Tax Prof: ObamaCare Tax Increases Are Double Original Estimate

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 

Well, while you're mini-mod'ing people's threads for what should or shouldn't be considered fit to see ...You can complain to the Ways and Means Committee of the United States House of Representatives. That was my point.

In checking your claims that my example was baseless, I discovered the chart wasn't made FROM Congressional data. It WAS the product of Congressional Staff (As the bottom cites for source and the source I linked below it shows for Congressional page)

They made it, directly and it's that Congressional Committee (One of the most influential and powerful in Congress, by the way) stating in clear terms that the 10 year projections from then and now are radically different.


It doesn't matter who made the chart. It still uses different time-frames which is a huge factor for rendering it useless. if they wanted an honest study they would have kept the dates the same for the revised numbers, which i don't believe were actually revised. I don't think the numbers for the years 2010-2019 have changed. I don't there was previously numbers for 2020-2022. As such how can they be compared?

You as a long time poster should know better than to post this crap. it is the worst kind of misinformation.

And for the record I am not in favor of Obamacare. I wanted the original public option which would have brought back the equivalent of the old style insurance. I don't blame Obama though, this was the best he could do with the compromise he had to made. This law is more Republican than Democrat so it's also a misnomer to call it Obamacare.
edit on 13-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: Spelling




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Why didn’t people wake the HELL UP before November?????

Is this news a shock to anyone???




Because the vast majority of the electorate are extreme low information voters.


It obviously leaks over to ATS as well. How can anyone not dismiss this with the points i have made?



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 
I'm not sure where the failure of communication is happening here. The Congressional Budget Office prepared numbers (as indicated from the original page at Congress) which showed a 10 year projection of costs and taxes as it stood when it passed 2 years ago. Another set of numbers was prepared in July of 2012 that showed an updated 10 year projection.

Roughly 2 years passed between these two 10 year projections being prepared. The results aren't just my interpretation and that of the original media source but, according the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee:

That new amount is nearly twice the “advertised” ten-year tax hike amount claimed when Democrats originally pushed the law through Congress just two years ago.


As it's being presented (an old and new set of 10 year projection numbers) it's 100% valid. The way you're replying is as if we're talking about two different things and so I am trying to understand what you're seeing...and explain what this is showing. It's a perfectly valid data set and being presented by a minor leader of Congress in terms of who's who up there.

It's not really about support or lack of support for Obamacare. It's about reality of financial cost and impact yet to come.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



As far as I am concerned insurance companies shouldn't even make a profit.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read on ATS this week.

So I guess those million+ Americans should work for free since they do a job you disagree with??


The OP is spot on! OBVIOUSLY Obamacare is more than he said it was. That’s why they kept it from us! Those of us with half a brain can use a calculator.

edit on 13-3-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)


The dumbest thing? Wages are not profits. People who work for non-profits do not work for free. I don't mean to insult you, but that is the ignorance we face in America everyday and that ignorance is why we can't ever fix anything. The whole health system use to run with very little profit. Once profit was introduced by taking mutual insurance companies private, health care cost went through the roof. This is only the facts. If your parents had health insurance 20-25 years ago, they were in a non-profit plan or any profits were returned to them at the end of the year. The sad thing is that 99% of the people in that system didn't even realize it. That is why we must now have programs like Obamacare. No one can even care enough to remember.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



It obviously leaks over to ATS as well. How can anyone not dismiss this with the points i have made?


He was talking about the low-effort thinking Obama kool aid drinkers!



You probably know a few!



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 
I'm not sure where the failure of communication is happening here. The Congressional Budget Office prepared numbers (as indicated from the original page at Congress) which showed a 10 year projection of costs and taxes as it stood when it passed 2 years ago. Another set of numbers was prepared in July of 2012 that showed an updated 10 year projection.

Roughly 2 years passed between these two 10 year projections being prepared. The results aren't just my interpretation and that of the original media source but, according the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee:

That new amount is nearly twice the “advertised” ten-year tax hike amount claimed when Democrats originally pushed the law through Congress just two years ago.


