Wow! Thanks, Obamacare!
07-19-2013, 11:45 AM
#221
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
Depends what the meaning of WILL is:
HHS Admits: You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor Under Obamacare | The Weekly Standard
HHS Admits: You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor Under Obamacare | The Weekly Standard
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 09:12 AM
#223
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
CICI'S PIZZA FRANCHISE OWNER FORCED SELL BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE
obamacare math:
owned three franchises.
had 93 full-time employees.
$2300 tax penalty per non-employer-health care-covered employee
tax = $78,000 more than yearly profits.
now 93 employees are out of a job, but good thing they have free access to unemployment, food stamps, and free obamacare
obamacare math:
owned three franchises.
had 93 full-time employees.
$2300 tax penalty per non-employer-health care-covered employee
tax = $78,000 more than yearly profits.
now 93 employees are out of a job, but good thing they have free access to unemployment, food stamps, and free obamacare
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 09:56 AM
#224
Although I disagree with the affordable care act I feel that the video you just linked is missing a lot of information. This was from Fox News which also dings its credit as they have been caught blatantly lying before and distorting the facts like any other MSM network.
He didn't discuss what the cost would have been to provide basic healthcare to his full time employees which would have been undoubtedly less than the penalty. I work for a small CPA firm that pays for half of the premium on my health insurance and their cost works out to less than $1,000 a year. This is partially due to my young age and male gender as it would almost double their cost to insure a female of the same age. However, he had 96 full-time equivalent employees but would only be required to extend coverage to those that are actually full-time.
Basically he presented a worst case scenario without presenting what would have actually happened if he tried to conform with the law and reduce the associated costs to his businesses. It would definitely ding his profit margins quite a bit and the decision to sell was probably based on a new cost/benefit analysis where he decided that the time and effort was no longer worth the lower profits. That decision is completely his choice and very understandable but I disagree with how they portrayed what the actual outcome would have been if he stayed open.
It is shady **** like this that keeps getting conservatives backed into corners. They claim to be data driven but then like to distort the data just as much as the liberals they demonize. Both sides do the same **** and it is annoying.
He didn't discuss what the cost would have been to provide basic healthcare to his full time employees which would have been undoubtedly less than the penalty. I work for a small CPA firm that pays for half of the premium on my health insurance and their cost works out to less than $1,000 a year. This is partially due to my young age and male gender as it would almost double their cost to insure a female of the same age. However, he had 96 full-time equivalent employees but would only be required to extend coverage to those that are actually full-time.
Basically he presented a worst case scenario without presenting what would have actually happened if he tried to conform with the law and reduce the associated costs to his businesses. It would definitely ding his profit margins quite a bit and the decision to sell was probably based on a new cost/benefit analysis where he decided that the time and effort was no longer worth the lower profits. That decision is completely his choice and very understandable but I disagree with how they portrayed what the actual outcome would have been if he stayed open.
It is shady **** like this that keeps getting conservatives backed into corners. They claim to be data driven but then like to distort the data just as much as the liberals they demonize. Both sides do the same **** and it is annoying.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 09:59 AM
#225
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
He didn't want to provide healthcare; it doesn't matter what the alternative was.
btw I'm with you: fox lies, everyone knows it. I claim to have proof to heighten the effect, so people will instantly regard them as a bad source.
btw I'm with you: fox lies, everyone knows it. I claim to have proof to heighten the effect, so people will instantly regard them as a bad source.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 10:20 AM
#226
We both know that if he had decided to stay open he would have provided healthcare because it would have been cheaper and that is how any business owner would make the decision. He was completely in the right to make the decision he did based on his new projections for the profitability of his stores but we both know that the scenario that he presented is not the scenario that he actually used to make his decision. I am tired of all the political bullshit. Present the facts and make sound arguments with full disclosure and you will have solid ground to stand on that will allow you to build trust with the people and topple your opponent.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 10:37 AM
#229
I'm finding very little information regarding the penalty involved with declining employer offered healthcare. Curious if anyone has seen more information or knows where you can get it.
I've read that in 2014 the penalty is the greater of $95 or 1% of your income, but that seems terribly vague. Anyone know if that's gross income, net income, or taxable income? Or when you actually have to obtain the insurance (1/1/14 or 12/31/14)? Or when the penalty is due? Is it going to be tied into your federal income taxes?
I've read that in 2014 the penalty is the greater of $95 or 1% of your income, but that seems terribly vague. Anyone know if that's gross income, net income, or taxable income? Or when you actually have to obtain the insurance (1/1/14 or 12/31/14)? Or when the penalty is due? Is it going to be tied into your federal income taxes?
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 11:25 AM
#235
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
VAN SUSTEREN: So what is your thought now that you hear that Obama administration has delayed the employer mandate for one year? What's your thought about that?
WESTBROOK: I think there's still so much confusion in the document itself and in thousands of pages of the law that they postponed it just enough to try to get a little more comfortable with enforcing that. However, for me as a franchisee I can't put my faith in the fact that Congress is going to inevitably reverse that decision.
VAN SUSTEREN: You sold your -- sold two franchises last fall. The other one closes, the third one closes August 1. If you knew it would be delayed, would that have changed your business decisions in any way?
