New Health-Care Taxes Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth’ (Update1)

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
March 22 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail in October 2008 that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” With Obama on the verge of signing sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, he’s about to do just that.

If the final version of the legislation passes the Senate, high-income investors will pay higher Medicare taxes, tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical deductions will be curtailed, and it will cost insurance companies more to pay executives millions of dollars. Those levies will help fund expansion of Medicaid services for the poor and subsidize health insurance to cover millions who don’t currently have benefits.

“It’s very clear that taxes are levied on the wealthy and the benefits will spread across the entire income distribution, with a lot going to expanded Medicaid distribution and expanding health insurance,” said Roberton Williams, an economist at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research institute backed by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “One couldn’t claim he didn’t keep that promise” to “spread the wealth around.”

In all, the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019, according to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan agency. The bill also imposes about $69 billion more in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, another nonpartisan agency.

Higher Medicare Taxes

Most of the revenue would come from higher Medicare taxes on about 1 million individuals earning more than $200,000 and about 4 million couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000.

The legislation would for the first time apply Medicare taxes to investment income received by these households, beginning in 2013. The 3.8 percent rate would apply to unearned income such as realized capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and royalties. It wouldn’t apply to other income subject to income taxes, including interest from municipal bonds and retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans until funds are withdrawn.

Obama’s budget proposes to allow the existing 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains to rise to 20 percent in 2011 for the same high-earners. Layering a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on top of that would mean a new top rate on dividends and capital gains of 23.8 percent. The top tax rates on interest and rental income would rise to as high as about 44 percent, assuming other Obama tax increases on high-earners are enacted.

Individual’s Share

The bill also increases the individual’s share of Medicare tax currently imposed on salaries starting at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples to 2.35 percent, from 1.45 percent currently.

The combination of the new Medicare taxes and Obama’s budget proposals, if they were in place this year, would cost a married couple with a household income of $5 million an extra $287,100 in taxes, according to analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax in Washington.

The Medicare taxes superseded an earlier Senate proposal to tax high-value employer-provided insurance coverage, dubbed “Cadillac plans.” That 40 percent excise tax was delayed until 2018, when it would begin to apply to benefits over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for couples.

Those thresholds would be indexed to inflation, which grows at a slower pace than the cost of health care, meaning more employers would likely face the levy over time.

Out-of-Pocket Costs

Other provisions likely to affect higher-income individuals would scale back tax preferences associated with paying out-of- pocket medical expenses. Starting in 2013, Americans under 65 won’t be able to deduct medical expenses until they exceed 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent now; retirees would keep the lower threshold.

The bill in 2011 places new restrictions on what can be purchased using special savings accounts funded with pre-tax dollars including health savings accounts. Improper withdrawals from the accounts also would be hit with a new 20 percent tax.

And the legislation for the first time would place a $2,500 limit on what can be contributed to employer-sponsored flexible spending accounts, another type of account funded with pre-tax dollars that can be used to pay for medicines, co-payments, and other expenses.

Employers currently set their own limits, typically between $3,000 and $5,000 in the absence of a government cap. This change would cost an average worker about $625 in tax savings, according to WageWorks Inc., a San Mateo, California, company that administers 1.5 million accounts.

Tanning Salons

Consumers who frequent tanning salons would pay a 10 percent excise tax, and those who buy devices such as wheelchairs would pay a 2.3 percent excise tax. Drugmakers may pass on a $3 billion annual fee. Insurance companies would be denied deductions when they pay their executives over $500,000.

Under the reconciliation bill that is now before the Senate, individuals who don’t purchase insurance would be subject to a fine of $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. Individuals may be subject to a charge equal to as much as 2.5 percent of their income in 2016, if the total is greater than the flat payment.

Employers with 50 or more workers would pay $2,000 per worker if they don’t offer health insurance. The legislation offers a small business tax credit to help pay for employer- provided premiums.

