Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Other Tax Shoes Begin To Drop
Investors.com ^ | March 23, 2010 | INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY staff

Posted on 03/23/2010 5:46:34 PM PDT by Kaslin

Health Care Reform: The Senate parliamentarian dims GOP hopes on a reconciliation bill that contains even more onerous taxes and even a financial incentive to lay people off. No wonder Speaker Pelosi is laughing.

We'll acknowledge that the signing of ObamaCare into law is a historic event, but we think the Weather Channel broadcasting the signing ceremony was a bit much. On the other hand, stormy political weather and more dark clouds lay ahead.

The cries of "repeal" and "remember in November" are rising, and state attorneys general are taking the feds to court over the unconstitutional mandates and usurpation of rights contained in reform's first incarnation. The bad news is that things are going to get worse before they get better.

On Monday, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a good laugh celebrating her coup d'etat, Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin, who gets paid out of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, issued informal guidance to Republicans that on at least one issue their plans to use the reconciliation process as a last stand had hit a snag.

According to a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Frumin sent word that he feels that the so-called "Cadillac tax," a proposed tax on high-end health insurance plans from which union members would be exempt, does not have an impact on the Social Security trust fund and therefore does not violate reconciliation rules under the 1974 budget act by changing contributions to the trust fund.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; agenda; bendoveramerica; bhofascism; bhotaxincrease; bhotyranny; business; cadillactax; congress; democrats; donttreadonme; economy; givemeliberty; heakthcare; healthcare; healthcarereform; hopeandchange; hopeychangey; hoyer; ibd; killthebill; liberalfascism; libertyordeath; livefreeordie; mediscam; mitchmcconnell; nancypelosi; nannystate; obama; obamacare; othertaxshoes; pelosi; reconciliation; rememberinnovember; repeal; repealthebill; senate; smallbusiness; socialism; socialisthealthcare; socializednedicine; socialsecurity; speakerpelosi; stenyhoyer; taxes; taxfairness; tyranny

1 posted on 03/23/2010 5:46:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“The cries of “repeal” and “remember in November” are rising, and state attorneys general are taking the feds to court over the unconstitutional mandates and usurpation of rights contained in reform’s first incarnation.”

The nail which sticks up farthest is hammered down first...


2 posted on 03/23/2010 5:51:05 PM PDT by stefanbatory (Weed out the RINOs! Sign the pledge. conservativepledge.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

All those really, really brilliant, smart, intelligent independents out there are going to intellectualize their hate for “the rich” and say how compassionate the latest progressive legislation is.

Look for Democrat/Progressive victories in 2010.

IMHO


3 posted on 03/23/2010 5:53:59 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s all for show.

SCOTUS is perverting our system.

They give us the little crumbs and let all the socialist crap sail right through.

Founders didn’t mean commerce clause to rule the cicizens.


4 posted on 03/23/2010 5:54:47 PM PDT by devistate one four (If you can't feed it, don't breed it! Kimber CDP II .45 OOHRAH! TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; holdonnow; Grampa Dave; tubebender; dalereed; Ernest_at_the_Beach; budwiesest; ...

I heard, or read somewhere that the Repubs were going to amend the reconciliation “fixes” bill now pending a Senate vote to ask for a judicial review of constitutionality by the SCOTUS. What’s happening with that? Anyone know?


5 posted on 03/23/2010 5:58:45 PM PDT by SierraWasp ("Contempt of Congress" used to be a minor crime. Now it's a badge of honor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ripley

No, look for massive Democrat defeats in 2010.


6 posted on 03/23/2010 5:59:12 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ripley

How much crack do you smoke?


7 posted on 03/23/2010 6:03:14 PM PDT by BreezyDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

‘if Company A lays off an employee with a working spouse, this could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse’s employer, unless Company B also lays off the other spouse.

We’re not making this up’.

Seriously?


8 posted on 03/23/2010 6:09:08 PM PDT by griswold3 (You think health care is expensive now? Just wait till it's FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

How can my company be responsible for a fine if my spouse’s employer has layoffs?


9 posted on 03/23/2010 6:12:01 PM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

Yep, it’s in this Heritage Foundation analysis:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/The-House-Health-Fix-Even-Higher-Tax-Penalties-for-Employers


10 posted on 03/23/2010 6:15:09 PM PDT by raptor22 (The truth will set us free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
[Snip] HR 4872, Heritage reports, would "force companies to pay a tax penalty if that business employs 50 or more workers as soon as one worker qualifies for, and opts to accept, a health insurance premium subsidy."[Snip]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The House Health Fix: Even Higher Tax Penalties for Employers

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/The-House-Health-Fix-Even-Higher-Tax-Penalties-for-Employers

Published on March 19, 2010 by John Ligon and Robert A. Book, Ph.D.

