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.
My understanding is that they will still get the tax subsidy but will no longer be able to double-dip and claim the tax deduction.
Yep, as per the link:
"Under the previous system, major corporations were subsidized by the government to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. At the same time, corporations could claim on their tax returns that it was they -- not the taxpayers -- who paid for the drug coverage, and could write the expense off as a tax deduction."
It is a very informative article - everyone should read it.
Not anymore if they can help it. And, if you haven't noticed, business has been more or less operating free of the worst of the taxations that are foreseen and have been enriching themeslves very well. As a class, post meltdown, the rebound of business profits is beating the 40 year cycle very handsomely. Employment though is in the toilet and is expected to remain there throughout the decade. I wonder why? I think it is the conservatives who need to consider the consequences of a large, restive, pool of unemployed Americans completely out of unemployment extensions and wasteful social programs like welfare, food stamps, etc.
H
So-
Do you have a job? If not, good for you. You can live off the rest of us. That is, of course, until we all lose our jobs and can no longer support you. If you do have a job, you must realize that your ability to eat, provide clothing and shelter, as well as pay taxes for all those wonderful social programs is dependent upon that company and thier survival.
No company- no job- no money- no money for social programs
You keep talking about a "pool of unemployed people", yet you are creating a situation by killing jobs and buisness of CREATING MORE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE! By increasing the buisness expense and taxes, you are adding to the roles of the unemployed and are creating a larger and larger group of dependent individuals.
I agree- social unrest is bad.
1. Let's help buisnesses employ people by cutting thier taxes and expenses, not punish them by some inane sense of "fairness". That is essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face- you will be happy that you have punished buisness, but unhappy because you are unemployed.
2. Allow buisness, through reduced expenses and regulations, to hire more people. Those people pay income tax and increase government revenue, rather than being added to the negative column of the balance sheet by being unemployed and on welfare.
3. Cut social program spending dramatically. This is the elephant in the room and makes up the largest part of government expenditures. When the debt is so large that we can only service the debt with ALL OF OUR TAX REVENUES, these programs will collapse, creating social unrest. Let's gradually unwind these programs so that people can prepare, rather than abruptly stop them. That is what is going to happen if we cannot cut spending. So far, our government has been unable to do so. Thier continued spending will result in our demise, helping no one.
4. Employment is at 10% because buisnesses refuse to hire. Why?
a. increased Obama expenses and taxes via healthcare
b. more threatened Obama expenses via cap and trade
c. more government regulations.
All these things (which Obama seems to love) kill jobs growth. Citizens have to ask themselves-
Do I like Obama? OR
Do I like jobs?
They seem to be mutually exclusive, and one must probably choose between the two. Nothing in the world is free, and all these government give aways and entitlement programs will have to be paid for eventually. To abruptly stop them (which is the way we are heading) will result in social unrest. I personally have land and plenty of weapons, as well as land overseas. I will be fine. The average person in the US will have a little problem that no one will want to face.
Naw, never realized that since I don't have to purchase products or services from any particular company. For example, I don't need a John Deere tractor to mow my lawn. My phone service is provided by Verizon and not AT&T (who seems to be complaining the loudest).
PS - What no blaming unions for extracting all those subsidized bennys?
If you think you dont benefit because you dont buy products from these companies directly, you are sadly mistaken. I bet many of them are customers that help promp up your economy, buy homes, cars, pay taxes, and even help finance one anothers business growth.
While I disagree in principle to all welfare, the ignorance of pretending one doesnt benefit is astounding..
Do you have a job? If not, good for you. You can live off the rest of us. That is, of course, until we all lose our jobs and can no longer support you. If you do have a job, you must realize that your ability to eat, provide clothing and shelter, as well as pay taxes for all those wonderful social programs is dependent upon that company and thier survival.
No company- no job- no money- no money for social programs
You keep talking about a "pool of unemployed people", yet you are creating a situation by killing jobs and buisness of CREATING MORE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE! By increasing the buisness expense and taxes, you are adding to the roles of the unemployed and are creating a larger and larger group of dependent individuals.
I agree- social unrest is bad.
1. Let's help buisnesses employ people by cutting thier taxes and expenses, not punish them by some inane sense of "fairness". That is essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face- you will be happy that you have punished buisness, but unhappy because you are unemployed.
2. Allow buisness, through reduced expenses and regulations, to hire more people. Those people pay income tax and increase government revenue, rather than being added to the negative column of the balance sheet by being unemployed and on welfare.
3. Cut social program spending dramatically. This is the elephant in the room and makes up the largest part of government expenditures. When the debt is so large that we can only service the debt with ALL OF OUR TAX REVENUES, these programs will collapse, creating social unrest. Let's gradually unwind these programs so that people can prepare, rather than abruptly stop them. That is what is going to happen if we cannot cut spending. So far, our government has been unable to do so. Thier continued spending will result in our demise, helping no one.
