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.
These companies have been receiving money from the government to pay for the prescription plans. And have been deducting the prescription plan costs from their taxes. In effect, double-dipping. The government sealed the tax loophole. Conservatives should be cheering about this, not lamenting.
And this thread belongs with all the similar threads.
The difference becomes minute when the corporate tax credit duplicates the government subsidy the corporation is already receiving. I appreciate your point of view, but the tax credit was the corporations' second dip into tax dollars, as is amply demonstrated by the $1 billion dollars that AT&T is now not able to claim as profits.
Which still wouldn't have covered the expense of providing the benefit anyway. Here's what happened... this HCR bill saved a penny to pay a pound.
What's even worse is that Pelosi and Reid were warned this would happen over 3 months ago.
Currently, the government pays 28% and the company pays 72%, but it gets to deduct 100%. Now, it will only get to deduct the 72% that it actually paid. No more deducting cash that the government handed to them to start out with. As to how such a screwy deal got there? One letter...W.
And again, these are one-time non-cash charges that represent the present value of the estimated difference in payouts under the new tax treatment when applied over the expected lifetimes of employees and retirees.
Which still wouldn't have covered the expense of providing the benefit anyway. Here's what happened... this HCR bill saved a penny to pay a pound.
What's even worse is that Pelosi and Reid were warned this would happen over 3 months ago.
Actually, here's what happened, the HCR sealed a corporate tax loophole. And the corporations are unhappy about it. But we'll have to wait to see if the worst-case scenario will play out, or not. In some cases, the corporations involved, such as AT&T, have contractual obligations that won't allow them to just drop this benefit.
In the meantime, it seems like tax-free subsidies to corporations as a strategy to save money is usually a liberal argument. It seems that many people on this thread have shifted their viewpoints substantially. Weren't a lot of you upset over the socialist policies of government? What could be more socialist than the government paying off corporations to fund social programs?
Currently, the government pays 28% and the company pays 72%, but it gets to deduct 100%. Now, it will only get to deduct the 72% that it actually paid. No more deducting cash that the government handed to them to start out with. As to how such a screwy deal got there? One letter...W.
And again, these are one-time non-cash charges that represent the present value of the estimated difference in payouts under the new tax treatment when applied over the expected lifetimes of employees and retirees.
Still didn't cover their costs of providing the coverage. It was a cost-sharing arrangement. Now that Obama and the Dems have nuked it, how does gov plan on paying for the additional 2 million or so seniors added to the Medicare rolls, what with the $500 billion Medicare cuts and all?
Actually, here's what happened, the HCR sealed a corporate tax loophole. And the corporations are unhappy about it. But we'll have to wait to see if the worst-case scenario will play out, or not. In some cases, the corporations involved, such as AT&T, have contractual obligations that won't allow them to just drop this benefit.
Not according to them... "As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company"
Quote:
In the meantime, it seems like tax-free subsidies to corporations as a strategy to save money is usually a liberal argument. It seems that many people on this thread have shifted their viewpoints substantially.
Nope. You just don't recognize a symbiotic business relationship when you see it.
That wasn't a warning, that was whining and pleading by corporate pigs over the prospect of losing some of their Republican pork.
Keep telling yourself that.
Meanwhile, as reality rears its ugly head on Obama's and the Dems' ill-fated poorly crafted HCR bill, how is gov going to pay for those 2 million seniors, what with the $500 billion Medicare cuts and all?
Still didn't cover their costs of providing the coverage. It was a cost-sharing arrangement.
Horse-hockey. It was a subsidy pure and simple. A subsidy that they could then deduct. It was as if capital gains had gone from being taxable income to being a tax deduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Now that Obama and the Dems have nuked it, how does gov plan on paying for the additional 2 million or so seniors added to the Medicare rolls, what with the $500 billion Medicare cuts and all?
There is no such thing as $500 billion in Medicare cuts -- that's more Boehner Baloney -- and the two million is a high-end estimate done for an industry group that assumes every employer will drop coverage and ignores the fact that the number of companies offering coverage has itself been declining anyway, meaning that growing numbers would have lost their benefit in any case.
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.