Under House Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), employers will face even greater penalties than mandated by earlier versions of “health care reform” legislation, such as H.R. 3590. Specifically, employers with more than 50 workers that do not offer a “qualified” health plan or pay 60 percent of health insurance premiums would face an annual tax penalty of $2,000 per full-time worker.

Moreover, companies with 50 or more workers that hire from low- and moderate-income families who qualify for, and elect to accept, premium subsidies would have to absorb an additional $3,000 per employee per year tax penalty—even if those companies already offer health insurance.

Both of these penalties would dramatically affect the way companies direct their allocation of labor. For instance, these tax penalties would discourage companies from hiring new workers, particularly individuals who are likely to be in low-income families.

The Employer Mandate Penalties in H.R. 4872

To help pay for the massive price tag of the legislation, lawmakers have raised the tax burden that companies would face compared to H.R. 3590 (the Senate-passed health bill). H.R. 4872 would force companies to pay a tax penalty if that company employs 50 or more workers and as soon as one worker qualifies for, and opts to accept, a health insurance premium subsidy. The definition of a large business as one with more than 50 employees will surprise many businesses that, until now, never realized they were such a large enterprise. Indeed, local restaurants and other similar service businesses can easily exceed the 50-employee threshold.

Essentially, companies with more than 50 workers that do not offer health insurance coverage—or pay at least 60 percent of the premiums for all full-time workers—will have to pay $2,000 per worker for all workers beyond the first 30 workers. Moreover, companies would face an additional tax penalty equal to $3,000 per full-time worker per year for every full-time worker that qualifies for a premium subsidy for health insurance coverage.

Changing the Way Businesses Hire

If the House reconciliation bill is enacted, there are three primary implications for businesses looking to hire low- and moderate-income workers.

First, employers would be faced with a $3,000 annual penalty for hiring a single parent—and are therefore likely to not hire such an individual. Likewise, if one company lays off an employee with a working spouse, that could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse’s employer—unless the other employer lays off the other spouse as well.[1]

Second, if the employer hires two people in different family situations for the same job at the same pay, they could have vastly different health insurance options based on what their other family members are making. The employee with another working family member would have to take a plan from one of their employers and pay up to 40 percent of the cost or face substantial tax penalties; the one with no (or lower-paid) other working family members could choose either the employer’s plan or any plan in the exchange—in the latter case, with a subsidy paid for by the other workers’ taxes.[2]

Third, if more than two-thirds of the employees qualify for subsidies, the company would be paying the same tax penalty as if it had not offered a health plan in the first place. Faced with paying a hefty tax penalty whether they offer health insurance or not, many companies would drop their health plan, harming the remaining workers who do not qualify for subsidies. Those workers would be forced to buy health insurance on their own, paying 100 percent of the premium (instead of 40 percent or less through the employer) and paying with after-tax dollars. Even if the company raises pay by the amount they would have paid for health insurance (less the tax penalty), employees would now face income taxes on compensation that would otherwise be non-taxed health benefits.[3]

Higher Tax Burdens on Businesses

It is not certain exactly how many companies would be impacted by either mandate, yet a significant share of U.S. businesses could likely face one or both tax penalties and would therefore have to find a way to absorb the increase in the cost of doing business.[4]

Second, this bill would establish a strong disincentive to expand employment, particularly for firms looking to grow beyond the threshold of 50 workers per firm. For many companies in the U.S., the marginal cost—at minimum—of $40,000 could be strong enough to forego hiring an additional worker.[5] This penalty would impact medium-sized businesses as well, where a firm with 75 workers and subject to the employer penalty would have to absorb $90,000 in additional costs (or approximately 6 percent of the average annual payroll for a company with 75 workers in the U.S.).

Punitive Employer Tax Penalties Is Not Sound Policy

It is crucial that federal lawmakers keep in mind that mandating even higher employer tax penalties to pay for a massive federal health care reform bill would create a strong disincentive to hire those who need jobs the most and encourage many employers to lay off people with family members who have also lost their jobs. The bill would also punish companies who hire or retain those workers already and harshly punishes workers who have too many co-workers from low- and moderate-income families.

