|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Oct 31, 2014 6:38:38 GMT -7
My wife the accountant started her two-day whirlwind irs seminar yesterday (they have to be accredited now), and I've never seen her look so defeated when she got home. The jack-booted thugs are being released on the general public this coming tax season...
Are you ready for that $95 fine "shared responsibility" tax for not signing up on time? Well, unbeknownst even to a meticulous research addict like my wife, it ain't no $95. It's $95 PER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER PER EVERY MONTH OF 2014 YOU WENT WITHOUT COVERAGE. So even if you eventually got covered, that fine "shared responsibility" tax will apply for any months you and yours weren't covered. The wife said there was a collective gasp following that revelation, so she knew that none of these other tax pros had any clue, including the Intuit "expert" that was present. This fine "shared responsinility" tax will be the same for 2015 with the following changes: the fine tax goes up to $365/household member/month OR 1% of annual household income (she said they weren't clear whether it was gross or adjusted), WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. We have a friend who owns a butcher shop--wife and 6 kids--do the math and understand what the purpose of the Messiah's health care scam is truly about.
There were more revelations, like the one everyone's talking up now regarding the free reign the irs now has seizing bank accounts and property without cause, and the fact that even if you got insurance but not through The Exchange you can't qualify for credits (even the irs rep said it was discriminatory and unconstitutional, but hey, we didn't write the law, we just gleefully inflict it!). I've already forgotten the bulk of what she told me, but she did say that the irs expects to see a huge drop in available tax preparers this coming year (guess why), and that this is expected to be the most difficult tax form in American history...Oh, and now the irs is allowed to prosecute the tax preparer along with the client in the case of evasion or simple clerical error...So the irs geek told the class to be "very, very vigilant" in their work, because they are now equally liable...
...Just a heads up, folks...I'm sure I'll be hearing more tonight...
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Oct 31, 2014 14:05:48 GMT -7
Most people don't qualify for the credits anyway because it has to represent a pretty good portion of your GAI, about 7% if I remember correctly. There aren't that many people paying out that much in terms of deductibles or fees not covered by insurance, so it's only going to matter to a small percent anyway. I've never qualified for it, so it's no difference for me and my family.
If the insurance I have isn't good enough, the government needs to go after the government because that's who provides it, I only did my 24 years earning the benefit. Since I no longer work and don't have my name on a single asset, they can come after me all they want. Can't get blood from a stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Oct 31, 2014 18:00:39 GMT -7
This pisses me off beyond words, that it ever stood the test constitutionality speaks volumes of what law has become. We really are between a rock and hard place, highest rates in the country, and do not qualify for enough subsidies to make it affordable. This will not end well for a lot of people, but I guarrandamntee if it doesn't for us, it will not for the govt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Nov 1, 2014 13:55:37 GMT -7
Here's another tasty tidbit, which will affect our kids more than us geezers. So if an employer doesn't offer coverage, and the employee goes on the exchange, the employer will be made to pay the employee for part of the premium. Ok, so what, you say...That "part" that the employer pays counts as TAXABLE WAGE, not benefit!
The effin gov'ment has thought of just about everything but bending us over so as to f*ck us proper.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 1, 2014 20:26:25 GMT -7
Don't think I agree or support any part of the entire O-care fiasco, but....
How is an employer paying an employee an amount to offset their health insurance costs considered screwing the employee by counting it as income? It IS income. I'm not seeing how it's any different from an employer who pays mileage to offset an employee's expense in using their own vehicle for business. That's considered income, so why if the money pays for insurance instead of gasoline should it suddenly stop being income? I'm not getting that part.
If the company pays someone a bonus, isn't that income? Is the person better off not getting the money from the employer, and while they have a lower set of taxable wages they still have to pony up a good chunk of it for the insurance? I can't imagine any scenario where a person would get hundreds per month in taxable offsets and have to pay that higher tax RATE and be worse off than paying a lower RATE but having to pay hundreds a month from their other income. Seems to me that would raise someone from a tax rate of, say, 8.5% up to an effective tax rate in the high teens of percent if they're paying the full cost of their insurance.
Anyone who understood how insurance works was warning about this three years ago. Right here in this forum we were talking about these economic consequences yet to be felt less than a year ago. Well, here, after a 1-year waiver from O himself, the consequences are finally arriving. Or, to put it in the words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "America's chickens are coming home... to roost."
