 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 05:06 am |
|
1st Post |
Kevin McCarthy
Benevolent Dictator
|
just this one line in an article in today's ny times:
More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
from a less-govt., pro main street point of view it would say:
More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to save taxpayers about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
____________________
Dance like there's nobody watching, Love like you've never been hurt, Work like you don't need the money and Live like it's Heaven on Earth!
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 05:10 am |
|
2nd Post |
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 06:12 am |
|
3rd Post |
Bob Of Burleson
...And the smell of gunsmoke
|
Acne Cream? Tax-Sheltered. Breast Pump? No.
The New York Times
Denture wearers will get a tax break on the cost of adhesives to keep their false teeth in place. So will acne sufferers who buy pimple creams.
People whose children have severe allergies might even be allowed the break for replacing grass with artificial turf since it could be considered a medical expense.
But nursing mothers will not be allowed to use their tax-sheltered health care accounts to pay for breast pumps and other supplies.
That is because the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that breast-feeding does not have enough health benefits to quality as a form of medical care.
With all the changes the health care overhaul will bring in the coming years, it nonetheless will leave those regulations intact when new rules for flexible spending accounts go into effect in January. Those allow millions of Americans to set aside part of their pretax earnings to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses.
While breast-feeding supplies weren’t allowed under the old regulations either, one major goal of the health care overhaul was to control medical costs by encouraging preventive procedures like immunizations and screenings.
Despite a growing body of research indicating that the antibodies passed from mother to child in breast milk could reduce disease among infants — including one recent study that found it could prevent the premature death of 900 babies a year — the I.R.S. has denied a request from the American Academy of Pediatrics to reclassify breast-feeding costs as a medical care expense.
In some respects, the biggest roadblock for mothers’ groups and advocates of breast-feeding is one of their central arguments: nursing a child is beneficial because it is natural.
I.R.S. officials say they consider breast milk a food that can promote good health, the same way that eating citrus fruit can prevent scurvy. But because the I.R.S. code considers nutrition a necessity rather than a medical condition, the agency’s analysts view the cost of breast pumps, bottles and pads as no more deserving of a tax break than an orange juicer.
Many mothers’ groups and medical experts say that breast milk provides nutrition and natural supplements that prevent disease, and would like to see its use expanded. Hospital accreditation groups have been prodding maternity wards to encourage parents to feed only breast milk until a child is 6 months old.
The new health law does include one breakthrough for nursing mothers, a mandate that they be permitted unpaid breaks to use breast pumps. Spurned by tax authorities, breast-feeding advocates say they will return to Congress to get a tax break, too.
“There’s been a lot of progress in the past few years making the public, the medical establishment and even Congress recognize the health benefits of breast-feeding,” said Melissa Bonghi, a lactation consultant in Bainbridge Island, Wash. “But I guess the I.R.S. will just take a little longer.”
With the new regulations set to take effect in two months, millions of American workers now in the open enrollment period at their employers have to determine whether, and how much, to set aside for 2011. More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal Treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
MORE
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 01:28 pm |
|
4th Post |
Zephyr
Forming a Polka Line.....
|
Since the message sucks, I'm all for hog-tieing the messenger and forcing him to pick up the bar tab at happy hour.
____________________
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on." - Jami(e)
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on and, after 17 swirlies, I don't give a ####." - Orphi(e)
"That Zephyr, he's one hell of a smart guy!" - CarGuy
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 01:37 pm |
|
5th Post |
Zephyr
Forming a Polka Line.....
|
It's okay now. I commented on the NYT website:
When you say "the programs are projected to cost the federal treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade," a MUCH better way to put it would be "the programs are projected to save taxpayers about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade."
You don't want to be accused of showing a liberal bias, do you?
____________________
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on." - Jami(e)
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on and, after 17 swirlies, I don't give a ####." - Orphi(e)
"That Zephyr, he's one hell of a smart guy!" - CarGuy
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 01:58 pm |
|
6th Post |
Darth Penguin
High Penguin of the Sith
|
Bob Of Burleson wrote: Acne Cream? Tax-Sheltered. Breast Pump? No.
