Taxes and Healthcare . . .

[turtlespeed 226]

Wait - I thought that healthcare was going to cost less . . isn't that what they said would happen?

Quote

Should you want to verify this, go to http://www.thomas.gov/, enter "HR 3590"
in the search box and look for "CRS Summaries." This is what you'll find.

Title IX Revenue Provisions—Subtitle A: Revenue Offset
"(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee
the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage
that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of
contributions to fle xible spending arrangements)."

Starting in 2011—next year—the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be
increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided.
It doesn't matter if you're retired. Your gross income WILL go up by the amount
of insurance your employer paid for. So you’ll be required to pay taxes on a larger
sum of money than you actually received. Take the tax form you just finished for
2009 and see what $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 additional gross income does to
your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it puts you into a
much higher bracket. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for
fifteen (15) percent that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases,
but it's not really a "tax increase" as such, it a redefinition of your taxable income.

Also, go to Kiplinger's and read about the thirteen (13) tax changes for 2010 that
could affect you.

. . . an election is coming in November. So vote intelligently, based on your values.
But also adjust your tax withholding, or increase your savings, so that you aren't
surprised and put in a jam when your federal income taxes are due on April 15, 2012.

Edit to format

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Ya know, just a simple check of Snopes would make you seem a lot more credible because then you wouldn't be copying and pasting this bullshit.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/HR3590.asp

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Ya know, just a simple check of Snopes would make you seem a lot more credible because then you wouldn't be copying and pasting this bullshit.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/HR3590.asp

I checked snopes . . . it had no match when I queried.

I also went to the .gov site and verified the language of the bill.

I also did further research and contacted my accountant. He said that I am subject to this tax.

Although the exact amounts may not be correct, it is not false.

Even in the end of the article from snopes that you reference it says, ". . . which could mean the plans of millions or workers - a small minority of the work force - would be subject to the tax in theory."

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

I checked snopes . . . it had no match when I queried.

Maybe you should learn how to do a better search?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I checked snopes . . . it had no match when I queried.

Maybe you should learn how to do a better search?

Perhapos - care to comment on the rest of the post, or do you just stick with the inconsequential parts?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

I also did further research and contacted my accountant. He said that I am subject to this tax.

Maybe you need to get a better accountant? One that understands 2011 doesn't equal 2018?

Quote

Although the exact amounts may not be correct, it is not false.

So, even though the information quoted is not correct . . . it's not false? Yeah, right, that makes sense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I also did further research and contacted my accountant. He said that I am subject to this tax.

Maybe you need to get a better accountant? One that understands 2011 doesn't equal 2018?

Quote

Although the exact amounts may not be correct, it is not false.

So, even though the information quoted is not correct . . . it's not false? Yeah, right, that makes sense.

Even snopes says that there is some truth to it - in real life just because the information isn't 100% correct, you don't throw out the entire document.

Do you toss a whole potato because it has an eye or two?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Even snopes says that there is some truth to it - in real life just because the information isn't 100% correct, you don't throw out the entire document.

Yes, there is some truth to it.

The bill exists; true.
The bill means what you quoted; false.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

the real, and current, tax increase is in medicare tax rates for the upper middle class (SF standards) and up, particularly for married dual income couples.

The tax on benefits is far out, and subject to further tinkering. Expect it to be a big item on the 2016 election campaign.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I also did further research and contacted my accountant. He said that I am subject to this tax.

Maybe you need to get a better accountant? One that understands 2011 doesn't equal 2018?

Quote

Although the exact amounts may not be correct, it is not false.

So, even though the information quoted is not correct . . . it's not false? Yeah, right, that makes sense.

So you are saying that the tax will not be assessed until 2018?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Even snopes says that there is some truth to it - in real life just because the information isn't 100% correct, you don't throw out the entire document.

Yes, there is some truth to it.

The bill exists; true.
The bill means what you quoted; false.

hey look...

a great example of how NOT to convince people you're right.

be short, non-specific, and imply your opponent is lying.

