Layoffs beginning, now that employers know Obamacare taxes won't be cancelled

[Cruella]

Well, Medicare Part A is free. You pay nothing for the part which you use in the hospital. Medicare Part B is $140 per month out of your SS check. Part B is the part which pays for doctor's visits. But anybody can opt out of Part B. I told them I have Vets Medical Care. So I don't pay anything for Medicare.

Now your computations should include say a 20 year cycle. For example, say I don't pay for any health insurance for 20 years. Then, you have a disastrous year with all those operations. If the cost was $80,000, that is equal to paying $220 per month into a health savings account (tax free). In that case, you are better off being self insured - you don't need an insurance company or Part B.

Are they even going to allow those self insured plans anymore? Isn't there a limit on what you can put into them per year?

 

[PLC1]

It's not really called a tax but a fine and could amount to $3000 per employee, if an employer has over 50 employees.

Something else I just heard today, was that during the storm and the election, that the Obama Admin managed someway to push through some type of public option. I'll try and find a link, but the way I understand it, is that along with the states' exchange of insurance companies, the government will now have their own exchange to compete with them. Not sure how this is going to work or affect the insurance companies, probably put them out of business eventually, so if you own any stock in insurance companies you might want to check it out.

At least the $3,000 per employee paid by employers who don't provide health insurance to their employees would partially level the playing field. That's still less than employers who do the right thing pay, but it's a step in the right direction.

But, the ultimate goal needs to be t o get health care off of the shoulders of the employers altogether. That burden has to be more of a job killer than a 3% tax increase would ever be.

A public option that includes more than just the elderly and indigent would be big news, even during an election.

 

[Hobo1]

Maybe I should ask, "didn't you vote for President?" You must understand what is in ObamaCare if you are going to vote intelligently. More to the point, Pelosi is famous for her remark, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Well even after the bill is passed into law, most people (including me) don't know all the details. I haven't even seen on the internet a comprehensive explanation.

To answer you question, I think the Courts said the States do not have to accept the change in Medicaid portion of the law if they choose to opt out.

 

[dogtowner]

What is the public option and who is going to pay for administering it? Is it what we already have had called Medicaid? And what happens to Medicaid? Is Medicare also going over to the public option?

public option is state run insurance
you will psy premiums (sid will allow some to not) the redt the taxpayer psys
no. medicaid is different and, depending on the states will expand elihigibility. thats all tax $
medicare sees no changes as yet apart from the half a trillion yanked for obamacare.

 

[Cruella]

At least the $3,000 per employee paid by employers who don't provide health insurance to their employees would partially level the playing field. That's still less than employers who do the right thing pay, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not when an employer refrains from hiring more than 50 people, not when an employer lays off employees and not when an employer reduces an employees hours to below part time levels, and certainly not when an employer decides that paying the fine is cheaper than supplying medical insurance. In every case it's going to be the employee who suffers the most.

But, the ultimate goal needs to be to get health care off of the shoulders of the employers altogether. That burden has to be more of a job killer than a 3% tax increase would ever be.

Depends. Most small businesses are Sub-corps and the profits have to be reported on the owners 1040. Another thing is that medical payments for an employee are a deductible expense. Do we even know if the the $3000 fine will be allowed as an expense.

A public option that includes more than just the elderly and indigent would be big news, even during an election.

Then why wasn't it reported on? The government option will be in direct competitiion with the insurance companies. They can undermine the insurance companies and eventually put them out of business. Which I think was their plan all along. You know how they play games in Washington with the numbers. It's just another sneaky way for the government to control more of the private secotor, and no one seems to care about that. What's next? Making all the doctors and other health related employees Federal Employees? I see that coming too.

 

[PLC1]

Not when an employer refrains from hiring more than 50 people, not when an employer lays off employees and not when an employer reduces an employees hours to below part time levels, and certainly not when an employer decides that paying the fine is cheaper than supplying medical insurance. In every case it's going to be the employee who suffers the most.



Depends. Most small businesses are Sub-corps and the profits have to be reported on the owners 1040. Another thing is that medical payments for an employee are a deductible expense. Do we even know if the the $3000 fine will be allowed as an expense.




Then why wasn't it reported on? The government option will be in direct competitiion with the insurance companies. They can undermine the insurance companies and eventually put them out of business. Which I think was their plan all along. You know how they play games in Washington with the numbers. It's just another sneaky way for the government to control more of the private secotor, and no one seems to care about that. What's next? Making all the doctors and other health related employees Federal Employees? I see that coming too.

That's what they do in Spain, where there is a real socialized medicine plan. The doctors are actually government employees. Oh, and Spain pays less than half as much per person as we do.

But, a real socialized medicine would probably not work here. Our traditions and culture are not the same.

Still, the goal needs to be to get the cost off of the backs of employers so that they don't play games with hiring part timers and staying below the 50 maximum employees. Second best is to either charge all employers or none in order to have a level playing field.

 

[Hobo1]

Still, the goal needs to be to get the cost off of the backs of employers so that they don't play games with hiring part timers and staying below the 50 maximum employees. Second best is to either charge all employers or none in order to have a level playing field.

From what I have seen in the past (and from my own past experience), employers are very clever at finding ways around government regulations. For example, suppose you have McDonalds with a corporate headquarters in the US and all the stores are franchises. Now the profits funnel back to the US. But suppose every country had a different, independent corporation in each country - or each franchise was a separate company. License fees, or royalties still had to be paid to a McDonald's bank account in some offshore country, or a numbered account in Switzerland. Maybe the top management move to Singapore, like Proctor and Gamble did. So the New McDonalds still makes money, but it doesn't flow through the US - and nobody pays anything and nobody gets health insurance.

