It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Health reform's tax bite -- Some New 'revelations'

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:44 AM
Health reform's tax bite -- Some New 'revelations'

It seems there is coming out about ObamaCare.

This new revelation deals with the planned increases to the Medicare Tax.

Right now, everybody pay a 1.4% tax towards medicare.

ObamaCare has a "raise" starting next year for people in high income brackets.

They will pay an additional 0.9% on their earned income over $200,000 ($250,000 if married).
(that's Above the 200,000 or 250,000 amount) Not total.

Also, a new 3.8% tax will be imposed on income like on at least a portion of their investment income, such as capital gains, dividends and rental income.

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney March 30, 2012: 6:20 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- No one knows for sure what the Supreme Court will do with health care reform. But unless it strikes down the whole law, millions of wealthy families can expect a tax increase come January.

Two big Medicare tax changes were enacted to help pay for the new federal subsidies that millions of Americans will get when they buy health insurance. The tax changes themselves were not among the specific provisions of the law being challenged at the court...

How much more households will pay depends on which Medicare increase they'll be subject to since the Affordable Care Act calls for two changes. Some households will only be subject to one, and some will be subject to both.

The first involves the Medicare tax on earnings. Today, workers pay 1.45% of their wages into Medicare. Starting next year, high-income individuals will pay another 0.9 percentage points on their earned income over $200,000 ($250,000 if married).

The second change pertains to investment income, which to date has never been subject to the Medicare tax. But next year high-income households will start paying a 3.8% tax on at least a portion of their investment income, such as capital gains, dividends and rental income.

read for more details...


Did anyone else "Know" this ??

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:57 PM
Absolutely, and I'm FAR from alone. There is a lot of researched info online and in books dedicated to the subject. What do you think all of the protests and opposition to Obamacare was/is all about? Wasn't it Pelosi that suggested passing the bill in order to find out what's in it? Or Rep. Conyers asking 'what's the point in reading the bill if you don't have two days and two lawyers to help understand it.' I assert that most supporters don't really want to know the details. It sounds good, it's supposed to be good for poor people and illegals, most nazi/racist/stupid/uncompassionate/greedy/hillbilly/unenlightened conservatives are against it so it must be good, etc., are just some of the "reasons" for support of the bill that I've heard. Hope and Change... not fix. So it's not surprising the contents are coming as a shock to many, but they have been pointed out in the past... A LOT.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:37 AM
.9 percent on some of the least taxed people in the world - cry me a river.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by spyder550
.9 percent on some of the least taxed people in the world - cry me a river.

It does look nominal.

but what about the 3.8% tax on investment income ?

that might be at least semi-substantial.

(assuming the law stands)

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:46 AM
Again 3.8 percent on some of the most lightly taxed capital gains in the world. Wealthy people make money differently than I and probably you do. Money can be dropped through so many loopholes and hidden is so many trusts that it becomes almost tax free.

For instance -- if you form a family trust and start putting your money in it. All the family are members (shareholders in the trust) you die. No inheritance -- the family members already own the assets in the trust. This is really common --

I really have no problem with the 4% In a hundred million dollars that is 4 million -- that leaves 96 million,

40,000 per million bux. Actually imperceptible in real life

After WWii when we needed to pay for the war (a novel idea I know) The marginal tax was 90% the rich still thrived.

I see a reasonableness to noblisse oblige
edit on 31-3-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by spyder550

But...but....job creators!

Seriously though, I'm happy to hear this. Hopefully the supreme court doesn't screw it up or the republicans.

top topics

log in