Companies also would face more scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service for using tax shelters.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ake7tOWwUT6E
 
good.

the wealth was drawn from the masses and concentrated to the top 3% of the country during Bush 2nd's term, so a course correction was needed.
 
You really think the rich is going to get affected:lol:, its the middle class that's going to hit hard. America is heading in the direction of Latin-America :smh:.
good.

the wealth was drawn from the masses and concentrated to the top 3% of the country during Bush 2nd's term, so a course correction was needed.
 
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984

Possible Rationing ? ? ?
 
America is heading in the direction of Latin-America :smh:.

No one wants to admit this.

Everyone wants to believe they are free or this is a FREE country.

They want to believe the government is GOD and the President is their savior.

It is a widespread delusion that just because they live in the United States, they do not have to stand up for themselves nor defend their rights in the face of the authorities.

The police are good, the military is right, the courts are fair and just, and Congress works for them.

Why are people so willing to jeopardize themselves and their families in this way?
 
When police backup arrives, the seriously wounded and nearly hysterical Thorn confides to Hatcher the horrible secret behind Soylent Green, finally urging him to spread the word: "Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!"



This is where we're headed. Not some latin american economy we are headed to str9up cannibalism. Trying to tell ya'll the people in charge are not human they are vampires lol. We got to stop them lol.
 
You really think the rich is going to get affected:lol:, its the middle class that's going to hit hard. America is heading in the direction of Latin-America :smh:.

what, are you stupid? one of the main reasons folks were fighting this is cause RICH FOLKS are going to be TAXED like they were during the Clinton days, and the insurance industry will be taxed heavier.

the middle class wont be touched UNLESS you're making more than 250K per year.
 
Possible Rationing ? ? ?

There is already rationing, controlled exclusively and with no oversight or controls by the health insurance companies, with no input by doctors or patients.

No one wants to admit this.

Everyone wants to believe they are free or this is a FREE country.

They want to believe the government is GOD and the President is their savior.

It is a widespread delusion that just because they live in the United States, they do not have to stand up for themselves nor defend their rights in the face of the authorities.

The police are good, the military is right, the courts are fair and just, and Congress works for them.

Why are people so willing to jeopardize themselves and their families in this way?

I'm still asking where was this concern when the previous administration treated the Constitution as a inconvenient relic to be discarded when it got in the way?
 
No one wants to admit this.

Everyone wants to believe they are free or this is a FREE country.

They want to believe the government is GOD and the President is their savior.

It is a widespread delusion that just because they live in the United States, they do not have to stand up for themselves nor defend their rights in the face of the authorities.

The police are good, the military is right, the courts are fair and just, and Congress works for them.

Why are people so willing to jeopardize themselves and their families in this way?

When you begin with that premise, you speak for the incredibly ignorant. Teabaggers are the most foolish of all.

-VG
 
These lawsuits aren't a smart idea challenging the mandates. The government tells me I can't conduct financial transaction with a company or individual in other countries (Cuba, Iran), or to pay taxes into Medicare/Social Security. The Supreme Court ruled that the government can take your land and give to a developer.

They are contracting out to the private market, instead of entering it themselves and taxing you. No different than imposing taxes like Social Security or Medicare, except using commercial companies to do the task.

The lawsuits are frivolous, if they win, than sanctions will unravel since the government can't tell me what to do in a private marketplace or impose taxes on me for Social Security or Medicare
 
Last edited:
I do not know why you are calling me stupid, when we are trying to have debate here you have to resort to name calling that shows your lack of eduaction. So making $250,000+ a year makes you rich in America you have to be kidding me. You really do not understand econimics last I checked it is the rich that spreads the wealth here in America especially if they own a business, lets say you work at McDonalds if it where not for the owner you would not be employed along with the cashiers, buger flippers, managers, delivery man....etc. Last I checked poor people donot create jobs and speard the wealth. America is not a perfect country by any means but last I checked no other country in the world offers you a chance to make something better yourself if you pursue this path.
what, are you stupid? one of the main reasons folks were fighting this is cause RICH FOLKS are going to be TAXED like they were during the Clinton days, and the insurance industry will be taxed heavier.

the middle class wont be touched UNLESS you're making more than 250K per year.
 
