A Comprehsive List Of New Taxes

[bonnie]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/a_comprehensive_list_of_new_ta.html

October 30, 2009

A comprehensive list of new taxes in health care bill

Rick Moran

Sorry this took a while, but the excellent folks at Americans for Tax Reform had to plow through 1990 pages of health care reform in order to find all the little golden nuggets that will make the tax man jump for joy.

Ryan Ellis reports that ATR has discovered no less than 13 new taxes in the bill. Among them:

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee's health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Feel left out? Don't worry, there's plenty more where those came from.

Generally speaking, it appears that the burden will fall primarily on businesses. So instead of hiring someone to be productive, that money will go to the government instead.

This is a jobs killing bill as much as it is a power grab for control of the health care system. It shows just how far the Democrats are willing to go - delay or destroy any recovery - in order for government to get their hands on the health care system.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee's health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

I like this. I don't like the attack on HSAs.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee's health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

I like this. I don't like the attack on HSAs.

Explain why a employer is responsible for a employee's family health care.

I the 8 percent is less than the 72.5 percent of insurance cost

the employer would be totally stupid to carry insurance. Most will dump them on the government health care

[Dr. Shane]

Jesus said a laborer is worthy of his hire. That Biblical principle means that the worker deserves his wages. One of the responsibilities of a worker is to provide health care to his family. The only way a worker can do that is if he or she is paid enough to buy health care insurance or the employer provides it. Thus part of following the Biblical mandate to pay a worker fair wages is to either pay the worker enough so the worker can buy health care insurance or to provide the worker health care insurance.

The problem today is that when a good and honorable employer provides health care insurance to their employees, they are undercut by the less honorable employers that do not. Thus, employers must cut health care insurance from their benefit packages in order to compete and stay in business. A government mandate to provide health care insurance for a worker and his or her family would level the playing field.

[bonnie]

Jesus said a laborer is worthy of his hire. That Biblical principle means that the worker deserves his wages. One of the responsibilities of a worker is to provide health care to his family. The only way a worker can do that is if he or she is paid enough to buy health care insurance or the employer provides it. Thus part of following the Biblical mandate to pay a worker fair wages is to either pay the worker enough so the worker can buy health care insurance or to provide the worker health care insurance.

The problem today is that when a good and honorable employer provides health care insurance to their employees, they are undercut by the less honorable employers that do not. Thus, employers must cut health care insurance from their benefit packages in order to compete and stay in business. A government mandate to provide health care insurance for a worker and his or her family would level the playing field.

No one said anything about not paying a fair wage.

Pay them fairly and let them purchase their own

[Dr. Shane]

Many will not purchase their own insurance because they are too selfish. They would rather drive a new car or have a nice flat screen TV with HD cable. Then they get sick and go to the emergency room. They don't get their health screenings and what should be mild issues develop into expensive conditions by the time they are diagnosed.

If we want insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, we have to find a way to make sure everyone is covered. The best way to do that is to require employers to provide coverage to their employees and incorporate health care coverage into unemployment benefits.

Now everyone must understand how this works. The employer is not paying him or herself. The employer is charging the customer. The cost of the health care insurance is passed on to the customer just like the cost of the employer's match for Social Security is.

[bonnie]

Many will not purchase their own insurance because they are too selfish. They would rather drive a new car or have a nice flat screen TV with HD cable. Then they get sick and go to the emergency room. They don't get their health screenings and what should be mild issues develop into expensive conditions by the time they are diagnosed.

If we want insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, we have to find a way to make sure everyone is covered. The best way to do that is to require employers to provide coverage to their employees and incorporate health care coverage into unemployment benefits.

Now everyone must understand how this works. The employer is not paying him or herself. The employer is charging the customer. The cost of the health care insurance is passed on to the customer just like the cost of the employer's match for Social Security is.

I would like policies for the pre-existing,not the standard insurance policy,but something geared to that so cost stays off my insurance policy.

If those without insurance because of selfish reasons,pay the piper and quit asking me to pay the piper with them

[Dr. Shane]

Policies for pre-existing conditions would be cost prohibitive. That is not a realistic option. Insurance companies can cover pre-existing conditions if everyone is covered because that will spread the cost for treating those conditions across the entire population.