I hope all those fawning bozos who voted for this idiot like reaping what they've sown. They're going to find out just who is going to foot the bill for the supposed 30 million uninsured, and they'll idiotically act surprised to find out it's the government and the only source of revenue a government has is its people. Maybe next time Uncle Sam wants to pick up a tab they'll remember who is actually going to have to pull out a wallet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 2, 2014 7:33:08 GMT -7
By in large the people who supported the traitor in chief are still exempt from this, so all you will hear is how great it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Nov 2, 2014 18:30:37 GMT -7
By in large the people who supported the traitor in chief are still exempt from this, so all you will hear is how great it is. Not by and large. We live in a very blue state, a lot of blissfully ignorant "enthusiastic supporters". More than half of my wife's tax clients, individuals & small businesses alike, not only fall into that category but have decided to take the "$95" penalty this year. They are in for a wake up that they aren't prepared to pay, financially or otherwise. Add to that the gestapo's intended charges and interest, there's a maelstrom of seizures coming, conveniently enabled with the irs able to confiscate without cause. Yes, there are a few paying through the nose right now who will qualify for exemptions, but they wind up paying the same via exorbitant premiums and skyrocketing deductibles. As for hi temps glee at employer subsidy being reclassified as wages, your retirement and medical bennies are on the block too, Mr. Knowitall. Maybe I'll just defer my wife's 15 years of tireless devotion to her craft and her clients to you, King of the imaginary anecdotal "friend/relative/coworker/boss... |
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 2, 2014 22:16:03 GMT -7
As for hi temps glee at employer subsidy being reclassified as wages, your retirement and medical bennies are on the block too, Mr. Knowitall. Maybe I'll just defer my wife's 15 years of tireless devotion to her craft and her clients to you, King of the imaginary anecdotal "friend/relative/coworker/boss... If I knew it all I wouldn't have bothered to ask you the question, now would I? You sound like a Democrat whenever I ask them to explain something they say - attack the questioner instead of deal with the facts of their claim. Oh, I forgot... they're (GASP)imaginary. I guess I don't really have conversations in real life, huh? No coworkers (before I retired)? I have no relatives. I never had a boss. Wow. Like you could even name anyone in any of the categories within your quotation marks. Regarding the question, first of all, I am not in any state of "glee" about any of it. Maybe you might consider reading the first sentence of my post again. Then read it again. Second, I am not questioning your data or your wife's training, so you can dispense with the drama. I'm well aware of what's "on the block." What crawled up your ass just because I said I didn't understand the point you were making? I asked you to explain, I didn't say you were full of hot air. Get a freakin' grip! I was trying to clarify why you say the employee is being screwed because their health insurance subsidy is considered income. Screwed seems to imply they would be better off without it, and I am not seeing how they are. Health care plans cost hundreds per month, so I don't see any way possible someone's tax burden could go up by the amount they would otherwise lose if they had to pay that cost share out of their own pocket rather than the employer pay it, then they pay the tax on that as income. For ease of numbers, consider two cases where the cost of a plan is $200/month. In the first one, an employer pays a 60% subsidy. A. Cost of the plan per year is $2,400. Employer pays $1,440. A nice round 10% tax rate means the employee will pay an additional $144 in income tax, all other things (deductions) aside. B. Cost of the plan per year is $2,400. Employee pays all of it because he gets no subsidy. He doesn't have to pay the $144 in tax, but he does have to shell out the $1,440 his employer isn't paying toward the insurance. Even if he gets to deduct the full cost of his health care plan it would be pretty tough to have that deduction equal out or exceed $1,440 dollars in total tax bill reduction. It sounds to me like you're saying A is being screwed and would be better off being B. I don't see how. Care to explain that one or is it easier to continue claiming some sort of victim status because I asked about what YOU posted? |
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 3, 2014 6:39:47 GMT -7
Many union members and govt employees and of course congress and staff are not subject to Obamacare, they got a permanent exemption waiver last year. They got to keep their insurance.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 3, 2014 10:40:48 GMT -7
While they may get to keep their insurance policy, the terms of coverage are still going to change because the way the federal law effects how an insurance company can/should/must market their policies. Just one example is the rates. The rates were advertised by the administration as "not going up," then "not going up much," then they shut up about it. The reason is because the "not going up" was based on having enough people buying insurance that would offset the cost of covering pre-existing conditions and other previously disqualifying factors. Like always, the administration thinks because they have some plan it will never go awry or be anything but the most rosiest of outcomes. Well, when the state exchanges didn't pop out of the woodwork like the original plan had it, and people (and employers) didn't flock to this "good deal," that money didn't flow back to the insurance companies. That triggered other parts of the law that allow them to raise the rates to sufficiently cover the expensive costs they would face in claims, and as long as they tailor their plans (i.e. - provided contraceptives and cover abortions) correctly, they were free to raise the rates.