I do not know why you are calling me stupid, when we are trying to have debate here you have to resort to name calling that shows your lack of eduaction. So making $250,000+ a year makes you rich in America you have to be kidding me. You really do not understand econimics last I checked it is the rich that spreads the wealth here in America especially if they own a business, lets say you work at McDonalds if it where not for the owner you would not be employed along with the cashiers, buger flippers, managers, delivery man....etc. Last I checked poor people donot create jobs and speard the wealth. America is not a perfect country by any means but last I checked no other country in the world offers you a chance to make something better yourself if you pursue this path.

i didnt call you stupid, but your lack of comprehension says you might be.

i NEVER said making 250k MADE YOU RICH, i said YOU WOULDNT BE TAXED more UNLESS you made 250K.

:lol: @ you talking about the RICH spread wealth.

and it's funny (more ironic) you chose burger flippers as an example of how the rich spread wealth.

Trickle down economics has NEVER worked, and if you paid a little bit of attention in the past 10 years you'd see that there was a stagnation in the increase of minimum wage, unionization was hindered and the rich paid lower taxes. meanwhile the earnings of the typical full-time worker, adjusted for inflation, fell since 2000. Pay for CEOs and other corporate big wigs soared almost 185 times that of average workers in only 2 years.

banks have frozen credit while bank CEOs are benefiting from UNGODLY bonuses and other monetary perks.

the rich are STOCKPILING money instead of allowing it circulate through the economic system.

the greatest redistribution of wealth occurred between 2000 and 2007, as the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

link

the rich DO NOT DISTRIBUTE wealth, they FACILITATE and PROMOTE POVERTY.

hows that for my understanding of economics mr. i'm smarter than you?
 
Trickle down economics has NEVER worked, and if you paid a little bit of attention in the past 10 years you'd see that there was a stagnation in the increase of minimum wage, unionization was hindered and the rich paid lower taxes. meanwhile the earnings of the typical full-time worker, adjusted for inflation, fell since 2000. Pay for CEOs and other corporate big wigs soared almost 185 times that of average workers in only 2 years.

the rich are STOCKPILING money instead of allowing it circulate through the economic system.

the greatest redistribution of wealth occurred between 2000 and 2007, as the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).


link

the rich DO NOT DISTRIBUTE wealth, they FACILITATE and PROMOTE POVERTY.
WHOA!!!!:lol:


Listen to this man folks! He knows of what he speaks. And if you were in the black community during the Regan/Bush era, you know that we have a very different emotional reaction to that experience! Regan a hero my ass... I aint get shit for about 6 Christmases....:smh:
 
i didnt call you stupid, but your lack of comprehension says you might be.

i NEVER said making 250k MADE YOU RICH, i said YOU WOULDNT BE TAXED more UNLESS you made 250K.

:lol: @ you talking about the RICH spread wealth.

and it's funny (more ironic) you chose burger flippers as an example of how the rich spread wealth.

Trickle down economics has NEVER worked, and if you paid a little bit of attention in the past 10 years you'd see that there was a stagnation in the increase of minimum wage, unionization was hindered and the rich paid lower taxes. meanwhile the earnings of the typical full-time worker, adjusted for inflation, fell since 2000. Pay for CEOs and other corporate big wigs soared almost 185 times that of average workers in only 2 years.

banks have frozen credit while bank CEOs are benefiting from UNGODLY bonuses and other monetary perks.

the rich are STOCKPILING money instead of allowing it circulate through the economic system.

the greatest redistribution of wealth occurred between 2000 and 2007, as the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

link

the rich DO NOT DISTRIBUTE wealth, they FACILITATE and PROMOTE POVERTY.

hows that for my understanding of economics mr. i'm smarter than you?

well said my friend
 
Back
Top