I think we need to remember the example of the good Samaritan. He paid for the cost of medical services for someone that wasn't even from his own country. We certainly should be willing to spread those costs across the country as a whole and each pay our share. And in reality, when the cost is paid for by employers, it is rolled into the cost of goods and services and paid for by consumers.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Policies for pre-existing conditions would be cost prohibitive. That is not a realistic option. Insurance companies can cover pre-existing conditions if everyone is covered because that will spread the cost for treating those conditions across the entire population.

Neither is paying for pre-existing conditions if you do not have one. How many do you think will willingly pay for insurance every month if they can pay a penalty and not do so.

Most will happily go without until told by their DR they have xyz and then jump on the band wagon.

By what right does anyone decide to make law that they are going to force everyone to spread the cost around for the entire population?

Quote:

I think we need to remember the example of the good Samaritan. He paid for the cost of medical services for someone that wasn't even from his own country. We certainly should be willing to spread those costs across the country as a whole and each pay our share. And in reality, when the cost is paid for by employers, it is rolled into the cost of goods and services and paid for by consumers.

It may be well to remember that the story of the good Samaritan is not describing what a "government should do by force".It is speaking to the individual

There comes a time when costs cannot be absorbed by consumers and cannot be past on.

Numerous businesses are closing. Many that have been in businesses a number of years and can afford to retire are doing just that. With the economy in the tank and what most believe will come down the pike,they see no reason to knock themselves out just for the "privilege of paying more and more".

My brother is one that is folding up. With the economy and the almost certain hike in taxes etc,he has no desire to stay operating.

With more and more being forced out or shutting up shop voluntarily the numbers to spread the wealth around to is dwindling

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How many do you think will willingly pay for insurance every month if they can pay a penalty and not do so.

That is why it shouldn't be up to the individual. The employers need to provide the insurance.

Quote:

It may be well to remember that the story of the good Samaritan is not describing what a "government should do by force".It is speaking to the individual

The question asked is why one person should bear the cost of another person's health care. That is exactly what the good Samaritan did and he was commended by Christ for so doing.

Quote:

There comes a time when costs cannot be absorbed by consumers and cannot be past on.

Wrong. The costs required to produce a product or service should be passed on to the consumer. A worker's health care costs are real and thus the products or services produced by the worker should include those health care costs.

Quote:

Numerous businesses are closing.

This is good. Business that cannot compete need to close and be replaced with other businesses that can compete. It is foolish to keep weak business alive by not forcing them to provide health care insurance for their workers. The worker is worthy of his hire!

[bonnie]

Quote:

That is why it shouldn't be up to the individual. The employers need to provide the insurance.

Employer's will opt out by paying the penalty.My health insurance,vehicle insurance,and homeowners is my responsibility,not the government. They would be idiots to pay health insurance when a penalty to the IRS would be cheaper. Then you are on a government plan

Quote:

The question asked is why one person should bear the cost of another person's health care. That is exactly what the good Samaritan did and he was commended by Christ for so doing.

The Good Samaritan took care of a private individual and he was a private citizen. There is nothing in that story to suggest he was forced by a government.

Nor did they have medicare,medicaid,Chips,and the welfare payments we have today. All by force by the way

Quote:

Wrong. The costs required to produce a product or service should be passed on to the consumer. A worker's health care costs are real and thus the products or services produced by the worker should include those health care costs.

There is a tipping point where consumers will not and cannot bear anymore of the cost.

The employer's costs are as real as the employee's. When his costs cannot be passed on the employer must absorb it and it does not make sense to run a business that is losing it's profit.

Quote:

This is good. Business that cannot compete need to close and be replaced with other businesses that can compete. It is foolish to keep weak business alive by not forcing them to provide health care insurance for their workers. The worker is worthy of his hire!

Employer's will not be forced to provide insurance if they pay a penalty to the IRS. For some the cost will be equal to or exceed the penalty.

Many that are closing are not weak businesses. They are at a point where retirement is more practical than to operate under the terms they will be facing.