As it's being presented (an old and new set of 10 year projection numbers) it's 100% valid. The way you're replying is as if we're talking about two different things and so I am trying to understand what you're seeing...and explain what this is showing. It's a perfectly valid data set and being presented by a minor leader of Congress in terms of who's who up there.

It's not really about support or lack of support for Obamacare. It's about reality of financial cost and impact yet to come.



Yes they are both 10 years. But one is 2010-2019. The other is 2012-2022. This makes a huge difference because this is talking about tax collections and there were no tax collections in the first 3 years of the period of 2010-2019. The next 3 years will only have partial taxes collected as well. So you are comparing taxes for times when Obama care is not even in effect to times when it is much fully in effect. The original estimates did not include the years 2020,2021,2022 So basically you adding three full tax years for three no tax years. It's like comparing the weight gain of a boy from 1-4 with the weight gain of a boy from the ages of 7-10. As such the study was presented in a disingenuous way and should be called out for that. I.E. it doesn't mean what you think it means.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
By the way, if it helps for more data to the thread, these are the figures I worked long and hard to get together last year for the budget thread I made.



The move to profit isn't what I'd say is the issue. It's the move from mere profit (which always existed) to "all the market will handle" for prices and profits and then pushing for more.

The 'profit isn't good enough but HIGHER profit every quarter' mentality has been infecting all industries in my opinion and for 10-15 years from my perspective. Some of the more painful results have come out in medical and pharmaceuticals, that's for sure.

'm not sure what the solution is, but Government takeover/single player sure isn't it. They don't run ANYTHING with much success and absolutely nothing with any level of efficiency. That's a foreign concept to Government at all levels.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



The dumbest thing? Wages are not profits.

People who invest in insurance companies (tax payers) should make profit from their investment. Profit inspires innovation. Salary inspires complacency.




People who work for non-profits do not work for free. I don't mean to insult you, but that is the ignorance we face in America everyday and that ignorance is why we can't ever fix anything.

Thanks professor! I own two businesses and one is a non-profit.


I get paid!




The whole health system use to run with very little profit.Once profit was introduced by taking mutual insurance companies private, health care cost went through the roof. This is only the facts. If your parents had health insurance 20-25 years ago, they were in a non-profit plan or any profits were returned to them at the end of the year. The sad thing is that 99% of the people in that system didn't even realize it. That is why we must now have programs like Obamacare. No one can even care enough to remember.

Obamacare is killing the free market. The costs are high today mostly because the entitlement society doesn’t believe they should have to PAY for healthcare. When HALF of society decides they are better off NOT PAYING for their BILLS then the MARKET has to adjust its PRICES!



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 

Okay, once more, I'm not claiming anything. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is saying it. I'm supporting the conclusions he and his staff have reached. Make your references right to the story and people involved as it's not personal to me. I'm the messenger, reporting what has been compiled by a part of the very same Government and Congress who is doing it to us.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



It obviously leaks over to ATS as well. How can anyone not dismiss this with the points i have made?


He was talking about the low-effort thinking Obama kool aid drinkers!



You probably know a few!




You call me out for being dumb and being a low thinking kool-aid drinker and you don't even know the difference between profit and wages or the history of health insurance in our nation. i am not even defending Obamacare, just stating that this study has some serious faults that some are obviously willingly ignoring. Deny ignorance folks.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



You call me out for being dumb and being a low thinking kool-aid drinker and you don't even know the difference between profit and wages or the history of health insurance in our nation. i am not even defending Obamacare, just stating that this study has some serious faults that some are obviously willingly ignoring. Deny ignorance folks.



You are saying I don’t know the difference between profit and wages yet I’ve told you I do.

I own a FOR PROFIT company and I’m the ‘Managing Member’ of a NON-PROFIT company.

I get it…I know the difference. That doesn’t change the fact that Obama completely misrepresented the cost of the supposedly FREE healthcare. We all knew that nothing in life is free…only the kool aid drinkers keep defending the obvious LIE!


edit on 14-3-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 

Okay, once more, I'm not claiming anything. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is saying it. I'm supporting the conclusions he and his staff have reached. Make your references right to the story and people involved as it's not personal to me. I'm the messenger, reporting what has been compiled by a part of the very same Government and Congress who is doing it to us.