4. Employment is at 10% because buisnesses refuse to hire. Why?
a. increased Obama expenses and taxes via healthcare
b. more threatened Obama expenses via cap and trade
c. more government regulations.
All these things (which Obama seems to love) kill jobs growth. Citizens have to ask themselves-
Do I like Obama? OR
Do I like jobs?
They seem to be mutually exclusive, and one must probably choose between the two. Nothing in the world is free, and all these government give aways and entitlement programs will have to be paid for eventually. To abruptly stop them (which is the way we are heading) will result in social unrest. I personally have land and plenty of weapons, as well as land overseas. I will be fine. The average person in the US will have a little problem that no one will want to face.
1. The word is business. Ah... I feel much better. I really have to ask myself if hawkeye (pierce?) is really a surgeon or a working schlub... or worse! Surely anyone who can navigate through med school cannot be so completely brainwashed by rightwing rhetoric. Obama, Obama, Obama.... what? Obama invented taxes? More than 6 Million jobs were gone by 2004 and another 7 Million by the end of the Bush administration. Where the **** do you get to come off acting like Obama invented double percentage point unemployment?
1. Let's help buisnesses employ people by cutting thier taxes and expenses..." **** that, lets make business employ people by cutting their revenue if they don't. Aren't you sick of businesses saying "so long and thanks for all the fish" as they head for the Cayman's? Wall Street fired a couple of million grunts pre-bailout. How many have been hired back? No, hell no to any more "incentives" for business.
2. Allow buisness, through reduced expenses and regulations, to hire more people. Those people pay income tax and increase government revenue, rather than being added to the negative column of the balance sheet by being unemployed and onwelfare.
Sigh... repeat after me: not everyone unemployed, is on welfare. Again: not everyone unemployed, is on welfare. One more time: not everyone unemployed, is on welfare. Only blue collar, redneck, working stiffs believe that crap. 1. Welfare is now term limited. That should make you feel better. Even food stamps and Section 8 are much harder to obtain than before and virtually impossible if you are childless. By far the majority of the unemployed are living off family and/or unemployment or they are homeless or no longer living. As someone told me recently in this very forum: business is not in business to help you or I out. Jobs exist because business needs a job done and if they can do it with 10 they won't hire an 11th or 12th. In fact they will likely fire 3 of the 10 and browbeat the remaining 7 to meet the targets previously mandated for the 10. You can do that in a recession. Allow them ****!
3. Cut social program spending dramatically. This is the elephant in the room and makes up the largest part of governmentexpenditures.
Wrong. Military spending is by far the largest part of government expenditures. Keeping up with the Superpower Jones is breaking our balls and is more likely what will break our economic back rather than welfare or social security. Think about that. The immense human casualty of Iraq and Afghanistan being seen to by Walter Reed and other care facilities under military auspices need billions to rehabilitate the tens of thousands maimed and mutilated not to mention the immense cost overruns of military hardware because the contractors can charge $5 for a screw that should cost 5c cause Uncle Sam is paying. Beating our M-16's into hospital gurneys and our SCUD missiles into busses and trains would have more benefit to society than eliminating welfare spending or Section 8.
4. Employment is at 10% because buisnesses refuse to hire. Why? a. increased Obama expenses and taxes via healthcare b. more threatened Obama expenses via cap and trade c. more government regulations
Employment, or rather, unemployment is underreported at 10% because the banks aren't lending. Period, end of rant. Business expands and hires with borrowed money. I am not a business major so I don't know why but I know that that is what they do. No loans, no new hires. The ability, however, to place the business end, if you will, of the business in another part of the world and control it from here... saves a pile in labor costs. At the expense of the American labor pool, of course but lately American business doesn't give a ****. So why, I ask, do you care so much about the business climate? Just wait till those robotic scalpels become standard in every operating theater. XBoxes and Nintendo will be the training tools of the surgeons of the future. They can pay them nothing since they live at home with Mommy and Daddy. Heck they may pay the hospital to work there once they are told about all the naked trim they can look at up close.
Nope, you have it all very wrong. Obama is himself a part of a much bigger engine that is not entirely under his control as you seem to think. The battle between right and left for 'control' of this country... a joke. Business controls the country and ultimately this will become very clear. Business doesn't need you to plead its case.
H
Last edited by Leisesturm; 03-31-2010 at 08:54 PM..
My understanding is that they will still get the tax subsidy but will no longer be able to double-dip and claim the tax deduction.
What they did was put assets on the side and were claiming depreciation on those assets. With this change they have to take a bigger writeoff this year on those assets because there is no tax credit anymore.
Accounting rules and no money actually changed hands..it was all on paper.
It was done to keep millions of retirees from overwhelming medicare when Medicare D was implemented.
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.