My brother is one,he does not have a weak business. In this economic climate he has to bid at cost or below.Many in his line of work are doing that trying some how to hang on. Why should he want to do that?

He has stayed open longer than was practical trying to give his men a chance to relocate or find new jobs.

He is able to retire so why should he keep pumping more and more into the government?

Others are doing same. Businesses that has not had time to establish itself are and will continue to go under

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Employer's will opt out by paying the penalty.

Indeed it is crazy to allow employers a provision to opt out. Employers shouldn't be able to opt out of providing health care insurance any more than they can opt out of Social Security. The fine for "opting" out should include jail time.

Quote:

The Good Samaritan took care of a private individual and he was a private citizen. There is nothing in that story to suggest he was forced by a government.

If every professed Christian in the United States was following the Good Samaritan's example there would be no need for the government to do anything.

Quote:

There is a tipping point where consumers will not and cannot bear anymore of the cost.

Wrong. In many third world countries much of the tax burden is laid upon the consumers in the form of import taxes. Consumers actually pay 200%-400% more for many products than what we pay here in the US.

Quote:

My brother is one,he does not have a weak business. In this economic climate he has to bid at cost or below.

He needs a level playing field. That is what mandating employers to carry health care insurance will do. If my company carries health care insurance for my employees that puts me at a disadvantage when I bid against other companies that do not care about the Good Samaritan's example.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Indeed it is crazy to allow employers a provision to opt out. Employers shouldn't be able to opt out of providing health care insurance any more than they can opt out of Social Security. The fine for "opting" out should include jail time.

Obama wants to have a single payer program. This will get him there

You have failed to explain tho why a employer is responsible for your health care. If a job is worth 20.00 hourly what is owed is the twenty dollars.

Quote:

If every professed Christian in the United States was following the Good Samaritan's example there would be no need for the government to do anything.

And IF EVE had not gone near the tree we wouldn't have to have insurance.

Quote:

Wrong. In many third world countries much of the tax burden is laid upon the consumers in the form of import taxes. Consumers actually pay 200%-400% more for many products than what we pay here in the US.

It doesn't work well here. Try 400% more for a gallon of milk and see the outrage. Maybe where you live people can afford to pay more and more

The market will only bear so much.

[bonnie]

Quote:

He needs a level playing field. That is what mandating employers to carry health care insurance will do. If my company carries health care insurance for my employees that puts me at a disadvantage when I bid against other companies that do not care about the Good Samaritan's example.

Have you looked out your window lately? There is a severe recession if not worse going on.

It is not a unlevel playing field at all.

His competitors carry insurance,401K's,life insurance/plus a pretty hefty salary per hour.

He has no desire to keep fighting taxes on every level.

He had provided work for over fifty employee's. He is not going to throw money down the drain just to keep them working.

He has been competing just fine till now.

It isn't just the poorly run businesses going under or closing up.

Our local hardware has been operating almost thirty years.We have a small town population of 9,000.He has done extremely well,considering we have two wal-marts,two targets,and one K-Mart within a radius of 15 miles. He expanded three years ago and added more employee's.

He will be closing after the first of the year. Weekly he is laying off another employee. He doesn't want to put his home at risk to borrow for payroll. He wasn't intending to retire yet, but he sees little reason to keep going in the whole every month.

My husband had his own business over 35 years. Every contractor he contracted with is now out of business. Some went belly ,those that could said "emough"

Target is laying off instead of adding help for the holiday season as is K-Mart

The computer tech is closing and he will operate out of his home. He has had a good business but is scaling back. He doesn't want to help finance the federal government any more than necessary.

The list is endless of businesses going under or closing their doors.

The poor economy that is getting worse by the day and the plans of tax after tax,and then what the cap and trade tax would add,,That is going to be the finishing touch for those left standing

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If a job is worth 20.00 hourly what is owed is the twenty dollars.

I can't disagree strong enough. Should workers have to purchase their own workers' compensation insurance? Should they have to pay their own unemployment premiums? Should they pay the Social Security Administration directly for their retirement and disability benefits? Of course not.

