Obamancare "tax"

[PainRack]

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are ... xes-2012-7

Well, Obamacare is now official, which means that a lot more people in the United States will have health insurance.

And it also means a lot more people will be paying more taxes.

(You didn't think Obamacare was free, did you?)

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:
A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%. (WSJ)
A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)
Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)
The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. Right now, any medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be 10%. (ATR.org)
The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)
A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)
A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)
A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)
A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)
A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare.

Any big ones I've missed?

Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are ... z1zedmDKkJ

Something that got brought up on SB. So....... everything is a Obamacare tax. Expiration of tax credits? Obamacare tax.

Need a prescription to buy OTC meds and pay for it from FSA? Tax.

Can't hide money away to pay for your healthcare bill? Tax.


Somebody shoot the TEA party already

[UnderAGreySky]

It has been pointed out in many places to me that Business Insider is basically the Fox News of the business world. I notice all the attributes go to the WSJ, Americans for Tax Reform (which is believe is Grover Norquist's baby?) and one to Brietbart. So make of that what you will.

[KrauserKrauser]

Obama sold the bill as not being a tax.

Obama (DoJ attorney) argued to the Supreme Court that it should be considered a tax.

Supreme Court approved the law on the basis of it being a tax.

Obama lied about it not being a tax.

Obama should be raked over the coals for lying.

[Esquire]

Alternatively, people should realize that in the real world, changing one's mind is not a sign of moral weakness and that absolutely nothing has changed except for the labels anyway. The important thing is that more people have access to healthcare now, not the phrasing used to achieve that.

[xerex]

Obama (DoJ attorney) argued to the Supreme Court that it should be considered a tax.

I do not believe this is correct.

[Thanas]

Even if it were true, in the history of Obama:
- ordering the assassination of US citizens without due process
- lying about his desire to stop rendition
- using the state secrets doctrine
- pushing for indefinite detention
- pursuing whistleblowers while lauding them on the campaign trail
lying about this being a tax is pretty trivial.

[Darth Wong]

Americans are ridiculous. They would rather pay $2000 to be ripped off by an insurance company than pay $1000 in taxes to get the same services publicly.

[Darth Wong]

Obama sold the bill as not being a tax.

Obama (DoJ attorney) argued to the Supreme Court that it should be considered a tax.

Supreme Court approved the law on the basis of it being a tax.

Obama lied about it not being a tax.

Obama should be raked over the coals for lying.

I agree that he was playing games with semantics, but he had to do that because you people are fucking morons who think that "government" means "evil".

[Zaune]

Americans are ridiculous. They would rather pay $2000 to be ripped off by an insurance company than pay $1000 in taxes to get the same services publicly.

For the country that pretty much pioneered the concept of representative democracy as we use the term today, they certainly seem to be very uncomfortable with entrusting the people they elect with any actual responsibility beyond killing foreigners.

[Serafina]

Americans are ridiculous. They would rather pay $2000 to be ripped off by an insurance company than pay $1000 in taxes to get the same services publicly.

For the country that pretty much pioneered the concept of representative democracy as we use the term today, they certainly seem to be very uncomfortable with entrusting the people they elect with any actual responsibility beyond killing foreigners.

They may have pioneered it, but they are pretty much stuck at what they originally conceived. American Democracy hasn't really evolved much since it's conception, despite massive changes in demographics and society since then.


((Double Post Removed -- LadyT))

[Nova Andromeda]

Even if it were true, in the history of Obama:
- ordering the assassination of US citizens without due process
- lying about his desire to stop rendition
- using the state secrets doctrine
- pushing for indefinite detention
- pursuing whistleblowers while lauding them on the campaign trail
lying about this being a tax is pretty trivial.

That is just some of the highlights, but they are plenty to switch my vote to a 3rd party or my cat depending on which would run this country better.

Given politics in the US I would forgive, even support, 'lying' about this 'tax' in any event.

[Nova Andromeda]

Americans are ridiculous. They would rather pay $2000 to be ripped off by an insurance company than pay $1000 in taxes to get the same services publicly.

It's not terribly surprising given tribal loyalties in the US, the well known human bias against (and fear of) change, and the obscene power the plutocracy of filthy rich sociopaths have.