That's the kind of trickery we are going to see to avoid new taxes. Romney knows how to do that; Obama doesn't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[PLC1]

From what I have seen in the past (and from my own past experience), employers are very clever at finding ways around government regulations. For example, suppose you have McDonalds with a corporate headquarters in the US and all the stores are franchises. Now the profits funnel back to the US. But suppose every country had a different, independent corporation in each country - or each franchise was a separate company. License fees, or royalties still had to be paid to a McDonald's bank account in some offshore country, or a numbered account in Switzerland. Maybe the top management move to Singapore, like Proctor and Gamble did. So the New McDonalds still makes money, but it doesn't flow through the US - and nobody pays anything and nobody gets health insurance.

That's the kind of trickery we are going to see to avoid new taxes. Romney knows how to do that; Obama doesn't have a clue what you are talking about.

I think you're correct on both counts: Businesspeople are adept at skirting regulations, and Romney knows the ins and outs of the system far better than Obama, which is why it's a pity Romney couldn't get elected.

Maybe Obama will appoint someone who does understand business. If not, then that sidestepping of regulations will get worse.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I think you're correct on both counts: Businesspeople are adept at skirting regulations, and Romney knows the ins and outs of the system far better than Obama, which is why it's a pity Romney couldn't get elected.

Maybe Obama will appoint someone who does understand business. If not, then that sidestepping of regulations will get worse.

Perhaps--thousands of years into the future--a system will develop where when one is elected--he will ask the loser to join him and handle those things he had run on that do not conflict in principle with his own. The election of a "president" is only the choosing of a team captain--it is symbolic--it is the minions swirling in the ether around them that make all the difference.
Think Van Jones and Eric Holder.
Presidents are really important only in foreign affairs.
Congress--is only the lawyers for the left and right fighting it out in a court room, of course, it is confrontational.

Business should be left alone with the minimal amount of regulations.
NOT to protect people from basic stupidity.
Nothing cures a bad investor--like bad investments.

 

[dogtowner]

I think you're correct on both counts: Businesspeople are adept at skirting regulations, and Romney knows the ins and outs of the system far better than Obama, which is why it's a pity Romney couldn't get elected.

Maybe Obama will appoint someone who does understand business. If not, then that sidestepping of regulations will get worse.

he wont and wouldnt.if he did.know someone. so much easier to just raise taxes. starting Jan 1 !

 

[Hobo1]

he wont and wouldnt.if he did.know someone. so much easier to just raise taxes. starting Jan 1 !

That is so true. Obama is busy trying to tax the rich and don't mess with the people making less than $200,000 per year. When you try to pull that stuff on business, they have too many ways to get around it.

I could give you 100 examples. Do you think private jets are taxable? No, they are a business expense... and if you don't know the difference between expense, income and profit, then you voted for Obama. Unless you have a flat tax on money that comes in the door (income), business will dodge it.

Don't mess with business. Tax the employees (including the bosses and investors) who take money from the business. It's a lot harder to dodge a W-2 or 1099 when the IRS has a copy. Get your tax revenue from places where you can see money change hands.

 

[dogtowner]

That is so true. Obama is busy trying to tax the rich and don't mess with the people making less than $200,000 per year. When you try to pull that stuff on business, they have too many ways to get around it.

I could give you 100 examples. Do you think private jets are taxable? No, they are a business expense... and if you don't know the difference between expense, income and profit, then you voted for Obama. Unless you have a flat tax on money that comes in the door (income), business will dodge it.

Don't mess with business. Tax the employees (including the bosses and investors) who take money from the business. It's a lot harder to dodge a W-2 or 1099 when the IRS has a copy. Get your tax revenue from places where you can see money change hands.

Don't fall for that. Obama is looking for a fall guy to blame for increasing taxes on all taxpayers beginning with those "Bush" tax cuts that gave ALL taxpayers a break. You get far more money hitting 60 million for ten bucks than hitting a hundred for a million. If you wanted to make revenue you are better off allowing them to thrive.

And business never pays taxes, their customers pay the taxes for them. raise theoir taxes and all you have done is shifted more tax burden on everyone. Even non-tax payers are paying taxes via everything they buy apart from illegal drugs and hookers.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

That is so true. Obama is busy trying to tax the rich and don't mess with the people making less than $200,000 per year. When you try to pull that stuff on business, they have too many ways to get around it.

I could give you 100 examples. Do you think private jets are taxable? No, they are a business expense... and if you don't know the difference between expense, income and profit, then you voted for Obama. Unless you have a flat tax on money that comes in the door (income), business will dodge it.

Don't mess with business. Tax the employees (including the bosses and investors) who take money from the business. It's a lot harder to dodge a W-2 or 1099 when the IRS has a copy. Get your tax revenue from places where you can see money change hands.

The irony is always--whatever the rich do to make their money--it usually involves selling a good or a service for which WE ALL will have to pay an increased price for to accommodate for the tax increase.
That--is holy writ--and will never change.

 

[PLC1]

he wont and wouldnt.if he did.know someone. so much easier to just raise taxes. starting Jan 1 !

If he and John Boehner do nothing, then taxes will go up and spending will go down.

so, what are the odds that they will do something, and that Congress will approve?

 

[Cruella]

If he and John Boehner do nothing, then taxes will go up and spending will go down.

how do you figure spending will go down?