An employer can get group rates and provide the employees with better insurance for less money when they provide it as opposed to the employee buying it as an individual. If the job is worth $20/hour the employee should be paid about $12/hour and get a benefit package worth the other $8.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I can't disagree strong enough. Should workers have to purchase their own workers' compensation insurance?

Workman's Comp is to provide for those hurt on the job. That is a little different.

If I hurt myself at home why should any one but me pay?

Quote:

Should they have to pay their own unemployment premiums?

YES!!!!!! Just as we had to set aside for the lean times there is nothing stopping them from doing same.

If there is no work available where is it written that I am owed pay anyway.

Quote:

Should they pay the Social Security Administration directly for their retirement and disability benefits? Of course not.

Yes. Pay them what they are worth and let them pay directly as many of us have. Why is the employer responsible for a employee's SS retirement and disability?

My husband is on SS Disability. Paid for by us.It is not that unheard off for individuals to take responsibility for their own security.

Why shouldn't they be responsible for paying for themselves? Paid a fair wage for work performed by a employee,what stops them from be capable of doing so.

Quote:

An employer can get group rates and provide the employees with better insurance for less money when they provide it as opposed to the employee buying it as an individual.

So what if a employer can get something cheaper? Of course they can do as the last place I worked. Group Insurance available for employee to pay the premium and enjoy the reduced premium.

Quote:

If the job is worth $20/hour the employee should be paid about $12/hour and get a benefit package worth the other $8.

Pay him the 20.00 and allow him to pick his own coverage etc.

What prevents a adult employee from making responsible decisions with his money?

Two occasions I had two professionals point to one very big reason insurance is so costly.

I had the flu,called into work each day I could not work. That was fine but I still needed to go to the DR,pay 25.00 co-pay to have him tell me,Yeah,you probably had the flu.

The DR was more than a little annoyed as this goes on all the time.Taking his time and my money and the insurance companies totally unnecessary.

Our insurance agent said same. Someone paying for insurance for others is ripe for abuse. We have some friends that would take their daughters in for a DR visit for a cold.

He said it didn't matter to him and he was going to get as much as he could from the insurance company

[Guest]

I tend to agree Bonnie.

[Dr. Shane]

Bonnie's position is that of a libertarian which is well outside mainstream political thought. Neither Democrats nor Republicans think that way.

[bonnie]

I tend to agree Bonnie.

I just have never had anyone offer a intelligent sounding reason why hiring someone for a specific job makes you responsible for half his SS tax,to with hold for income tax,to pay a employee when there is no work,to pay a good portion of his health care for his family.

To reduce the hourly wage by the amount for the full benefit package is not always possible. Many employer's end up eating a portion of it themselves.

The employer is owed a fair wage and safe working conditions. Very diligent employee's deserve to be paid more than their less than diligent co-worker

[CyberGuy]

I agree with you Shane. Bonnie is on the more radical spectrum.

SS and medicare are a sort of retirement plan. Employees and Employors pay into it so that at least a portion of the medical and retirement is paid for. Even that is not enough. It has to be subsidized by a 401K plan and or an employor retirement plan. Many people take less pay so they can have medical benefits.

WIth SS and medicare going bankrupt I am all for increasing the SS from 6.2 percent to 8 percent and the medicare to 4 percent for both employee and employor. Yes let the employor pay the employee 5 percent less to make up for the increase in taxes. At least SS and medical care will be stable for few decades more.

I do not want a public option. I am for increasing medicare to 5 or six percent then putting the people below lets say #30,000 annual income with a family on medicare. That is already a public option that only the elderly are on but allow the poor to have access to it with increased taxpayer support. That should take care of the majority of the uninsured. Remember even medicare has a high copayment option. That will take care of most abuse of the system.

That is how I look at it.

[bonnie]

I agree with you Shane. Bonnie is on the more radical spectrum.

SS and medicare are a sort of retirement plan. Employees and Employors pay into it so that at least a portion of the medical and retirement is paid for. Even that is not enough. It has to be subsidized by a 401K plan and or an employor retirement plan. Many people take less pay so they can have medical benefits.

WIth SS and medicare going bankrupt I am all for increasing the SS from 6.2 percent to 8 percent and the medicare to 4 percent for both employee and employor. Yes let the employor pay the employee 5 percent less to make up for the increase in taxes. At least SS and medical care will be stable for few decades more.