[Simon_Jester]

Krauser, as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to look pretty hard to find anyone who was "tricked" into supporting Obamacare because Obama didn't call the individual mandate a tax. And anyone who was "tricked" that was is a goddamn moron anyhow. Because the only way that even makes sense is if they think it doesn't matter what the government does as long as they don't use Evil Taxes to pay for it.

And anyone who opposed Obamacare was going to oppose it anyway whether Obama called the individual mandate a tax or not. They weren't "tricked" or lied to in any meaningful sense. They were already arguing that this was Big Government Taxing The People to pay for Communist Public Health Care and Death Panels and whatnot.

So "we should rake Obama over the coals for lying about this being a tax" sounds ridiculous to me.

They may have pioneered it, but they are pretty much stuck at what they originally conceived. American Democracy hasn't really evolved much since it's conception, despite massive changes in demographics and society since then.

It might be nice to think so for rant purposes, but it really isn't true.

In the 1780s American democracy was dominated by wealthy rural landowners. There was no secret ballot, there was nothing to stop British-style "rotten boroughs" from emerging, the Senate was appointed entirely by state legislatures which were themselves dominated by wealthy rural landowners.

The balance of military power between the federal and provincial armed forces favored the provinces- if the national government wanted enough troops to win a war, even against a coalition of seceding states, it would have to raise them from scratch.

There was no public education, precious little state-subsidized infrastructure, and no business regulation whatsoever. There was essentially no taxation on the rich except indirectly via tariffs.

All this was pretty normal by the standards of democracy in the 1700s, too.

Since then, all these things have changed. Despite the dangerously loopy neo-Randist ideology of "privatize everything!" it has changed, and is very unlikely to change back in the future. Moreover, voting rights vastly expanded several times, the government bureaucracy went through a string of civil service reforms to keep it from being a political football- which Americans should be very grateful for today; can anyone imagine what the last fifteen years would have been like under the spoils system?

It's changed a lot. I'd say probably about as much as other democratic countries of comparable age (like Britain) did in the same time-span.



There are really only three structurally significant differences between American democracy and anyone else's.

One is the lack of efficient anti-corruption statutes, allowing corporate money to rule politics. That's a recent change; it wasn't nearly this bad a generation ago, and wasn't even an issue two generations ago. The problem is not that tycoons have always been able to bribe politicians since the founding of the republic and no one saw fit to change that fact.

The second is the way the electoral system favors a two-party system with winner take all election outcomes. That's old, but not unique to the US- and the systems where it doesn't happen aren't "new" or "change;" the British have had a parliamentary model that allowed for three or four-party politics since well before the American Revolution.

The third is the division of powers in the US, with the executive being separate from and de facto stronger than the legislature. The separation of powers is an old thing; the presidency being stronger than Congress is relatively new. It has a lot to do with (1) and (2); between special interests' bribes and the way party politics works, Congress is basically unable to do anything that matters without the president getting behind it and pushing hard.

[UnderAGreySky]

Supreme Court approved the law on the basis of it being a tax.

I take issue with this statement. It was just *one* judge who approved the law on the basis of it being a tax, four thought it was constitutional anyway and four thought it wasn't at all.

[Haruko]

Even if it were true, in the history of Obama:
- ordering the assassination of US citizens without due process
- lying about his desire to stop rendition
- using the state secrets doctrine
- pushing for indefinite detention
- pursuing whistleblowers while lauding them on the campaign trail
lying about this being a tax is pretty trivial.

Not to mention all the taxes we already pay for our super-bloated defense budget, which nobody seems to want squeeze. Whining about this tax seems silly on that count alone.

[Darth Wong]

Even if it were true, in the history of Obama:
- ordering the assassination of US citizens without due process
- lying about his desire to stop rendition
- using the state secrets doctrine
- pushing for indefinite detention
- pursuing whistleblowers while lauding them on the campaign trail
lying about this being a tax is pretty trivial.

Not to mention all the taxes we already pay for our super-bloated defense budget, which nobody seems to want squeeze. Whining about this tax seems silly on that count alone.

Americans have always had difficulty processing the fact that "tax" and "tyranny" are two different words.

