Poor Lil Waxman

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/30/shut_up_he_argues_104977.html


One week after the monstrosity passed and already the problems with the HC bill are slamming right into the Dems.

Last week, AT&T announced it will take an immediate $1 billion write-down thanks to a new tax in the health bill that will cause Caterpillar ($100 million) and Deere & Co. ($150 million), among other large employers, to do the same. The benefits consultancy Towers Watson estimates that the change may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion over time.

Oooooooops....

Democrats can't say they weren't warned about the coming write-downs. Companies began to receive a tax-free, deductible subsidy in 2003 to continue prescription-drug coverage for their retirees, a ploy to keep the firms from dumping retirees into the new government prescription-drug program. Outside experts and big employers counseled against ending the deductibility, pointing out that it would adversely affect the companies' financial statements immediately. (Accounting rules require corporations to note the long-term effect of the new liability right away.)

Yet Waxman gets pissy and makes the CEO's of AT&T, Cat and Deere come to DC and testify?

The CBO estimated that the new treatment of the subsidy would generate roughly $5 billion in revenue. If companies stop taking the subsidy, that revenue disappears -- while the costs of the drug program increase.

Could this be the first of the projections by the CBO to fall?

A Towers Watson study stipulates that "employer plans generally provide much better protection than the standard Medicare benefit." And subsidizing those employer plans is cheaper to the government than providing the coverage itself.

In short, a lose-lose-lose proposition -- no doubt, the first of many.

Great job Obamaman!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

anything for a win, right? thanks dems.

 

[Topspin]

old news, as a shareholder I angrily posted this crap already

 

[Bonestorm]

The issue is that when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, they gave corporations a pretty sweet deal. Corporations that provide drug benefits to retirees got a $1,300 per retiree subsidy and on top of that subsidy the $1,300 was made tax deductible. Pretty awesome deal for corporations.

This Affordable Care Act didn't increase taxes or eliminate the subsidy. It merely ended the tax deductibility of the subsidy, and that seems to make sense. Looking into the effects of the elimination of the subsidy seems to be the prudent thing to do. I don't see why requesting people to testify before a congressional committee on the impact of the law on their businesses as a "vendetta" or an effort to "browbeat" CEOs.

 

[Topspin]

The issue is that when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, they gave corporations a pretty sweet deal. Corporations that provide drug benefits to retirees got a $1,300 per retiree subsidy and on top of that subsidy the $1,300 was made tax deductible. Pretty awesome deal for corporations.

This Affordable Care Act didn't increase taxes or eliminate the subsidy. It merely ended the tax deductibility of the subsidy, and that seems to make sense. Looking into the effects of the elimination of the subsidy seems to be the prudent thing to do. I don't see why requesting people to testify before a congressional committee on the impact of the law on their businesses as a "vendetta" or an effort to "browbeat" CEOs.

that is a tax on shareholders

 

[Bonestorm]

that is a tax on shareholders

Under your definition, the elimination of any stupid corporate welfare would be a "tax on shareholders."

 

[Topspin]

Under your definition, the elimination of any stupid corporate welfare would be a "tax on shareholders."

Under the Massiah's pledge not to tax under $250,000 as well

 

[Bonestorm]

Under the Massiah's pledge not to tax under $250,000 as well

Yes, I remember Obama's pledge fondly. It was a great example of his masterful rhetoric:

Under my plan, no corporation that offers prescription drug benefits to retirees will see any change to the tax deductibility of their generous per retiree federal subsidy. And you can quote me on that!"

I bet Obama really regrets making that pledge.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The issue is that when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, they gave corporations a pretty sweet deal. Corporations that provide drug benefits to retirees got a $1,300 per retiree subsidy and on top of that subsidy the $1,300 was made tax deductible. Pretty awesome deal for corporations.

This Affordable Care Act didn't increase taxes or eliminate the subsidy. It merely ended the tax deductibility of the subsidy, and that seems to make sense. Looking into the effects of the elimination of the subsidy seems to be the prudent thing to do. I don't see why requesting people to testify before a congressional committee on the impact of the law on their businesses as a "vendetta" or an effort to "browbeat" CEOs.

they gave the corporations that 'sweet deal' because it was cheaper for the government than having those corporations not cover the retirees. But please, I beg your forgiveness, I interrupted yet another of your apology sessions for the Dems. do continue....

Side note: They were TOLD that this would happen. Yet the Dems ignored it. To call these CEO's in front of congress is fucking retarded. They HAVE to adjust their books. It is required by the SEC. Who wants to bet this is another dog and pony show put on by the idiots in DC.

 

[Topspin]

I'm not really upset for me as I'm pretty set. But, removing over the counter from HSA's and now the tax deductability of retiree's scrip programs will hit middle and lower middle class folk big time. And you'll see a reduction in the availability of retiree scrip programs. Oppps!!!!

 

[Bonestorm]

they gave the corporations that 'sweet deal' because it was cheaper for the government than having those corporations not cover the retirees. But please, I beg your forgiveness, I interrupted yet another of your apology sessions for the Dems. do continue....

It was corporate welfare. Feel free to defend it if you want. And again, the subsidies aren't going away, merely the tax deductibility of the subsidy.

Side note: They were TOLD that this would happen. Yet the Dems ignored it. To call these CEO's in front of congress is fucking retarded. They HAVE to adjust their books. It is required by the SEC. Who wants to bet this is another dog and pony show put on by the idiots in DC.

I don't see the issue with addressing the effects of the law on businesses. What is the problem? Rich Lowry told you is was a vendetta so now you're upset about it?

 

[Topspin]

It was corporate welfare. Feel free to defend it if you want. And again, the subsidies aren't going away, merely the tax deductibility of the subsidy.



I don't see the issue with addressing the effects of the law on businesses. What is the problem? Rich Lowry told you is was a vendetta so now you're upset about it?

Call it corp welfare, it's old people in AARP getting the meds. If you think that won't fuel the teabaggers as being right you need to get your nose out Obama's dingleberries.

 

[Bonestorm]

Call it corp welfare, it's old people in AARP getting the meds. If you think that won't fuel the teabaggers as being right you need to get your nose out Obama's dingleberries.

Don't try hiding behind Grandma's skirt. I mean, if you were going to work that angle it's best to start there, not to go there after complaining about a shareholder tax. It's pretty transparent.

And last I checked the AARP supported the Affordable Care Act precisely because it was beneficial to its members. Maybe the AARP has its nose up Obama's ass too, huh?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Nigel. Just shut your retarded and wrong idiot face.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

For the totalitarian idiocy to work, everyone must ignore actual reality all along the chain.

So now I guess they're threatening ceo's who actually discuss the costs of the new bill.

Excellent. This regime will fall right away.

 

[Topspin]

Don't try hiding behind Grandma's skirt. I mean, if you were going to work that angle it's best to start there, not to go there after complaining about a shareholder tax. It's pretty transparent.

And last I checked the AARP supported the Affordable Care Act precisely because it was beneficial to its members. Maybe the AARP has its nose up Obama's ass too, huh?

like most turbo-libs you don't know shit about business, I'm here to teach!!!
Corps are cutting benefits at an alarming rate, making it much more expensive 35% to provide the senior drug benefit will give them a patented excuse to cut thousands if not millions of retiree's from said plans.

 

[Bonestorm]

like most turbo-libs you don't know shit about business, I'm here to teach!!!
Corps are cutting benefits at an alarming rate, making it much more expensive 35% to provide the senior drug benefit will give them a patented excuse to cut thousands if not millions of retiree's from said plans.

It doesn't make it 35% more expensive, it eliminates a fairly modest subsidy in the form of a tax deduction on a subsidy. The subsidy is still there and the tax deductibility of the benefits provided to retirees is still there.

 

[Topspin]

It doesn't make it 35% more expensive, it eliminates a fairly modest subsidy in the form of a tax deduction on a subsidy. The subsidy is still there and the tax deductibility of the benefits provided to retirees is still there.

thanks for proving my point. We'll maybe your not an accountant. Just like a personal deduction a corporate deduction saves you at the margin the corp rate which is 35%. Peace

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It doesn't make it 35% more expensive, it eliminates a fairly modest subsidy in the form of a tax deduction on a subsidy. The subsidy is still there and the tax deductibility of the benefits provided to retirees is still there.

bottom line: it costs more. You only confuse yourself with your stupidity.

 

[cawacko]

they gave the corporations that 'sweet deal' because it was cheaper for the government than having those corporations not cover the retirees. But please, I beg your forgiveness, I interrupted yet another of your apology sessions for the Dems. do continue....

Side note: They were TOLD that this would happen. Yet the Dems ignored it. To call these CEO's in front of congress is fucking retarded. They HAVE to adjust their books. It is required by the SEC. Who wants to bet this is another dog and pony show put on by the idiots in DC.

Is it ever not a dog and pony show when people have to go in front of Congress? Nothing a politician likes better than to try and embarrass a CEO with some type of gotcha or one liner that will play well back home on the evening news. Talk about transparency. For the most part a complete waste of everyone's time.