(06-21-2009 05:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 04:35 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 04:06 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-20-2009 07:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Are you saying you support raising taxes on the middle class, taxing employer healtcare benefits to pay for it?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc1031...Letter.htm

Modify the Tax Treatment of Employment-Based Health Insurance

Nearly all analysts agree that the current tax treatment of employment-based health insurance—which exempts most payments for such insurance from both income and payroll taxes—dampens incentives for cost control because it is open-ended. Those incentives could be changed by restructuring the tax exclusion to encourage workers to join health plans with lower premiums; those lower premiums would arise through a combination of higher cost-sharing requirements and tighter management of benefits.

CBO’s Budget Options volume discusses a number of such changes. One option would replace the current tax exclusion with a refundable but more limited tax credit. Another option would limit the amount of health insurance premiums that could be excluded from income and payroll taxes to specific dollar amounts that represented the 75th percentile of premiums paid by or through employers. These approaches would change workers’ incentives about how much insurance to purchase and how much care to demand, and they would increase federal revenues by several hundred billion dollars over 10 years.

So then...your answer is yes. You support taxing healthcare benefits. Something McCain talked about in his campaign and was ravaged by Obama for?

So out of curiosity what do you think those employees are going to do rather than be taxed on those benefits? I'll tell you what they're going to do...they're going to opt not to purchase healthcare at all and instead go on the government plan. Thus increasing the cost to government while decreasing the tax revenues that are supposed to support it. The result...higher deficits for care we can't afford, rationing of healthcare to keep costs under control, resulting in months and even years delay for critical care.

This is why government is incompetent and the electorate let it keep happening. Everyone stops after hearing the "A" government tells them and never bothers to think about what B, C and D occurs as a result.

We could have supported it if we didn't invade a country that didn't attack us. Instead of helping Americans get health care, we give the Iraqi's healthcare.

1. No we couldn't.

2. Thank you for once again adding nothing of value.

3. Shut up and let the adults. talk.

(06-21-2009 05:30 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 05:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 04:35 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 04:06 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-20-2009 07:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Are you saying you support raising taxes on the middle class, taxing employer healtcare benefits to pay for it?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc1031...Letter.htm

Modify the Tax Treatment of Employment-Based Health Insurance

Nearly all analysts agree that the current tax treatment of employment-based health insurance—which exempts most payments for such insurance from both income and payroll taxes—dampens incentives for cost control because it is open-ended. Those incentives could be changed by restructuring the tax exclusion to encourage workers to join health plans with lower premiums; those lower premiums would arise through a combination of higher cost-sharing requirements and tighter management of benefits.

CBO’s Budget Options volume discusses a number of such changes. One option would replace the current tax exclusion with a refundable but more limited tax credit. Another option would limit the amount of health insurance premiums that could be excluded from income and payroll taxes to specific dollar amounts that represented the 75th percentile of premiums paid by or through employers. These approaches would change workers’ incentives about how much insurance to purchase and how much care to demand, and they would increase federal revenues by several hundred billion dollars over 10 years.

So then...your answer is yes. You support taxing healthcare benefits. Something McCain talked about in his campaign and was ravaged by Obama for?

So out of curiosity what do you think those employees are going to do rather than be taxed on those benefits? I'll tell you what they're going to do...they're going to opt not to purchase healthcare at all and instead go on the government plan. Thus increasing the cost to government while decreasing the tax revenues that are supposed to support it. The result...higher deficits for care we can't afford, rationing of healthcare to keep costs under control, resulting in months and even years delay for critical care.

This is why government is incompetent and the electorate let it keep happening. Everyone stops after hearing the "A" government tells them and never bothers to think about what B, C and D occurs as a result.

We could have supported it if we didn't invade a country that didn't attack us. Instead of helping Americans get health care, we give the Iraqi's healthcare.

1. No we couldn't.

2. Thank you for once again adding nothing of value.

3. Shut up and let the adults. talk.

1. liar.
2. You add nothing of value to life.
3. **** you.

(06-21-2009 05:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  1. liar.
2. You add nothing of value to life.
3. **** you.

Sure I add value Robert. I'm a prime target for you and your terrorist buddies. And my tax dollars go to pay your welfare check every month.

You strapping on the suicide vest yet?