So you don't see the problem with using different years in making the comparisons? The report is garbage based on that. Come back and show me the updated figures for the same years (2010-2019) and I am more than willing to retract, but the report does not show that. You are helping to lead ATS downwards for the record.

Anyways i am tired of banging my head against the rocks here.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 

I see you're picking fights and derailing my thread...and it's gotten to be a bit much. Now Government produces reports. They produce new reports on a regular basis and those reports adjust to changing conditions.

If we can't discuss the report and the comparison the thread is about, you're welcome to move on along or make your own as this isn't about some other comparison you'd like it to be. It's simply the news as I came across it and now have backtracked and verified more than one way...largely spending that time at your insistence. At this point, it's trolling.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

So I guess those million+ Americans should work for free since they do a job you disagree with??


So you deny posting this?

edit on 14-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 

I see you're picking fights and derailing my thread...and it's gotten to be a bit much. Now Government produces reports. They produce new reports on a regular basis and those reports adjust to changing conditions.

If we can't discuss the report and the comparison the thread is about, you're welcome to move on along or make your own as this isn't about some other comparison you'd like it to be. It's simply the news as I came across it and now have backtracked and verified more than one way...largely spending that time at your insistence. At this point, it's trolling.


So show me both sets of numbers for 2010-2019. You can't! Thus the report can't really be discussed properly. The motto here is to deny ignorance. There is nothing in this report that shows one way or another that the original 10 year projection has changed. That's my point, i'm not arguing with the numbers just putting some perspective on them.
edit on 14-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Play with the numbers anyway you feel.

Either way, we're paying a lot more for a lot less.
We'll be giving government authority over our health.
Self-determination to how and what kind of treatment is gone.

America, I don't recognize you anymore.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
By the way, if it helps for more data to the thread, these are the figures I worked long and hard to get together last year for the budget thread I made.



The move to profit isn't what I'd say is the issue. It's the move from mere profit (which always existed) to "all the market will handle" for prices and profits and then pushing for more.

The 'profit isn't good enough but HIGHER profit every quarter' mentality has been infecting all industries in my opinion and for 10-15 years from my perspective. Some of the more painful results have come out in medical and pharmaceuticals, that's for sure.

'm not sure what the solution is, but Government takeover/single player sure isn't it. They don't run ANYTHING with much success and absolutely nothing with any level of efficiency. That's a foreign concept to Government at all levels.


You do realize that under single payer the government would not have administered the health care? It just would have put everyone into one group policy run by the for-profit insurance companies it was more about getting mass so premiums could go down.

By the way that chart has nothing to do with insurance companies.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Play with the numbers anyway you feel.

Either way, we're paying a lot more for a lot less.
We'll be giving government authority over our health.
Self-determination to how and what kind of treatment is gone.

America, I don't recognize you anymore.


I don't disagree with you on that at all. I think Obamacare sucks and is too expensive. .

To go back to the America you do recognize, we would need to go back to non-profit health insurance.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



So you deny posting this?


I know the game you're playing. Look bro, people get paid for all kinds of things. You are trying your best to distract and distort because you don't want to focus on the reality of Obamacare. People are suffering, every tax payer got screwed, and you want to change the subject.

I'm making less this year in the Obama-economy. Every day I learn of more wasted money and more future expenses that taxpayers will have to shoulder. We can't spend or promise our way out of debt, my naive friend. It's time to face reality.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Talk about those who don't get it.........


20 percent of Detroit is on food stamps.

Its violent crime rate is 5 times the national average and it’s rated as America’s Most Dangerous City.

40 percent of Detroit residents want to leave the city. Home prices have fallen 54 percent in the last 3 years. And Detroit has the highest poverty rate in the nation.

So guess who Detroit voted for by 98 percent? Obama, naturally.


Worst City in America Votes 98 Percent for Obama

Then this.


In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.



Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.


IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

Do you think the poor or "working poor" understand the real implications of it all? I don't.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join