The New York Times
Denture wearers will get a tax break on the cost of adhesives to keep their false teeth in place. So will acne sufferers who buy pimple creams.
People whose children have severe allergies might even be allowed the break for replacing grass with artificial turf since it could be considered a medical expense.
But nursing mothers will not be allowed to use their tax-sheltered health care accounts to pay for breast pumps and other supplies.
That is because the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that breast-feeding does not have enough health benefits to quality as a form of medical care.
With all the changes the health care overhaul will bring in the coming years, it nonetheless will leave those regulations intact when new rules for flexible spending accounts go into effect in January. Those allow millions of Americans to set aside part of their pretax earnings to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses.
While breast-feeding supplies weren’t allowed under the old regulations either, one major goal of the health care overhaul was to control medical costs by encouraging preventive procedures like immunizations and screenings.
Despite a growing body of research indicating that the antibodies passed from mother to child in breast milk could reduce disease among infants — including one recent study that found it could prevent the premature death of 900 babies a year — the I.R.S. has denied a request from the American Academy of Pediatrics to reclassify breast-feeding costs as a medical care expense.
In some respects, the biggest roadblock for mothers’ groups and advocates of breast-feeding is one of their central arguments: nursing a child is beneficial because it is natural.
I.R.S. officials say they consider breast milk a food that can promote good health, the same way that eating citrus fruit can prevent scurvy. But because the I.R.S. code considers nutrition a necessity rather than a medical condition, the agency’s analysts view the cost of breast pumps, bottles and pads as no more deserving of a tax break than an orange juicer.
Many mothers’ groups and medical experts say that breast milk provides nutrition and natural supplements that prevent disease, and would like to see its use expanded. Hospital accreditation groups have been prodding maternity wards to encourage parents to feed only breast milk until a child is 6 months old.
The new health law does include one breakthrough for nursing mothers, a mandate that they be permitted unpaid breaks to use breast pumps. Spurned by tax authorities, breast-feeding advocates say they will return to Congress to get a tax break, too.
“There’s been a lot of progress in the past few years making the public, the medical establishment and even Congress recognize the health benefits of breast-feeding,” said Melissa Bonghi, a lactation consultant in Bainbridge Island, Wash. “But I guess the I.R.S. will just take a little longer.”
With the new regulations set to take effect in two months, millions of American workers now in the open enrollment period at their employers have to determine whether, and how much, to set aside for 2011. More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal Treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
MORE
How about this... we go in, gather the entire tax code and burn it. Heck, charge admission and allow people to roast marshmellows over it.
Then get back and implement a simple tax system. Heck, I'd even take a sheer flat tax, no deductions. And I'm a CPA...
____________________
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking”
Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 01:59 pm |
|
7th Post |
Zephyr
Forming a Polka Line.....
|
Darth Penguin wrote: Bob Of Burleson wrote: Acne Cream? Tax-Sheltered. Breast Pump? No.
The New York Times
Denture wearers will get a tax break on the cost of adhesives to keep their false teeth in place. So will acne sufferers who buy pimple creams.
People whose children have severe allergies might even be allowed the break for replacing grass with artificial turf since it could be considered a medical expense.
But nursing mothers will not be allowed to use their tax-sheltered health care accounts to pay for breast pumps and other supplies.
That is because the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that breast-feeding does not have enough health benefits to quality as a form of medical care.
With all the changes the health care overhaul will bring in the coming years, it nonetheless will leave those regulations intact when new rules for flexible spending accounts go into effect in January. Those allow millions of Americans to set aside part of their pretax earnings to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses.
While breast-feeding supplies weren’t allowed under the old regulations either, one major goal of the health care overhaul was to control medical costs by encouraging preventive procedures like immunizations and screenings.