Moreover, this bill would create an even stronger disincentive for companies that want to expand employment. Altogether, altering these incentive structures is harmful to businesses—of all sizes, yet particularly small- and medium-sized businesses—and the way they allocate labor. The net result could likely be higher unemployment, especially for low- and moderate-income families, and higher health insurance costs for their co-workers—the exact opposite of what the bill’s proponents’ claim is their goal.

John Ligon is a Policy Analyst, and Robert A. Book, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.



[1]Robert A. Book, “How the Senate Health Bill Punishes Businesses That Hire Low-Income Workers,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2716, December 3, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/How-the-Senate-Health-Bill-Punishes-Businesses-That-Hire-Low-Income-Workers.

[2] Ibid., p. 1.

[3] Ibid., p. 2.

[4]A significant share of U.S. businesses could likely face one or both of these higher employer tax penalties. There are approximately 77,900 total businesses in the U.S. with (on average) 50–200 workers per firm that could likely face the $2,000 per employee tax penalty. Also, there are 116,000 total businesses with 35–49 workers on average per firm. It is uncertain how many workers qualifying for the premium subsidy would elect to accept the subsidy, yet it is likely that a large share of full-time workers would elect to receive the average (aggregated) payroll for businesses with at least 50 workers is roughly $40,428. These estimates use data from the Small Business Administration for the total number of firms with an average of 50 to 200 workers per firm statistics and health benefit offering rates. The 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits 2009 Annual Survey, September 15, 2009, p. 38, at http://ehbs.kff.org/ (March 19, 2010); and United States. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “Firm Size Data,” 2006, at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html (March 19, 2010).

[5]As an example, if a business expands from 49 to 50 full-time workers, then the marginal cost of this expansion will be $2,000 times 20 full-time workers, or $40,000.


11 posted on 03/23/2010 6:15:48 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

“How much crack do you smoke?’

Easy there, BreezyDo, easy does it. If you disagree, say so. (And if you want me to STFU, say so.)

ARe you angry at the possibility of a Democrat win which would disappoint you sorely, or are you ready to rip my head off because you’re just angry at recent events or angry at my apparent stupidity in disregarding the sentiments of many citizens?

Easy, big fella, easy.

IMHO


12 posted on 03/23/2010 6:16:03 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Remember
Remember
On the 5th
Of November.
13 posted on 03/23/2010 6:16:34 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tanning salons just got taxed


14 posted on 03/23/2010 6:16:36 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stefanbatory
Pennsylvania may be the most bizarre state right now when it comes to the politics of the health care debate. The state is heavily Democratic in its Senate and House representation, supported ObamaCare in both Houses, and has a Democratic governor (Ed Rendell) who is a big Obama supporter. But the state's attorney general is a Republican named Tom Corbett who has already announced that he is laying the groundwork for one of the state lawsuits against ObamaCare.

And he's the GOP front-runner for the November election to replace Rendell, too (Rendell can't run again due to term limits).

15 posted on 03/23/2010 6:22:02 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Your lengthy post illustrates why I have long believed that this ObamaCare nonsense is actually going to CREATE a lot of jobs — among law firms and accounting firms who begin offering specialized consulting services to show businesses how to circumvent ObamaCare.


16 posted on 03/23/2010 6:23:43 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

If not, we’re Cuba on a larger scale. Bend over and kiss your rear goodbye and your children and grandchildren will be slaves to the government.


17 posted on 03/23/2010 6:27:11 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead (Clean the RAT/RINO Sewer in 2010 and 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Always knew with a Dem Administration we would get more jobs. Federal job. Although in recent history Pubbie Administrations aren’t slackers in this area of job creation either.

Plus, no matter who’s running the show ... lobbyists proliferate the landscape. Kinda like weeds growing in my lawn.


18 posted on 03/23/2010 6:27:30 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

“I heard, or read somewhere that the Repubs were going to amend the reconciliation “fixes” bill now pending a Senate vote to ask for a judicial review of constitutionality by the SCOTUS. What’s happening with that? Anyone know?”

This is one of many amendments the Repubs are preparing as a weapon in the reconciliation fight that is about to begin in the Senate.

Unfortunately, the Dems are likely to vote down all these amendments (especially that one) cause they want to keep the bill in tact so they don’t have to send it back to the House.

We will probably have to wait for the legal process to run its regular course, but there is a chance that the first court that hears the case will stop the Senate bill from being implemented pending their review. That I think is about our only hope to put the brakes on this thing in the short term.


19 posted on 03/23/2010 6:27:48 PM PDT by lquist1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“No, look for massive Democrat defeats in 2010.”

Would you bet the farm on that?

