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.
Hey, we've seen it here on City Data forum, right wing demagogues being parroted, that all these corporate write-offs are about "health care costing us more." Well, as usual with the right wing hoaxsters, it's a lie. What you are really hearing is the sounds of the gravy train coming off the rails.
Quote:
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. Health care reform cuts out that fat. The corporations still get taxpayer money to help pay for their drug coverage, but they can no longer continue the fiction that they're using their own money to do it.
Quote:
AT&T's charge-off was reported as a billion dollars, but the actual cost of revoking the subsidy for one year will be $40 million, according to background information provided by the White House. Wall Street analysts say that the eye-popping charge-offs that are being reported are more smoke than fire. "Don't overreact to the hit to earnings" David Zion, a research analyst for Credit Suisse, said in a note to investors.
Quote:
The size of the accounting reductions being announced is so large, analysts said, because they project out the benefit from the current subsidy for 30 years, rising with health care's current inflation rate, and then crams it all back into a one-quarter loss. First quarter profits will be reduced, but there will be no long-term impact on the companies' financial health...
If only you weren't so gullible.
Seems that you have a direct line to the Kool Aid machine.
Why do you hate Corporations? What have they ever done to you?
If only you weren't so gullible.
Seems that you have a direct line to the Kool Aid machine.
Why do you hate Corporations? What have they ever done to you?
Did you read the article?
The loopholes have been eliminated that allow corporations to claim tax payer subsidy money as expenditures but not having to declare them as income. This is a good thing. I'd think you guys would love this since all you ever do is whine about leaches who live off your tax payer money. I guess corporate welfare is all fine and good, you like that kind of socialism?
Did you read the article?
The loopholes have been eliminated that allow corporations to claim tax payer subsidy money as expenditures but not having to declare them as income. This is a good thing. I'd think you guys would love this since all you ever do is whine about leaches who live off your tax payer money. I guess corporate welfare is all fine and good, you like that kind of socialism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Friedman
We have become so accustomed to employer-provided medical care that we regard it as part of the natural order. Yet it is thoroughly illogical. Why single out medical care? Food is more essential to life than medical care. Why not exempt the cost of food from taxes if provided by the employer? Why not return to the much-reviled company store when workers were in effect paid in kind rather than in cash?
Even conservative hero Milton ****ing Friedman thinks employer provided health benefits are dumb. Obviously this doesn't go all the way but I don't see why we need businesses we work for providing basic care.
Does this leave the corporations an incentive to continue the benefit programs? Will they be forced to increase their prices to compensate?
In the end who will pay? I am thinking the employees and the consumer.
Mean while those in office who receive the best packages and pay nothing towards them feel no increased burden. In fact when was the last time that they passed a bill that meant sacrifice for themselves or their families? It seems like they are great at telling everyone else to tighten up but they don't hold themselves to the same standards.
This is a no victory for no one.
Does this leave the corporations an incentive to continue the benefit programs? Will they be forced to increase their prices to compensate?
In the end who will pay? I am thinking the employees and the consumer.
Mean while those in office who receive the best packages and pay nothing towards them feel no increased burden. In fact when was the last time that they passed a bill that meant sacrifice for themselves or their families? It seems like they are great at telling everyone else to tighten up but they don't hold themselves to the same standards.
This is a no victory for no one.
By year 3 of this health care plan..all corporations of all sizes can move their people over to the government pool. I expect that to happen to a majority of companies..it's a win/win for them as a static penalty is cheaper than rising health care costs. Keeping health care may be used as a retention benefit to keep the best and brightest. Pensions were once used like that but very few have pensions anymore.
This is NOT a good thing. All it does is cause companies to raise the amount they charge their employees for the benefits and after the 3 year rule will just dump all their employees on the Govt. Plan. Therefor the cost savings Obama claimed would happen will NOT because in 3 years when all these new people are on the Govt plan he will have to raise taxes AGAIN to pay for his mess. Yeah way to help with health care.
This is NOT a good thing. All it does is cause companies to raise the amount they charge their employees for the benefits and after the 3 year rule will just dump all their employees on the Govt. Plan. Therefor the cost savings Obama claimed would happen will NOT because in 3 years when all these new people are on the Govt plan he will have to raise taxes AGAIN to pay for his mess. Yeah way to help with health care.
But the government doesn't expect that to happen..do they ?
I guess they think corporations will stick with paying 50% or so of their employee's health insurance and forgo dumping them ?
If so, boy does the government have some surprises in store.
A corporations first interest is profit ..they serve the shareholders who buy their stock and hand them $$$$. Those shareholders want a return for their money invested and the corporation must do what is in the best interest of their shareholders, not necessarily their employees.
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.