WESTBROOK: I don't think so, Greta, because I couldn't put faith in the fact that Congress was going to make enough changes in the law to where it would be beneficial to my particular business plan for my franchise.
WESTBROOK: I think there's still so much confusion in the document itself and in thousands of pages of the law that they postponed it just enough to try to get a little more comfortable with enforcing that. However, for me as a franchisee I can't put my faith in the fact that Congress is going to inevitably reverse that decision.
VAN SUSTEREN: You sold your -- sold two franchises last fall. The other one closes, the third one closes August 1. If you knew it would be delayed, would that have changed your business decisions in any way?
WESTBROOK: I don't think so, Greta, because I couldn't put faith in the fact that Congress was going to make enough changes in the law to where it would be beneficial to my particular business plan for my franchise.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 11:25 AM
#236
As we touched on in Chapter One, the Internal Revenue Service will impose a tax penalty on individuals, beginning in 2014, that don’t have qualified insurance. The penalty is phased in according to the following schedule:
· In 2014 the penalty is, $95.00 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to the family maximum of $285.00 or 1% of the family’s income, whichever is greater;
· In 2015 the penalty is, $325.00 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to the Federal maximum of $975.00 or 2% of the families income; and
· In 2016, the penalty is $695.00 per adult, and $347.50 per child up to the family maximum of $2,085.00 or 2.5% of the family’s income
Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost of living adjustment.
In order to help an individual purchase healthcare the Internal Revenue Code was amended to add §36B, which provides for a premium tax credit to help individuals and families purchase health insurance coverage. These tax credits are available to U.S. Citizens and documented residents in families with incomes between 133% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, who purchase coverage through the Insurance Exchange.
· In 2014 the penalty is, $95.00 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to the family maximum of $285.00 or 1% of the family’s income, whichever is greater;
· In 2015 the penalty is, $325.00 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to the Federal maximum of $975.00 or 2% of the families income; and
· In 2016, the penalty is $695.00 per adult, and $347.50 per child up to the family maximum of $2,085.00 or 2.5% of the family’s income
Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost of living adjustment.
In order to help an individual purchase healthcare the Internal Revenue Code was amended to add §36B, which provides for a premium tax credit to help individuals and families purchase health insurance coverage. These tax credits are available to U.S. Citizens and documented residents in families with incomes between 133% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, who purchase coverage through the Insurance Exchange.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 11:51 AM
#238
As we touched on in Chapter One, the Internal Revenue Service will impose a tax penalty on individuals, beginning in 2014, that don’t have qualified insurance. The penalty is phased in according to the following schedule:
· In 2014 the penalty is, $95.00 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to the family maximum of $285.00 or 1% of the family’s income, whichever is greater;
· In 2015 the penalty is, $325.00 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to the Federal maximum of $975.00 or 2% of the families income; and
· In 2016, the penalty is $695.00 per adult, and $347.50 per child up to the family maximum of $2,085.00 or 2.5% of the family’s income
Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost of living adjustment.
· In 2014 the penalty is, $95.00 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to the family maximum of $285.00 or 1% of the family’s income, whichever is greater;
· In 2015 the penalty is, $325.00 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to the Federal maximum of $975.00 or 2% of the families income; and
· In 2016, the penalty is $695.00 per adult, and $347.50 per child up to the family maximum of $2,085.00 or 2.5% of the family’s income
Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost of living adjustment.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 12:05 PM
#239
I'm finding very little information regarding the penalty involved with declining employer offered healthcare. Curious if anyone has seen more information or knows where you can get it.
I've read that in 2014 the penalty is the greater of $95 or 1% of your income, but that seems terribly vague. Anyone know if that's gross income, net income, or taxable income? Or when you actually have to obtain the insurance (1/1/14 or 12/31/14)? Or when the penalty is due? Is it going to be tied into your federal income taxes?
I've read that in 2014 the penalty is the greater of $95 or 1% of your income, but that seems terribly vague. Anyone know if that's gross income, net income, or taxable income? Or when you actually have to obtain the insurance (1/1/14 or 12/31/14)? Or when the penalty is due? Is it going to be tied into your federal income taxes?
How to Calculate My Modified AGI | eHow
This site explains how it will be reported and collected:
The Affordable Care Act individual Mandate will impact many Americans
Taxpayers will have to report their coverage with their tax returns. Applicable individuals who do not carry essential coverage will pay $95.00 for each household member up to three, or 1% of household income in 2014. The affordable Care Act individual mandate will go up to $325.00 or 2% of household income in 2015 and $695.00 or 2.5% of household income in the years following. The individual shared responsibility will be prorated for each month in which a qualified individual fails to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage - See more at: The Affordable Care Act individual Mandate will impact many Americans
Reply
0
0
07-24-2013, 12:15 PM
#240
Talked to someone on: https://www.healthcare.gov/
Fees will be paid through federal tax returns in 2015 for the 2014 penalty.
You have to be insured the entire 2014 calendar year, but if you are uninsured for less than 3 months during the year you don't have to pay the fee so the answer I was looking for is March 31, 2014.
Fees will be paid through federal tax returns in 2015 for the 2014 penalty.
You have to be insured the entire 2014 calendar year, but if you are uninsured for less than 3 months during the year you don't have to pay the fee so the answer I was looking for is March 31, 2014.
Reply
0
0