Despite a growing body of research indicating that the antibodies passed from mother to child in breast milk could reduce disease among infants — including one recent study that found it could prevent the premature death of 900 babies a year — the I.R.S. has denied a request from the American Academy of Pediatrics to reclassify breast-feeding costs as a medical care expense.
In some respects, the biggest roadblock for mothers’ groups and advocates of breast-feeding is one of their central arguments: nursing a child is beneficial because it is natural.
I.R.S. officials say they consider breast milk a food that can promote good health, the same way that eating citrus fruit can prevent scurvy. But because the I.R.S. code considers nutrition a necessity rather than a medical condition, the agency’s analysts view the cost of breast pumps, bottles and pads as no more deserving of a tax break than an orange juicer.
Many mothers’ groups and medical experts say that breast milk provides nutrition and natural supplements that prevent disease, and would like to see its use expanded. Hospital accreditation groups have been prodding maternity wards to encourage parents to feed only breast milk until a child is 6 months old.
The new health law does include one breakthrough for nursing mothers, a mandate that they be permitted unpaid breaks to use breast pumps. Spurned by tax authorities, breast-feeding advocates say they will return to Congress to get a tax break, too.
“There’s been a lot of progress in the past few years making the public, the medical establishment and even Congress recognize the health benefits of breast-feeding,” said Melissa Bonghi, a lactation consultant in Bainbridge Island, Wash. “But I guess the I.R.S. will just take a little longer.”
With the new regulations set to take effect in two months, millions of American workers now in the open enrollment period at their employers have to determine whether, and how much, to set aside for 2011. More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal Treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
MORE
How about this... we go in, gather the entire tax code and burn it. Heck, charge admission and allow people to roast marshmellows over it.
Then get back and implement a simple tax system. Heck, I'd even take a sheer flat tax, no deductions. And I'm a CPA...
I think it's been tried before, and resulted in a tax increase with even more paperwork.
____________________
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on." - Jami(e)
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on and, after 17 swirlies, I don't give a ####." - Orphi(e)
"That Zephyr, he's one hell of a smart guy!" - CarGuy
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 02:16 pm |
|
8th Post |
Darth Penguin
High Penguin of the Sith
|
I can do here..
Section 001 - Individual Income Taxes
Subsection 1 - Total all income from every reportable source.
Subsection 2 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table.
(Begin Table)
$0-$20,000 = 1% per dollar earned
$20,000.01 - $40,000 = 5% per dollar earned
$40,000.01 - $100,000 = 10% per dollar earned
$100,000+ = 15% per dollar earned
(End Table)
Section 002 - Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 1 - Dividends are not reported income to an individual
Subsection 2 - Dividends are not deductible from the Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 3 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table, using cash-basis income.
(Begin Table)
$0-$200,000 = 1%
$200,000.01 - $500,000 = 5%
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,000+ = 15%
(End Table)
---
Done!Last edited on Wed Oct 27th, 2010 02:17 pm by Darth Penguin
____________________
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking”
Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 02:26 pm |
|
9th Post |
SpaceCowboy
Member
|
ah...as they say...and 3,500,000 lobbyists in DC sing Amen...the devil is in the details....
any % tax on 'earned income' is problematic if you are running a loss that year...
so it has to be on 'taxable income'...and that is where all the fun begins....picking and choosing what is an 'expense' and 'adjustment allowed' to determine 'taxable income'
that's where the lobbyists all make their money...between 'earned income and 'taxable income'
____________________
When asked on her history exam 'Where was the Declaration of Independence Signed?' Jami answered:
At The Bottom
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 02:49 pm |
|
10th Post |
Zephyr
Forming a Polka Line.....
|
Darth Penguin wrote: I can do here..
Section 001 - Individual Income Taxes
Subsection 1 - Total all income from every reportable source.
Subsection 2 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table.
(Begin Table)
$0-$20,000 = 1% per dollar earned
$20,000.01 - $40,000 = 5% per dollar earned
$40,000.01 - $100,000 = 10% per dollar earned
$100,000+ = 15% per dollar earned
(End Table)
Section 002 - Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 1 - Dividends are not reported income to an individual
Subsection 2 - Dividends are not deductible from the Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 3 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table, using cash-basis income.
