Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:23 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,394,243 times
Reputation: 4013

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You don't seem to understand is that AT&T is more than rich people in suits. They have a bunch of regular people supporting their families. There are probably people who have retired from the company who now get health benefits that will no longer receive them after the fees begin to take effect.
And the vast majority of those you speak of are covered by union contracts that do not expire until 2012. No change can be made before then, and any change made then will have to be negotiated through the union. Given that the actual costs to AT&T for these benefits are trivial, the union side is not so likely to be impressed by the company's crocodile tears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
No tears from me either - just an intense stare.
Maybe you should be practicing that in front of a mirror.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Michigan
5,376 posts, read 5,330,086 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You don't seem to understand is that AT&T is more than rich people in suits. They have a bunch of regular people supporting their families. There are probably people who have retired from the company who now get health benefits that will no longer receive them after the fees begin to take effect.

No tears from me either - just an intense stare.

They've screwed their employees left and right over the past 15 years.
They've cut their employees and retirees health care over and over again.
They've shipped tons of I.T. jobs overseas.
And that's just the non-union workers.

Some union jobs they keep switching from state to state - to get to lower rates. Move a east coast call center to the midwest (the employees can follow, at a pay cut), then move it to the south a few years later. No union jobs, more profit. Yup they care.

Last edited by plannine; 03-29-2010 at 07:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,733,734 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
From Bloomberg News:

AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

“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,” the carrier said in the filing.


Apparently, under Bush, the government offered tax incentives for businesses to take on the costs of supplying prescription drugs in their retirement plans to their employees, thereby relieving the federal Medicare Part D from having to cover the costs. Now the government is taxing them on this, so companies will be dropping their prescription drug coverage from their retirement plans, forcing more people onto the government plan. So much for keeping costs down.
Not quite. The republican congress and Bush, introduced (tax free) subsidies to corporations ($1300/retiree per year) and on top of that, these subsidies were tax deductible too. Talk about plutonomy at work. Now that they get "only subsidies", the plutocrats are whining and crying and their sheeple propagating their "message".

Oh, and to quote Milton Friedman... "The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care"

But I think, y'all are not looking for the best solution, but the best "political solution". Besides, Milton was merely pro-market, not necessarily pro-business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,201,502 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Not quite. The republican congress and Bush, introduced (tax free) subsidies to corporations ($1300/retiree per year) and on top of that, these subsidies were tax deductible too. Talk about plutonomy at work. Now that they get "only subsidies", the plutocrats are whining and crying and their sheeple propagating their "message".

Oh, and to quote Milton Friedman... "The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care"

But I think, y'all are not looking for the best solution, but the best "political solution". Besides, Milton was merely pro-market, not necessarily pro-business.
I believe it was $650/retiree, not $1300.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,201,502 times
Reputation: 27718
But this is what you wanted..you wanted health care separated from big business and not tied to employment. So now it will be tied to the government.

So big business will do it but there are tax consequences of taking back a credit the previous administration gave them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:34 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,458 posts, read 4,181,636 times
Reputation: 760
I wonder if these meetings will be shown on C-SPAN?

What do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,733,734 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I believe it was $650/retiree, not $1300.
Numbers vary depending on source. Here is an article on the subject. Regardless, do you support tax free subsidy to be also tax deductible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
But this is what you wanted..you wanted health care separated from big business and not tied to employment. So now it will be tied to the government.
Ideal would be to keep employer out of the picture when it comes to providing health care insurance. A good solution would be a single payer system, but I bet you won't like it as it doesn't serve the masters well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,201,502 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Numbers vary depending on source. Here is an article on the subject. Regardless, do you support tax free subsidy to be also tax deductible?
I read that it was a subsidy with a tax credit which in effect zero'd out their tax liability.

It was done so that those retirees would not flood the medicare system.

If the government gave me money to keep my retirees and let me take a tax credit for it.that's a zero tax liability to me..isn't it ?
And it should be if the government asked me to do it.

At least the money is accountable since companies have to keep certified books.

They've been doing it since 2003..7 years and no one complained.
$650 to the company or spend $1200 to do it yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:46 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,394,243 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
I wonder if these meetings will be shown on C-SPAN? What do you think?
Probably one of the channels will pick it up. Just like they did all those health care committee sessions...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,733,734 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I read that it was a subsidy with a tax credit which in effect zero'd out their tax liability.

It was done so that those retirees would not flood the medicare system.

If the government gave me money to keep my retirees and let me take a tax credit for it.that's a zero tax liability to me..isn't it ?
And it should be if the government asked me to do it.

At least the money is accountable since companies have to keep certified books.

They've been doing it since 2003..7 years and no one complained.
$650 to the company or spend $1200 to do it yourself.
You will find out soon enough as those CEOs are grilled on the subject. Do tune into C-Span for first hand experience though, please not on CNN or FoxNews.

Besides, do you agree with Milton Friedman's "best pro-market solution" I quoted earlier?
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 $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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top