I do not want a public option. I am for increasing medicare to 5 or six percent then putting the people below lets say #30,000 annual income with a family on medicare. That is already a public option that only the elderly are on but allow the poor to have access to it with increased taxpayer support. That should take care of the majority of the uninsured. Remember even medicare has a high copayment option. That will take care of most abuse of the system.

That is how I look at it.

Neither you or Shane have given a good reason for wht an employer owes you more than a honest wage.

Why does an employer have the responsibility of your health care,wage if there is no work,and to set up and add to your personal retirement.

Where is the responsibility of the employee?

[Dr. Shane]

Requiring employers to provide health care insurance would be no different than increasing the minimum wage. Health care insurance should be part of every compensation package just like Social Security, unemployment and workers' compensation is. It is simply being fair to the worker. As Jesus said, the laborer is worthy of his hire.

The problem is that since this is not required today, we do not have a level playing field. Dedicated Christians and other moral people that want to do the right thing and be fair with their employees cannot do so and compete with others in their industry. This is especially true for small businesses. A government mandate would level the playing field.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Requiring employers to provide health care insurance would be no different than increasing the minimum wage. Health care insurance should be part of every compensation package just like Social Security, unemployment and workers' compensation is. It is simply being fair to the worker. As Jesus said, the laborer is worthy of his hire.

You still haven't explained why. If a employee is paid the fair wage of 20.00 per hour,where is it stated that the employer pays the compensation package as well?

If as you said earlier that the pay would be 12.00 and the 8.00 would take care of the compensation package,let the employee pay it out of his 20.00.

The minimum wage would have to take a hefty hike to equal the same.

You keep stretching what Jesus meant as you did with CC. We have agreed that a employee should be paid a fair wage. I don't see anywhere where Jesus said to pay for his unemployment. Why should a employer be responsible for paying a laborer for doing nothing when there is now work?

Quote:

The problem is that since this is not required today, we do not have a level playing field. Dedicated Christians and other moral people that want to do the right thing and be fair with their employees cannot do so and compete with others in their industry. This is especially true for small businesses. A government mandate would level the playing field.

This simply is not true. Most small businesses do pay what you call moral. You still haven't answer why paying the going wage or as some employer's give more to valued employee's,they cannot take the 8.00 from the 20.00,pay their own unemployment,their own health care,their own SS and all taxes. It should be fair if what you claim is true

Yes,the government will fix all things biblical.

[bonnie]

If a employer can pay the prevailing wage less the benefit package and does not give all the benefits it would be because of the cost factor.

If 20.00 is the fair wage and the employer can give 12.00 and take care of the benefits with the remaining 8.00 there usually is a reason.

Like the prevailing wage less the 8.00 carries a lot more financial outlay than you are claiming.

Please explain why the employee cannot take care of his own benefit package being paid 20.00 per hour. According to you the employer can take care of this by paying 12.00 and using the rest for benefits

[Dr. Shane]

Whether or not an employee can take c are of his or her own benefit package is rather academic because they don't do so. There are janitors working earning $12/hour with a full benefit package that provide well for their families and car salesmen earning $50K/year with no benefit package that cannot fit health insurance into their personal budget. The reasons for that are academic. The reality is that is real for thousands of Americans. Pulling out the self-reliance whip and thinking we can whip Americans into being responsible for themselves simply isn't going to work. If self-reliance was the answer we wouldn't be having the discussion we are having.

I reject the idea of government-run health-care insurance. I think that would be a disaster. I do support the idea of health-care co-ops. Electrical co-ops work very well and provide electricity cheaper than their public utilities peers. I favor the "Pay-Or-Pay" legislation that would mandate employers to pay for at least 75% of an employee's health-care insurance and 67% of their family's insurance OR be fined in an amount greater than the cost of the insurance. That will go a long way in bringing down the cost of insurance. I also favor tort reform and capping the award for medical mal-practice. However in so doing doctors found guilty of mal-practice must be penalized by having their medical license suspended for a period of time so that it never becomes more affordable to perform mal-practice that to do things right.