[Serafina]

Which makes it even stranger that they don't complain about something that can actually be used for tyranny (a large military, you can't be a tyrant without one), but do complain about something that doesn't (such as social services, which healthcare is).

[Esquire]

I don't think that's actually true, at least not for all of us - there's a good half of the voting public who support reasonable tax policies, a small number of people who change their minds based on which party's ad campaign is most effective this year, and then of course the huge percentage of the population who simply can't be bothered to fulfill their civic responsibilities, who one presumes don't care one way or the other. Just because the Tea Party hasn't updated their worldview since 1776 does not mean the rest of us haven't.

[Haruko]

Even if it were true, in the history of Obama:
- ordering the assassination of US citizens without due process
- lying about his desire to stop rendition
- using the state secrets doctrine
- pushing for indefinite detention
- pursuing whistleblowers while lauding them on the campaign trail
lying about this being a tax is pretty trivial.

Not to mention all the taxes we already pay for our super-bloated defense budget, which nobody seems to want squeeze. Whining about this tax seems silly on that count alone.

Americans have always had difficulty processing the fact that "tax" and "tyranny" are two different words.

Hm? I am just saying that our defense budget is far larger than the other top spenders and dominates our overall budget, but rather than shrinking it only seems to get bigger, yet we complain about every new tax not related to defense that comes around.

[Zaune]

Which makes it even stranger that they don't complain about something that can actually be used for tyranny (a large military, you can't be a tyrant without one), but do complain about something that doesn't (such as social services, which healthcare is).

A large military can be -and frequently is- used for killing foreigners. That's always an easy sell, at least in English-speaking countries.

I don't think that's actually true, at least not for all of us - there's a good half of the voting public who support reasonable tax policies, a small number of people who change their minds based on which party's ad campaign is most effective this year, and then of course the huge percentage of the population who simply can't be bothered to fulfill their civic responsibilities, who one presumes don't care one way or the other. Just because the Tea Party hasn't updated their worldview since 1776 does not mean the rest of us haven't.

I don't think she's referring to everyone in the US, just the people with the money to make their voices heard.

[evilsoup]

Esquire, don't get in the way of our anti-american circle-jerk please.

[Haruko]

Even if it were true, in the history of Obama:
- ordering the assassination of US citizens without due process
- lying about his desire to stop rendition
- using the state secrets doctrine
- pushing for indefinite detention
- pursuing whistleblowers while lauding them on the campaign trail
lying about this being a tax is pretty trivial.

Not to mention all the taxes we already pay for our super-bloated defense budget, which nobody seems to want squeeze. Whining about this tax seems silly on that count alone.

Americans have always had difficulty processing the fact that "tax" and "tyranny" are two different words.

I think I get what you mean now. I was just speaking purely about the size of the defense budget, not the underlying cause of the problem. I just think it silly that we focus so much on every little tax that comes around when our defense budget looks like it's geared towards defending the earth against multiple alien invasions.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think that's actually true, at least not for all of us - there's a good half of the voting public who support reasonable tax policies, a small number of people who change their minds based on which party's ad campaign is most effective this year, and then of course the huge percentage of the population who simply can't be bothered to fulfill their civic responsibilities, who one presumes don't care one way or the other. Just because the Tea Party hasn't updated their worldview since 1776 does not mean the rest of us haven't.

No, I don't think so. Even the "good half" of the American populace just wants taxes raised on the other half of Americans. Very few people say "people like me can afford to pay more tax".

[Alphawolf55]

Yeah but that's assuming there's no service increase. There's a huge percentage of Americans who wouldn't mind their taxes increasing if it meant having to pay less in insurance premiums.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah but that's assuming there's no service increase. There's a huge percentage of Americans who wouldn't mind their taxes increasing if it meant having to pay less in insurance premiums.

It's an across-the-board problem, not just to do with health care. Despite the idiotic bleatings of various US apologists, America really is uniquely hostile to taxes, and not just from its revolutionary rhetoric. Look at the home mortgage interest deduction; this is one of the biggest tax breaks in history, and it was given to the middle class, so they could afford bigger houses. Can you imagine them giving it up? I can't.