/ignore

--
Rob

[quade 4]

Quote

hey look...

a great example of how NOT to convince people you're right.
be short, non-specific, and imply your opponent is lying.

I never implied he was lying, simply uninformed and possibly too gullible to check lame copy and paste email forwards and internet postings.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

So you are saying that the tax will not be assessed until 2018?

It certainly doesn't apply to anything happening in 2011!

Here, read the document . . . or don't read it, simply search for the number 2011.

If your accountant said this applies to you next year, you seriously need to find a new one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

So you are saying that the tax will not be assessed until 2018?

It certainly doesn't apply to anything happening in 2011!

Here, read the document . . . or don't read it, simply search for the number 2011.

If your accountant said this applies to you next year, you seriously need to find a new one.

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

Even that is a statement of limited correctness.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

I'm not convinced that this limit is so high that people won't see it. That was the reason why the unions wanted so badly to be exempted. BTW, I lost track on that - did the unions and government workers keep their exemption or not?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

I'm not convinced that this limit is so high that people won't see it. That was the reason why the unions wanted so badly to be exempted. BTW, I lost track on that - did the unions and government workers keep their exemption or not?

Dunno. The whole thing had dropped off my radar in general until Turtle reposted the talking point.

I'm also a bit curious about that. In just a simple google search it seems as if this was an email that was going around in mid-may, but it has exploded on the right wing talking point blogs within the last week. I'm always curious about the timing of these scare blog posts and how they seem to suddenly hit tons of blogs all within a day or so of each other.

People talk about the echo chamber of political blogs, but to me it seems like a lot of them don't actually create much in the way of original content, but rather just blindly copy and paste what some other blog has posted.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this only happens on the right either.

It just seems to me that the vast majority of political blogs are set up as mindless robots scraping and reposting from other blogs.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

I'm not convinced that this limit is so high that people won't see it.

From the actual bill:

Quote

‘‘(I) in the case of an employee with self-only coverage, $8,500, and
‘‘(II) in the case of an employee with coverage other than self-only cov- erage, $23,000.

That's the annual coverage that wouldn't be considered in excess.

That's still pretty freekin' high.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

It's about cost not services.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

It's about cost not services.

Right, but it's also about the amount of money the company is contributing to the insurance payment. In other words, most employee coverage is paid for in part by their companies and in part by the employee. It's part of a total compensation package.

Up until this point, the companies would only pop for "excessive coverage" on their highest level of employees and it was unlimited and didn't count against taxes for anyone and a write off for the company. These "medical" costs could be some pretty frivolous stuff. That's what this bill is really addressing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

It's about cost not services.

Right, but it's also about the amount of money the company is contributing to the insurance payment. In other words, most employee coverage is paid for in part by their companies and in part by the employee. It's part of a total compensation package.

Up until this point, the companies would only pop for "excessive coverage" on their highest level of employees and it was unlimited and didn't count against taxes for anyone and a write off for the company. These "medical" costs could be some pretty frivolous stuff. That's what this bill is really addressing.

So you are saying that they are diguising fringe benifits as medical costs?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

So you are saying that they are diguising fringe benifits as medical costs?

Are you saying companies DON'T?

Look, you can get "health insurance" that will cover just about anything health related; gym memberships, health spas, . . . as long as you are (or in this case the employee's company is) willing to pay for it.

It really does seem to me that's what this bill is about and certainly not the average Joe-six-pack worker your original reposting has implied.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

One thing you need to remember is that the large unions were in oposition to the HC bill until they were exempted from the cadilac care taxation. Because the HC programs they had met the definition at that time so they would be taxed.

I do not know if the definition is still the same but that gives you an idea of where it started

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

I'm thinking the same thing. Maybe a married couple, both smokers, with 3 covered kids, in the 60 to 65 age bracket, and 100% coverage for everything from massages and over the counter drugs to hookers and lear jets.

Be interesting to poke around on some commercial sites and see if you can even buy a plan that expensive. Must be aiming at sub-groups of executives that have ridiculously generous plans not available to the general public.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley