Jump to content

Taxed on your Co's Health Insurance Plan


Recommended Posts

You're new avatar? It looks like the old one, and yes we would all like to win the lottery...

 

It is the big companies that I am raging about, so if it less than 300 people, that means we have 300 people in the US each making over 1 million dollars a year. Yeah it definitely is ridiculous, but the sad thing is simply by taking down that one person's salary you can "create new jobs" for 30-50 more people. Simple fact is that no one person should be making that much money, UNLESS they win the lottery heh.. And then it is a one time payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're new avatar? It looks like the old one, and yes we would all like to win the lottery...

 

It is the big companies that I am raging about, so if it less than 300 people, that means we have 300 people in the US each making over 1 million dollars a year. Yeah it definitely is ridiculous, but the sad thing is simply by taking down that one person's salary you can "create new jobs" for 30-50 more people. Simple fact is that no one person should be making that much money, UNLESS they win the lottery heh.. And then it is a one time payment.

 

my old avatar was a gremlin. The new one is of a graduate student who has the words "pwn noobs" on his cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then you should rage at pro sports players more than CEOs as there are more of them

 

 

They are next on my list, at least some CEOs do work. Pro Sports players play a *edited*ing game, that is the life. I have already said somewhere else that Pro-Sports players are over paid.. But it is because we as America enjoy watching them that they continue to get paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad the lucky few have it so easy. If he had enough money to start his own company than he wasn't in any position to complain.

Typical liberal responce, "oh he must have had money if he started a company". Yeah ok, we banked 2 inheritances and lived like paupers for years before he got laid off. Why? Because he saw how his employer spent money and knew it was unsustainable. So yeah, take every penny your parents don't spend on staying in your house with power and food and put that in the bank. After a couple years you'll really be surprised just how much even the "poor" in our society squander. About 1/5 of the uninsured in this country make over $60,000/year and what's sad is they never understand where it all goes.

 

We have to work every day to not have everything we own torn out from under us, be in that position and then say, "Oh no you just work your *edited* off and then everything is fine". Bull*edited* again

Before getting laid off my parent's household income was a little over $30k/year. If that's not working hard enough or being poor enough I don't know what is.

 

 

Six years ago my Dad still had a job didn't have to worry about *edited* and the economy was not in the state it currently is in.

You're implying that it's the taxpayer's fault your dad didn't plan ahead or save money for a rainy day. No offense, but exactly why should I be responsible for someone else's poor judgement? I'm sure at the time everything was all sunny and great but it's basically common sense in the investment world to have at least 6 months of living expenses in the bank with around 2 years of expenses being an ideal reserve. You may not get that new TV and your 18 year old may get to drive the family minivan, but when *edited* goes bananas you've got breathing room and don't have to worry about money.

 

What he probably had that both I and my father lack was a reserve of money, and the knowledge of something to put it into to create his own business.

You get reserve money by saving. You save by not spending a penny more than is required to keep a roof over your head and food in your cabinets. Anything else you got, like a TV or a car, nice Christmas presents, those are luxuries. The TV we had until I left for college was older than I was...

 

Because what I would want to do with my wealth is make sure I am taken care of, I don't need a lot. Notice I said need, I made spoil myself a bit but everything else I had would go into charities, scholarships, things like this.

When/if you ever get money that song and dance will change. Drastically. That's a 20 year inb4 but it never fails. Also, you do realize that rich people donate to charities and scholarships right, I mean by your definition Bill Gates is like the best guy in the world. The way you people begrudge others for their success and expect and demand they share it... it's downright arrogant. If I build computers out of wood in my garage and from that create one of the largest computer companies in the world, that's MY success. You played no part in that success so who are you to take that from me?

 

Bitey you like completely derailed this thread, talking about CEOs and student loans. Open another rant thread and vent in there. You just completely let Nurayz off the hook and that *edited*es me off more than your textbook liberal targetting of the rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how taxing benefits is going to help anyone. It's basically like taking away benefits.

 

And if the individuals are not taxed, then why would you punish a company with taxes for benefits they are giving to their employees.

 

 

 

Maybe I don't understand, but I see no way that this would be helpful. Maybe someone can clarify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitey you like completely derailed this thread, talking about CEOs and student loans. Open another rant thread and vent in there. You just completely let Nurayz off the hook and that *edited*es me off more than your textbook liberal targetting of the rich.

 

let me off the hook? were you enjoying trying to pummel me down to nothing like you always attempt to do in these threads? *edited*ed that someone may actually have a different viewpoint than yours? Amazed that my response was composed of all questions? Am i awesome or what?!

 

but let's get back to the topic at hand. Cadillac high premium plans. And go read again dude, they tax after 8500, or 23,000 for families. If you don't hit that mark with your insurance plan, you don't get taxed. hell technically you don't get taxed anyway, your insurance company or business does. but anyway, These high premium plans are ridiculous. they pay maybe a little more than the average american, and get *edited*load in return. Detuctables? laugh. 0 detuctables, copays averaging 10 dollars, anything you can imagine paid for (acu *edited*ing puncture, message therapy, even TANNING?!). And yet you have a problem with taxing that kind of luxury? that more people can have health insurance now, but because we are taxing luxury bull*edited* it's wrong?

 

the average american (who gets insurance through their employer) has 699 dollar detuctables, an average of 20 dollar copays, and can't get covered for a *edited*ing cough. Spreading the wealth health around isn't that bad of an idea man. Besides, their Cadillac premiums may go up 1,000 dollars annually, or maybe their deductible goes up from 10 to 30.

Edited by NuRayZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad the lucky few have it so easy. If he had enough money to start his own company than he wasn't in any position to complain.

Typical liberal responce, "oh he must have had money if he started a company". Yeah ok, we banked 2 inheritances and lived like paupers for years before he got laid off. Why? Because he saw how his employer spent money and knew it was unsustainable. So yeah, take every penny your parents don't spend on staying in your house with power and food and put that in the bank. After a couple years you'll really be surprised just how much even the "poor" in our society squander. About 1/5 of the uninsured in this country make over $60,000/year and what's sad is they never understand where it all goes.

 

We have to work every day to not have everything we own torn out from under us, be in that position and then say, "Oh no you just work your *edited* off and then everything is fine". Bull*edited* again

Before getting laid off my parent's household income was a little over $30k/year. If that's not working hard enough or being poor enough I don't know what is.

 

 

Six years ago my Dad still had a job didn't have to worry about *edited* and the economy was not in the state it currently is in.

You're implying that it's the taxpayer's fault your dad didn't plan ahead or save money for a rainy day. No offense, but exactly why should I be responsible for someone else's poor judgement? I'm sure at the time everything was all sunny and great but it's basically common sense in the investment world to have at least 6 months of living expenses in the bank with around 2 years of expenses being an ideal reserve. You may not get that new TV and your 18 year old may get to drive the family minivan, but when *edited* goes bananas you've got breathing room and don't have to worry about money.

 

What he probably had that both I and my father lack was a reserve of money, and the knowledge of something to put it into to create his own business.

You get reserve money by saving. You save by not spending a penny more than is required to keep a roof over your head and food in your cabinets. Anything else you got, like a TV or a car, nice Christmas presents, those are luxuries. The TV we had until I left for college was older than I was...

 

Because what I would want to do with my wealth is make sure I am taken care of, I don't need a lot. Notice I said need, I made spoil myself a bit but everything else I had would go into charities, scholarships, things like this.

When/if you ever get money that song and dance will change. Drastically. That's a 20 year inb4 but it never fails. Also, you do realize that rich people donate to charities and scholarships right, I mean by your definition Bill Gates is like the best guy in the world. The way you people begrudge others for their success and expect and demand they share it... it's downright arrogant. If I build computers out of wood in my garage and from that create one of the largest computer companies in the world, that's MY success. You played no part in that success so who are you to take that from me?

 

Bitey you like completely derailed this thread, talking about CEOs and student loans. Open another rant thread and vent in there. You just completely let Nurayz off the hook and that *edited*es me off more than your textbook liberal targetting of the rich.

 

I am not and have never been a liberal, I am a *edited*ing *edited*ed off American, who can't believe that someone like you would call me arrogant. I don't think I deserve *edited* from you, I am ASKING FOR HELP, when the *edited* will you get that? Poor people are BEGGING for help from the rich, saying "hey man, I know I don't deserve it but I am in a bad place at a bad time in a bad way, please help". Oh sorry that not good enough for you, you want me to shine your shoes massah? Seriously get off your *edited*ing high horse.

 

It ain't as easy as you claim it to be and arrogant text book responses about investment 101 is quite offensive, not everybody took that class. Do you know what car I drove until Christmas last year, it was a 97 Ford Ranger that we got for cheap that barely had working A/C, our TV was older than me by 10 years. Yes we got by and yes we still had something to fall back on, but that was 3 years ago, now things are getting tough because my dad still doesn't have a job worth *edited*, though his qualifications are through the roof. And no my song and dance will not change, because I am not the kind of person that thinks like you, clearly we have established that fact. I am done posting in this thread, I can't be mad at you for having a different opinion but ffs man, just because I believe in a world where the rich choose to share there wealth instead of horde it doesn't make me a liberal. It makes me someone who cares for other people.

 

I am leaving this thread before I get mad at you for dumb *edited* politics.

Edited by Bitey
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's okay bitey...

 

 

you know though, being a liberal isn't that bad. and a hell of a lot better than being a stingy thinks they know it all conservative (no masterp i'm talking generically, not about you :P)

Edited by NuRayZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

but let's get back to the topic at hand. Cadillac high premium plans. And go read again dude, they tax after 8500, or 23,000 for families. If you don't hit that mark with your insurance plan, you don't get taxed. hell technically you don't get taxed anyway, your insurance company or business does.

Like I said before, please post a page number in the legislation. Since you know you're right, this shouldn't be hard.

 

 

These high premium plans are ridiculous. they pay maybe a little more than the average american, and get *edited*load in return. Detuctables? laugh. 0 detuctables, copays averaging 10 dollars, anything you can imagine paid for (acu *edited*ing puncture, message therapy, even TANNING?!). And yet you have a problem with taxing that kind of luxury? that more people can have health insurance now, but because we are taxing luxury bull*edited* it's wrong?

That's almost what I have on my HSA and it's far from a "cadillac" plan.

 

the average american (who gets insurance through their employer) has 699 dollar detuctables, an average of 20 dollar copays, and can't get covered for a *edited*ing cough. Spreading the wealth health around isn't that bad of an idea man. Besides, their Cadillac premiums may go up 1,000 dollars annually, or maybe their deductible goes up from 10 to 30.

Very few republicans have a problem with the added limitations placed on the insurance industry. The problem is that everyone who remains on a private plan, regardless of how "luxurious" it is, will see the cost of their insurance rise an average of 30% in the next 4 years directly because of this. This *edited* affects everyone, including the innocent middle class that actually likes what they have. That's what I have a problem with. Obama said I can keep my insurance, and while that in itself is a partial lie, he never said anything about the cost of my plan staying where it's been for the last 4 years. Regardless of what the Messiah may tell you, it IS possible to help the poor without *edited*ing everyone else.

 

I am not and have never been a liberal, I am a *edited*ing *edited*ed off American, who can't believe that someone like you would call me arrogant. I don't think I deserve *edited* from you, I am ASKING FOR HELP, when the *edited* will you get that?

You didn't say anything about needing help. Your posts sounded entirely like you were playing the blame game. If you need help there are plenty of ways out there to get stuff. What you can't do is slap the wealthy across the face, call them greedy *edited*s, and then ask them for help paying your bills.

 

Poor people are BEGGING for help from the rich, saying "hey man, I know I don't deserve it but I am in a bad place at a bad time in a bad way, please help". Oh sorry that not good enough for you, you want me to shine your shoes massah? Seriously get off your *edited*ing high horse.

You really think I'm making much more than you right now? Really? You might be surprised...

 

 

It ain't as easy as you claim it to be and arrogant text book responses about investment 101 is quite offensive, not everybody took that class.

Class? No. I learned from Google. All it takes is being curious about finances and taking the time to see what the experts, who made their own fortunes, did to get them and how they kept them through tough times. If I wanted to be an *edited* I'd have gone into how big your IRA account should be at this point in your life if you want to be one of those "rich *edited*s" when you hit 65.

 

just because I believe in a world where the rich choose to share there wealth instead of horde it doesn't make me a liberal. It makes me someone who cares for other people.

It actually makes you a socialist. While there's nothing wrong with socialism in theory, in practice it fails miserably every time. Sorry, I mean it just, does.

 

There's always going to be an upper class and a lower class. The most successful countries in history are those with a middle class, something that socialist countries generally destroy very quickly. We can switch to socialism, and everyone will be happy for a while, but after the love affair is over you'll find that those that were the upper class still are and everyone who didn't measure up is now essentially slave labor. I guess everyone being poor is fairer than the 13-17% we average now, unless you're in the 83-87% who isn't.

 

Sorry to be so mathematical about this but that's how you've got to look at it. There's always going to be poor people, and there's always going to be rich people. Your goal in life should be to get as high as you can without stepping on others. If you give all your money away while being poor, you'll always be poor, and the overall good you do for society will be minimal however if you focus entirely on yourself until you've planted your feet in solid financial ground you'll be in a much better position to actually do some good for the less fortunate. Yes I'm a greedy *edited*, yes I hoard my money, but that means that when I want to give to a good cause I actually have the money to make a difference. Everyone can give $5 to a cause but its the people that give $500 that keep those causes alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.healthreform.gov/documents/section1401_highcostplan.pdf

 

there is where it is i think

 

edit: maybe not

 

my bad it's 10,200 and 27,500. LARGER than previously estimated. for more information please email: advocacy@cose.org

 

 

like you always say: go research yourself

Edited by NuRayZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.healthreform.gov/documents/section1401_highcostplan.pdf

 

there is where it is i think

 

edit: maybe not

 

my bad it's 10,200 and 27,500. LARGER than previously estimated.

What I see there is a list of revisions with no context as to where they actually go. Maybe post what's actually in the legislation.

 

for more information please email: advocacy@cose.org

You realize COSE used to advocate AGAINST mandating healthcare coverage and forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees, right? So now if I want more information about government mandated coverage I need to contact their advocacy group? Can you say sell outs? I'm pretty sure they don't represent the majority of their small business members who will now be required to offer coverage to their employees.

 

The unintended consequence with small businesses that no one is talking about is that all these companies that are on the mid-20 employee threshold are going to fire people to get below where the government requirement is. It's terrible but that one extra employee creates a massive expense for the company and you can't blame any company that fires a $30k/year worker to save $120k/year in insurance costs. Like I said it's terrible but with the economy the way it is and the housing market crash coming next year it becomes a simple numbers game: employee 24 workers and fire a few or go out of business with 25-30.

 

like you always say: go research yourself

Yeah see I did and couldn't find what you found which is why I asked where you found it. Google didn't readily tell me I was wrong and when it did there was no evidence to support the opposing viewpoint. I'm going to stick with the "I'm right until you prove me wrong with actual references and page number" routine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick with the "I'm right until you prove me wrong with actual references and page numbers" routine.

 

god i hate you. lol

 

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill53.pdf

 

PAGE 58 sec. 9001

 

Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. Levies an excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax would apply to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, but not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax would apply to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. The threshold would be indexed at CPI-U plus one percentage point, and a transition rule would increase the threshold for the 17 highest cost States for the first 3 years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions. Section 10901 adds individuals who perform longshore work to the list of high-risk employees qualifying for the higher thresholds for imposing the excise tax. Clarifies that plans providing certain excepted benefits under IRC Section 9832© are not subject to the excise tax.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick with the "I'm right until you prove me wrong with actual references and page numbers" routine.

 

god i hate you. lol

 

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill53.pdf

 

PAGE 58 sec. 9001

 

Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. Levies an excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax would apply to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, but not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax would apply to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. The threshold would be indexed at CPI-U plus one percentage point, and a transition rule would increase the threshold for the 17 highest cost States for the first 3 years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions. Section 10901 adds individuals who perform longshore work to the list of high-risk employees qualifying for the higher thresholds for imposing the excise tax. Clarifies that plans providing certain excepted benefits under IRC Section 9832© are not subject to the excise tax.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice summary and all but how about posting what's actually in the text? You know, the text they voted on, not a staffer's cliff notes version.

 

It's going to be really hard to find, mainly because they don't want you actually reading it for yourself.

 

The problem with Cliff Notes is they typically leave out important details that still make their way to the tests. The Cliff Notes for Great Gatsby is especially lacking in this regard. :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

god you all both suck, i found the text within 10 seconds of going to google.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

SEC. 9002. INCLUSION OF COST OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH

COVERAGE ON W–2.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6051(a) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 (relating to receipts for employees) is amended by striking

‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the

end of paragraph (13) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding after

paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:

‘‘(14) the aggregate cost (determined under rules similar

to the rules of section 4980B(f)(4)) of applicable employer-sponsored

coverage (as defined in section 4980I(d)(1)), except that

this paragraph shall not apply to—

‘‘(A) coverage to which paragraphs (11) and (12) apply,

or

‘‘(B) the amount of any salary reduction contributions

to a flexible spending arrangement (within the meaning

of section 125).’’.

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section

shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

NuRayz, you were looking at the previous section, which is about the additional tax, this thread was originally about adding the amount of your coverage onto the W2, which will in turn increase your taxes amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

god you all both suck, i found the text within 10 seconds of going to google.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

SEC. 9002. INCLUSION OF COST OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH

COVERAGE ON W–2.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6051(a) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 (relating to receipts for employees) is amended by striking

‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the

end of paragraph (13) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding after

paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:

‘‘(14) the aggregate cost (determined under rules similar

to the rules of section 4980B(f)(4)) of applicable employer-sponsored

coverage (as defined in section 4980I(d)(1)), except that

this paragraph shall not apply to—

‘‘(A) coverage to which paragraphs (11) and (12) apply,

or

‘‘(B) the amount of any salary reduction contributions

to a flexible spending arrangement (within the meaning

of section 125).’’.

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section

shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

NuRayz, you were looking at the previous section, which is about the additional tax, this thread was originally about adding the amount of your coverage onto the W2, which will in turn increase your taxes amount.

 

ah. no wonder. the 40% increase only applies to employer contributions (combined with how much you pay) of 8500 dollars (individuals) or 23,000 (families) and up. So if you and your company pay 11,000 for a premium health care plan, you should expect a 1,000 increase annually.

 

But whats the percentage if you fall under the excise amount? I'm still inclined to believe you won't get taxed, but maybe i'm reading it wrong.

Edited by NuRayZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

But whats the percentage if you fall under the excise amount? I'm still inclined to believe you won't get taxed, but maybe i'm reading it wrong.

Unless it specifically states that you won't get taxed for it, NEVER assume the government won't tax you on it. Leaving it out entirely means they're coming back later to add a tax once the storm blows over and Fox News quits watching.

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...