Watch for “independents” to be the brilliant intellectuals they all are and vote Democrat again because their beloved left wing media tell them to do so.

IMHO


20 posted on 03/23/2010 6:31:50 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All

BHO: “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

I need a smilie of a guy falling down laughing!


21 posted on 03/23/2010 6:33:06 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction (LOLcat sez: "ObamaCare: Do Not Want!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ripley

Those independents overwhelmingly voted for the GOP candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts in the last few months.


22 posted on 03/23/2010 6:35:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ripley
Easy there, BreezyDo, easy does it. If you disagree, say so. (And if you want me to STFU, say so.) ARe you angry at the possibility of a Democrat win which would disappoint you sorely, or are you ready to rip my head off because you’re just angry at recent events or angry at my apparent stupidity in disregarding the sentiments of many citizens? Easy, big fella, easy.

Woof!

All of the above...Instead of STFU how about just perish the thought?

23 posted on 03/23/2010 6:39:40 PM PDT by BreezyDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

there are two more type of taxes the Socialist want. a tax on CO2 and a Added Value Tax.

The Added Value Tax, unlike a national sale tax to replace all other federal taxes and fees, will be an addition to all other federal taxes and fees.


24 posted on 03/23/2010 6:41:49 PM PDT by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ripley
All those really, really brilliant, smart, intelligent independents out there are going to intellectualize their hate for “the rich” and say how compassionate the latest progressive legislation is.

Look for Democrat/Progressive victories in 2010.

IMHO

That might be true, except this bill now labels those people as part of "the rich". Once they experience first hand the negative effects of this legislation, they will realize that they are also in the line of fire of their supposed "enlightened" comrades.

25 posted on 03/23/2010 6:42:07 PM PDT by TravisBickle (Are you talkin' to me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A 4% Medicare rent tax ?? really??


26 posted on 03/23/2010 6:43:49 PM PDT by GeronL (All politicians are POS. Some are just piled higher and smell worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
...a reconciliation bill that contains even more onerous taxes and even a financial incentive to lay people off.

27 posted on 03/23/2010 6:54:39 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Washington State is the same, with a (R) SOS, and a Dem Gov. who is good and pissed. And, like Pa, he’s a front-runner for Gov.


28 posted on 03/23/2010 7:21:21 PM PDT by gunner03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Here's where it gets even more bizarre. According to Heritage, under the reconciliation bill, if Company A lays off an employee with a working spouse, this could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse's employer, unless Company B also lays off the other spouse.


29 posted on 03/23/2010 7:31:28 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

As best I can tell, it has something like Employer B gets a “discount” for insuring a person whose spouse is also insured. But if the spouse is not insured (i.e., because she loses her job with Employer A), then Employer B has to pay more to insure his employee.

Like if the employers are splitting the premium for the insurance provided to the family, then they’re not splitting it if one spouse is fired?


30 posted on 03/23/2010 7:35:06 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steveab

“there are two more type of taxes the Socialist want. a tax on CO2 and a Added Value Tax.”

I agree.

But having them raise taxes instead of pass Cap and Trade, or Immigration Reform, would be vastly better. Taxes are easy to undo.


31 posted on 03/23/2010 7:41:13 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

“How about just perish the thought?”

My sentiments exactly. But, unfortunately, the psychotics now occupying the government are backed by the psychotics in the electorate; and the number of “brilliant, intellectual” psychotics is growing.

IMHO


32 posted on 03/23/2010 7:43:45 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I know! I immediately double-checked to see the source. It’s IBD !!! Certainly credible. What an insane bill this is! Just insane!


33 posted on 03/23/2010 7:45:23 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ripley
I think when the psychotics see what this health care bill is going to do to them it will be like a direct shot of lithium to the frontal cortex. Therefore I disagree with your premise...

IMHO

34 posted on 03/23/2010 7:50:32 PM PDT by BreezyDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

35 posted on 03/23/2010 8:29:00 PM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

“How can my company be responsible for a fine if my spouse’s employer has layoffs?”

There are “community organizers” who will be glad to “explain” that to you, comrade!/sarcasm;)


36 posted on 03/23/2010 8:52:25 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"...under the reconciliation bill, if Company A lays off an employee with a working spouse, this could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse's employer, unless Company B also lays off the other spouse..."

Oh. My. G-d.

This sort of thing is just beyond the wildest fever-dreams.
37 posted on 03/23/2010 9:33:34 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast (Obama: running for re-election in '12 or running for Mahdi now? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

They’re going to love every moment of it.


38 posted on 03/24/2010 1:47:16 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson