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 can understand the logic behind closing this loophole. What I can't understand is the defensive posture taken by Waxman et. al, when these corporations announce (as they're required by the SEC to do) the expected financial impact.
There are about 3,500 companies who could be affected by the change. There are about 6.3 million employees/retirees whose coverage could be affected by the change. The maximum total of non-cash charges if everyone chose to take one would be in the neighborhood of $14 billion. AT&T has some 2.5-3.0% of the affected employees. It is claiming 7% of the projected maximum charges. How do they explain that? Thus far, they haven't.
no, they were exempt from the income, they were not writing off the expenses.. There is a huge difference..
You are incorrect. The subsidy was (and still is) tax-free. Previously, it could also be claimed as a deduction along with the full company share. Under HCR, it no longer can be. Just the part that the company actually pays itself can be deducted.
Last edited by saganista; 03-31-2010 at 03:41 PM..
Value of subsidy: $665
Value of tax deduction: $945
Total Goverment Savings: $1610
Cost for Part-D: $1204 (or $1209, depending on whose number you use)
There is no government payment of $945. The government pays only $665 for the subsidy. $665 is the amount the government would save, as opposed to the $1,209 it would cost the government for each senior shifted to Plan D coverage.
You might be interested to know that Barack Obama sealed a backroom deal with Billy Tauzin promising Tauzin that Democrats would not seek to re-write Medicare Part D legislation in order to gain Big Pharma's support for the HC bill. Part D is flawed. And Democrats just made it official that Part D will not be rewritten. Are you sure you want to fling poo?
False and misleading. The deal with PhRMA promised in exchange for $80 billion in agreed cost cuts to leave a) Medicare price negotiation, b) drug reimportation, and c) price cuts to Part-B and Part-D drugs out of the health care bill. On that basis, PhRMA could (and did) support the health care bill. There was no promise expressed or implied not to deal with these matters in separate legislation. Presumably, PhRMA would be opposed to those provisions at the time if they were.
Lie? No... I'm simply well aware of the fact that this change doesn't exist in a vacuum, as you seem to think it does. Why would any company choose to pay more tax when that money can be diverted to a much more strategically beneficial tax deductible use? This is the problem with very tunnel-visioned government hacks... they don't understand and think through unintended consequences.
Does AT&T or any other of the 3,500 potentially affected companies pay ANY tax? If they do, then it is apparent that they can't think of any additional worthwhile tax-deductible expenses to throw money at. You patentlly CHEAT on your math by assuming that the loss of a $2700 tax deduction per covered employee will have NO EFFECT on a company's tax bill. I don't care where you work or what your vision is. That's a DELIBERATE SCAM. It's been pointed out to you over and over again, and yet you still try to foist your corrupt claims off on people.
Obama and the Dems are INCREASING government's cost by screwing the deal they made with corporations.
I thought you were all for government and corporations having "contracts" and "partnership", and at any cost. Wasn't that the idea years before the democrats (much less Obama) took control and this corporate welfare was instituted?
Quote:
Wow... how is that going to happen when the government can no longer contract out to corporations? Are Pelosi, Reid, and crew suddenly going to become MDs, and Capitol Hill is now the nation's hospital?
You mean there would be no "deals"? You bet... government shouldn't be in the business of making deals, contracts or partnerships with corporations. It should be, merely, regulating them. Just like back in the day, and before corporations regained control of the government early in the 19th century.
It wasn't a dependency on corporations, it was a partnership with corporations... a partnership which Obama and the Dems have destroyed with this HCR bill.
The companies still receive the $665 subsidy tax-free in 2011. They can still deduct all of their own expenses from their taxable income. This is what you call destruction? It does not appear that you recognize any need to be faithful to the facts.
Does AT&T or any other of the 3,500 potentially affected companies pay ANY tax? If they do, then it is apparent that they can't think of any additional worthwhile tax-deductible expenses to throw money at. You patentlly CHEAT on your math by assuming that the loss of a $2700 tax deduction per covered employee will have NO EFFECT on a company's tax bill. I don't care where you work or what your vision is. That's a DELIBERATE SCAM. It's been pointed out to you over and over again, and yet you still try to foist your corrupt claims off on people.
I thought you were all for government and corporations having "contracts" and "partnership", and at any cost.
Any cost? No.
Quote:
Wasn't that the idea years before the democrats (much less Obama) took control and this corporate welfare was instituted?
It saved the government money and provided better benefits for seniors. Who's the loser there?
Quote:
You mean there would be no "deals"? You bet... government shouldn't be in the business of making deals, contracts or partnerships with corporations. It should be, merely, regulating them. Just like back in the day, and before corporations regained control of the government early in the 19th century.
So again, we've confirmed that you advocate ending all government programs in which contracts with private corporations are entered into. That includes Medicare, Head Start, the school lunch program, Section 8 housing, etc., etc. Got it.
The point is that there is no company payment of $945 TO the government because that's the value of the tax deduction. It's shown smack dab in the middle of your own freaking Figure 8 exhibit. That's $945 less in tax revenues PLUS a $665 subsidy payment. Total plan cost: $2700. Net share paid by the company: $1090. Net share paid by the government: $1610.
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.
