue to not have in showup as income at all;bascially a total deduction.As far as the medicare issue they need if they want to put more on medicare to reduce the funding need from general revenues to again hide the real cost ( at issue is puting all 55 and older on medicare;they ned to rasie alot of moeny to fund it. Looks to me like they di not actaully do a very good job and are really worried about the funding they got CBO to look at.With the medicare tax increase and the medicaid cost being sahifted to sates its will eman higher taxes for evryone really. It kind of a hide what is really going to happen IMO. Higher stae taxes;higher medicare taxes and high prices on consumers passed on by those companies higher taxes and cost to insure employees.They IMO now are lookig for other sources since they already see that higher taxes on corproations bascially will mean more imports;lower emplyment and less investment by many corporations in this country and even less savings and investment by the average person.Bascially when you tax more you discourage investment and have less money avlaible for the consumer to spend.Governamnt has never been efficent at spending moeny or running programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2010, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Oxygen Ln. AZ
8,650 posts, read 10,911,735 times
Reputation: 4789
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
There is alot o teh table because thay know the so called savings to fund the bil like all savings is a shell gae that never comes true. Right now the real question is will they tax empoyer paid benefits as erned income and allow a deduction on income tax for all people;not allow those that get it to continue to not have in showup as income at all;bascially a total deduction.As far as the medicare issue they need if they want to put more on medicare to reduce the funding need from general revenues to again hide the real cost ( at issue is puting all 55 and older on medicare;they ned to rasie alot of moeny to fund it. Looks to me like they di not actaully do a very good job and are really worried about the funding they got CBO to look at.With the medicare tax increase and the medicaid cost being sahifted to sates its will eman higher taxes for evryone really. It kind of a hide what is really going to happen IMO. Higher stae taxes;higher medicare taxes and high prices on consumers passed on by those companies higher taxes and cost to insure employees.They IMO now are lookig for other sources since they already see that higher taxes on corproations bascially will mean more imports;lower emplyment and less investment by many corporations in this country and even less savings and investment by the average person.Bascially when you tax more you discourage investment and have less money avlaible for the consumer to spend.Governamnt has never been efficent at spending moeny or running programs.
Shell game is a great way to put it. I hope it goes to the courts if passed and gets shot down. We need to start over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2010, 12:23 PM
 
23,901 posts, read 19,976,246 times
Reputation: 5891
What bothers me most is that this is a tax using Medicare to fund non Medicare health insurance. This makes it more difficult to stabilize Medicare itself which is a necessity. Any increase in Medicare payroll tax should be to financially secure Medicare itself. Medicare taxes should only be for Medicare solvency. The House and Senate may not be able to reconcile a bill that is able to be passed by both chambers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2010, 01:02 PM
 
Location: WA
4,071 posts, read 13,385,336 times
Reputation: 2968
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
What bothers me most is that this is a tax using Medicare to fund non Medicare health insurance. This makes it more difficult to stabilize Medicare itself which is a necessity. Any increase in Medicare payroll tax should be to financially secure Medicare itself. Medicare taxes should only be for Medicare solvency. The House and Senate may not be able to reconcile a bill that is able to be passed by both chambers.
Exactly right! These people in government are criminal and should be in jail with Madoff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2010, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,474 posts, read 16,338,489 times
Reputation: 5319
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
What bothers me most is that this is a tax using Medicare to fund non Medicare health insurance. This makes it more difficult to stabilize Medicare itself which is a necessity. Any increase in Medicare payroll tax should be to financially secure Medicare itself. Medicare taxes should only be for Medicare solvency. The House and Senate may not be able to reconcile a bill that is able to be passed by both chambers.
Actually, I think what you are seeing is the incremental destruction of Medicare. I suspect there is a comprehensive agenda, that won't be discussed until after the 2012 elections are over, to integrate Medicare into a more extensive (and rationed) healthcare system.

Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2010, 04:09 PM
 
23,901 posts, read 19,976,246 times
Reputation: 5891
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Actually, I think what you are seeing is the incremental destruction of Medicare. I suspect there is a comprehensive agenda, that won't be discussed until after the 2012 elections are over, to integrate Medicare into a more extensive (and rationed) healthcare system.

Just my opinion.
No argument here. I think neither party has Medicare in mind as a plus for their political beliefs. Only for election purposes. Republicans have philosophical issue with the concept of Medicare and seniors are not a key Democratic constituency. Like Social Security there needs to be some correlation between contributions an benefits. There are some good things about the very key and positive nature of public (state pensions) to society that need to be discussed that our political leaders won't touch. Heard a good interview on CNBC today with the Chief Investment Officer of the California system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2010, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Boca Raton, FL
4,054 posts, read 5,157,858 times
Reputation: 3636
Smile Scares me....

I know some type of reform is needed and I feel they are shoving it down our throats but why the rush if it doesn't take effect until after 2012? Go back to the drawing board and do it right.

So much for transparency. Too many back room deals IMO.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, 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 - Top