Posted on 01/20/2007 7:27:28 PM PST by listenhillary
some, yes. the exclusions being reported are $7500 single, $15000 family.
yes, there is a tax cut for people who pay healthcare (out of pocket) in this, and that is fine.
But for alot of other people, its a new tax. As I noted above, in 2006 the AVERAGE cost of a 4 person coroporate plan was $11500. so many workers are already above the cap. and you know how the IRS works - the exclusion won't be indexed (like the AMT), so 5 years from now, that average plan cost will exceed the exclusion - for almost everyone in the private sector middle and upper middle class.
you are right, part D has worked out fine after much initial confusion.
"Want universal healthcare? (1) Abolish Medicaid (2) Phase-out Medicare (help existing seniors & the disabled in the meantime but make younger people more responsible) (3) End all federal government healthcare regulations (4) Simplify the tax code."
Oh, sure, like that'll work. Any time we try reducing the size of government, it keeps government from getting bigger. And we all know that government has to get bigger to ensure universal healthcare, and Americans' day-to-day safety, don't we?
/bitter sarcasm
Is it a simple tax deduction? Or only for those who buy their own insurance.
That would be a plus.
Sweet? He's going to impose a tax on previously untaxed health care benefits, but is going to give you a tax break on the first $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families. How is that "sweet"?
That clear enough for you?
If we're getting any kind of a decent healthcare plan from our employers, we'll be taxed on it.
there have been other threads on this today. the general idea is, that people with "rich plans" are messing up the system because they are driving up costs at the margin for everyone - they have "too much" healthcare. so the idea is, to "beat them down" with the tax into plans that cost less (below the exclusion) through higher deductibles. when people have higher deductibles, higher out of pocket costs, they tend to consume less healthcare - because it isn't "free" anymore.
there may well be some logic in this - but I tell you, when these W2 wage earners see that new box on their paycheck appear with a tax on their employer provided healthcare benefit, all hell is going to break loose.
It won't.
well fine, if you want that plan - then what you want are medical 401Ks. I could go for that. but its all pre-tax. I contribute to my medical 401K, my employer matches some portion of it. again, all pre-tax. I then take my medical 401K, and go out into the market and buy myself a healthcare plan.
I'm OK with that concept. So tell me then, how does this new tax get us there?
here is the link to the form 502 with the rules of what you can deduct ... I am self-employed so mine is calculated on schedule C... that is another set of rules.
We need another government agency to simplify government.
It should have Cabinet status.
And its own building complex.
And a signficant staff to complete the tasks and recommendations.
And a signficant staff to oversee the operations and functions.
And a significant staff to represent each of the entites that might be affected.
===
See how well the concept worked when we 'condensed' all many government functions in to the single Homeland Security Department?
[/s]
You're correct.
Here's a better idea: Maybe we need a government agency to study why politicians are such idiots. :)
The older you get the easier it becomes to meet the requirements. Prescriptions alone add up quickly.
All GOP stuff will be presented as disastrous and evil in the time before the 2008 elections. Bush Sr. barely got his message out.
That's the price we pay for appeasement, surrrender, and kissing Democrat rear-ends. They are so ungrateful to the RINOs.
It won't. It seems to me that if you have health insurance through your employer, it is a non-taxed benefit. Bush is proposing that we pay income taxes on the value of the insurance you receive from your employer. If you pay lets say 20% of the premium and your employer pays the other 80%, then two things will happen. First, the portion you pay will be with after tax dollars and not pre-tax dollars. THat means you will be paying more out of pocket for your share of the premium. And then you will be liable for income taxes on the 80% provided by your employer. That would cause a huge tax burden on people who have employer based healthcare and could become a huge revenue stream to the government.
That being said, Bush wants a $7.5K individual or $15K tax deduction instead of health insurance being not taxed. The problem is that people pushed into the AMT will likely lose this deduction and if the deduction is not adjusted for inflation every year, people will be pushed above that deduction and their employer contribution to health care will be taxable.
And all this is being done to give the poor free health care. The Dems will love it because it means more taxes and they will hate it, too, because Bush is trying to pass them on the left.
To do what you recommend would only work is some of the carriers -- like the Blues -- actually formed groups that people can buy into in mass. My old employer self-insured through Blue Cross and managed to hold premiums down over the years (thank goodness I still get my insurance for less than $200 a month... not much less though).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.