The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” – $13 billion
The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions – $15.2 billion
The Obamacare Medical Device Tax – $20 billion
The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike -- $86.8 billion
The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income – $123 billion
Source: Americans For Tax Reform
You think things are bad now? Just you wait until January, 2013.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
11 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Medicare payroll tax increase is 0.9% on income over $200,000 a year.
ReplyDeleteThis is a significant contributor to insuring 30 million more Americans.
You write THE TRUTH!
ReplyDeleteBZ
9% of 200k is what? 18,000. For a guy running a small business, that's not chump change. And that, quite potentially, is a job NOT being offered to someone who could really use one. You folks are on the Left are... always wanting to tax others, but not yourselves. So long as someone else pays for your socialist/government "largess" dreams, any amount of taxation is fine.
ReplyDeleteOh my! Where to begin?
ReplyDeleteELA, the tax is 0.9% not 9%. Big difference between $18,000 and $1,800. Hopefully a guy running a small business has better math skills than you.
Furthermore, this tax applies ONLY to income in excess of the threshold of $200,000 (and that's on profit after ALL expenses including employee wages). So in your example, the small business owner pays NO MORE. If his profit is $250,000, his Medicare Tax increases $450.
Easy to rant when you don't know what you're talking about, ELA.
Some people think that the entire country benefits when as many people as possible have access to health care, especially preventative care. It lowers the overall cost of health care and will lower the deficit over time. And I don't mind doing my part as a citizen of this country to help make this happen for America.
You can't respond nicely? Politely? You always have to be an ass? This is the problem with the Left... or rather, the minions of the left. The talking heads on TV, for the most part, are congenial, whereas folks like you are simply asses.
ReplyDeleteYou're joking, of course.
ReplyDelete"Jim and all his intellectual dopplegangers"
"So while I believe Jim and his like are to be pitied"
"These people are so morally, and intellectually bankrupt"
"I'm sick to death of the Jims of this world; they are contemptible liars and intellectual defects. It cheapens me to even have to respond to their ridiculous, lying prattle."
"You have demonstrated nothing but that you are a bitter little man unable to think for himself. I pity you."
"And as predicted, Jim proves himself to be either genuinely ignorant, or a liar. "
"reciting schmaltzy affirmations to himself and others while waiting in line at Starbucks and, therefore, most men's intellectual inferior."
"You're such a hypocrite."
"the fact that you are petty, ignorant, and the worse kind of hypocrite. "
"It won't make you any less of a sophomoric crybaby."
"And since Jim still can't spell my name correctly... I'm going to delete his last comment"
Who's the sophomoric crybaby?
And all these quotes are from one single post.
You want me to be polite? Try a little polite on for size yourself, ELA.
None of which were part of this post, or in recent memory. I'm attempting to be non-personally critical of you in the now.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't been polite from day one. I can be polite to whomever displays the same, even to those with whom I disagree. But as I recall, your own forays in 'niceness' are exceedingly rare. And, again, all those examples you cite are months old. 'Polite' doesn't appear to be in your own wardrobe.
Folk like you are exhausting, to say nothing of my present job; which is why I've been absent from here a great deal these last few months.
Now... Obama promised his healthcare law would bring DOWN healthcare costs. They have instead increased. And they'll continue to increase as this law becomes more fully implemented.
You haven't been polite from day one.
ReplyDeleteSorry but I'm going to have to call you on that. I'm not sure what your issue is, but I always, always start out polite. I only engage in snark when I receive it first. The denizens of this blog are very quick to respond to my honest offerings with words such as those of yours that I quoted above.
That said, E....can I call you E for short?
That said, E, I'm willing to start fresh and be at least as polite as I get back from anyone here. I'm not here to bash people, but I'm not going to sit back and be bashed either.
So why am I here? Because the best way for me to learn about issues is to research things that people claim to find out what is and is not fact-based and report my findings so that people get a broader perspective on what they post or comment on here.
Fair enough?
Obama NEVER promised to bring down the cost of health care. Ever. We have a growing and aging population, so bringing down the cost of health care is impossible.
ReplyDeleteWhat Obama DID promise to bring down is the rate of growth of the cost of health care. We are only beginning to see the results of the ACA and they are promising. There is no way at this point to factually claim that the ACA won't achieve the goal of reducing the rate of increase of over all health care costs.
I normally wouldn't rely on a "fact-checker" like Politifact, but they quoted Obama. This from 2009 (emboldened mine):
ReplyDeleteAfter meeting with Senate Democrats on Dec. 15, President Barack Obama made a number of claims about what the health care bill would achieve if passed.
"We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care," Obama said. "Families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future. This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program. And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
"Now, I just want to repeat this because there's so much misinformation about the cost issue here. You talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are -- whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill."
Clearly by his own words, Obama promised to reduce costs. But then there's the next paragraph:
Obama's comments came on the heels of a report from Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) -- a nonpolitical civil service employee -- that concluded various provisions of the Senate bill "would have a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates." However, Foster continued, those effects would be outweighed by the increased cost associated with expanding health insurance coverage to another 33 million Americans. Specifically, the report estimates that the total national health expenditures under the Senate bill would increase by an total of $234 billion (0.7 percent) between 2010 and 2019.
I could be very likely that Obama went from talking about actual costs to reducing the rate of growth once the effects of the bill on costs were more closely scrutinized. And I would hesitate to insist that the rate of growth would decrease at all when we hear so many stories of how this bill will lead to people changing their minds about entering the health care industry, the addition of millions of people now without insurance, etc. Sounds like demand will rise and costs always rise with demand.
We don't know exactly what's going to happen with the health care act, but a lot of analysts say that it has a good chance of making some headway on lowering the cost curve while expanding care to the uninsured.
ReplyDeleteLeaders in this country have tried to create an inclusive health care system at least since Teddy Roosevelt. FDR tried it. Truman tried. LBJ tried. Even Nixon worked with Ted Kennedy and Wilbur Mills to enact universal health care. Clinton tried again.
The ACA isn't perfect, but it passed. After 100 years of trying to create a viable system which provides near universal health care and has a good chance of bending the cost curve, the president got it done.
If Romney repeals the ACA, what will he replace it with?