What the administration hoped for was all of them to provide the coverage desired and all the free contraception was going to draw in the younger folks like a magnet. It didn't, thus the plan went off the rails and the rates went through the roof.
In keeping with the federal mandates to charge those high rates, EVERY insurance company has to change the way they structured their plan. The goal was to not have lousy basic (O-care) coverage and at the same time really good, premium coverage like the old system had if you were willing to pay for it. They want single payer, i.e. - the government controlling all of it so they get to say if you have BC pills or not, abortions or not, and how much money the elderly "deserve" should they require expensive care. That's why they were so motivated to get all that "end of life counseling" BS put into the requirements. They know full well this is going to run itself broke like SocSec and they won't have the money to keep sustaining older folks. Like the ancient Athenians, it will come down to end of life counseling being which cliff do you wish to be heaved off of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Nov 3, 2014 18:14:48 GMT -7
Yes, but the point is they will not be forced into shopping the exchanges or paying the penalty. They probably won't even know how their insurance has changed until they try and use it. So the blow back from them will delayed and filtered accordingly while people like me are being squashed by federal mandate starting now, or when we file taxes anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Nov 4, 2014 7:54:21 GMT -7
True. I don't think they would end up doing the shopping anyway since the unions are only there to negotiate the degree of benefits already provided by the employer. If company X uses union labor and provides a health care plan, all this exemption really does for them is keep the employer from shopping the lowest rate through a state exchange. But that can be a two-edged sword also because companies forced to stay with a given plan apart from exchanges may now opt for a plan of the same cost that provides less coverage, higher deductibles, or increased patient co-pays.
When I was still within the window to COBRA my insurance through my former employer, it took about 3 seconds to realize that's not a good plan because the COBRA costs are astronomical. I could just go out and buy my own plan and pay less. But during the window I received a bunch of correspondence regarding the plan because the O-care provisions were starting to kick in and the plan was not in accordance with the federally mandated coverage requirements for private insurance plans. In short, they were trimming lots of things off the plan (coverage limits), the co-pays were going up more than double for office visits, prescription co-pays went up 22%, and there were other things.
Now it didn't effect me because I didn't elect to COBRA the insurance, but it's effecting everyone still employed there.
Aside from that there is the opposite end of the spectrum, the providers, those who get paid by these companies. Many of them are not willing to put up with all the paperwork requirements placed on them and unwilling to wait months to get paid, so they simply won't accept it. This is the heart and soul of why "keeping your plan" is such a lie. Yes, it might be the same "plan" by the same carrier, but the details of that plan are radically modified and it's harder to find medical professionals or facilities that will take it without one having to pay a good chunk of change up front that was never required before.
My wife's doctor changed the face of his entire practice because of all of this. He was looking at getting a reduction in fees of around 25%, a wait time (processing time) of 60-90 days for payment, and he would have had to hire two additional personnel just to run the paperwork part. Instead he basically went out of business in terms of how his practice operates and he invited his patients to join up with him in his new practice which is a pay-up-front annual fee ($1,600) that covers all your basic annual medical stuff from X-rays to flu shots to routine tests like cholesterol, BP, etc. The focus is now on preventive care, and anything over and above that you pay for and submit your own claim to be reimbursed by your insurance.
He only has a fixed number of patients and won't take any above the max number. That gives him a fixed set of expenses for staff and he has fewer employees now because of the reduced paperwork load. Problem is, if you aren't sitting on a several thousand bucks just in case he finds some blip in your pre-paid tests and you need additional testing or care, you're screwed. More and more I see doctors around here headed in that direction because in the end they make more money tailoring their practice to fewer people who CAN pay than provide services to many people where the inflow of payments is splotchy at best.
So I don't really think anyone is getting a pass here. Sure, politically it looks great for O to support his union cronies with a waiver and save them the lion's share of trouble, but those union members are still going to meet with all the difficulties from the other end. Not only that but employers, faced with increasing costs for medical plans, are trimming their work forces in order to pay for it. So some people are going to be out of a job in order the the rest to continue receiving the benefits. To one of those folks I'd think the waiver was not such a good deal after all.
|
|