(Begin Table)
$0-$200,000 = 1%
$200,000.01 - $500,000 = 5%
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,000+ = 15%
(End Table)
---
Done!
I admire your effort, but it would look much different after Congress got through with it. I was going to demonstrate here, but there isn't enough disk space on the server.
____________________
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on." - Jami(e)
"I smile because I have no idea what's going on and, after 17 swirlies, I don't give a ####." - Orphi(e)
"That Zephyr, he's one hell of a smart guy!" - CarGuy
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 03:05 pm |
|
11th Post |
Darth Penguin
High Penguin of the Sith
|
SpaceCowboy wrote: ah...as they say...and 3,500,000 lobbyists in DC sing Amen...the devil is in the details....
any % tax on 'earned income' is problematic if you are running a loss that year...
so it has to be on 'taxable income'...and that is where all the fun begins....picking and choosing what is an 'expense' and 'adjustment allowed' to determine 'taxable income'
that's where the lobbyists all make their money...between 'earned income and 'taxable income'
Okay, so lets add:
Subsection 4 - If a year generates a net operating loss on a cash basic, that loss is carried forward indefinitely as a credit against future taxes owed.
Done.
Yeah, I know you could do all sorts of twitches to get "taxable income" but that's why I chose "cash-basis" income. If the cash didn't move, it didn't happen. Simple.
____________________
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking”
Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 03:10 pm |
|
12th Post |
bodine
Member
|
Darth Penguin wrote: I can do here..
Section 001 - Individual Income Taxes
Subsection 1 - Total all income from every reportable source.
Subsection 2 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table.
(Begin Table)
$0-$20,000 = 1% per dollar earned
$20,000.01 - $40,000 = 5% per dollar earned
$40,000.01 - $100,000 = 10% per dollar earned
$100,000+ = 15% per dollar earned
(End Table)
Section 002 - Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 1 - Dividends are not reported income to an individual
Subsection 2 - Dividends are not deductible from the Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 3 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table, using cash-basis income.
(Begin Table)
$0-$200,000 = 1%
$200,000.01 - $500,000 = 5%
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,000+ = 15%
(End Table)
---
Done!
and your point is???
As an entrenched middle class family, your plan would double my taxes, with no refund/rebate.
I don't mind paying taxes, even a an increase. But not by doubling the rate, and not if it negatively affects cash flow by a factor of at least four....
no thanks.
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 03:11 pm |
|
13th Post |
LEB
LEB
|
Too many people with too much invested in the present system. A flat/fair tax sounds good in theory but it'll never happen. Takes power away from the special interests & politicians. 
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 03:39 pm |
|
14th Post |
Darth Penguin
High Penguin of the Sith
|
bodine wrote: Darth Penguin wrote: I can do here..
Section 001 - Individual Income Taxes
Subsection 1 - Total all income from every reportable source.
Subsection 2 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table.
(Begin Table)
$0-$20,000 = 1% per dollar earned
$20,000.01 - $40,000 = 5% per dollar earned
$40,000.01 - $100,000 = 10% per dollar earned
$100,000+ = 15% per dollar earned
(End Table)
Section 002 - Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 1 - Dividends are not reported income to an individual
Subsection 2 - Dividends are not deductible from the Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 3 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table, using cash-basis income.
(Begin Table)
$0-$200,000 = 1%
$200,000.01 - $500,000 = 5%
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,000+ = 15%
(End Table)
---
Done!
and your point is???
As an entrenched middle class family, your plan would double my taxes, with no refund/rebate.
I don't mind paying taxes, even a an increase. But not by doubling the rate, and not if it negatively affects cash flow by a factor of at least four....
no thanks.
Really?
Actually... assuming you are a married couple, no children, making $50k per year.
PE and SD reduce that to $24,000. Your taxes would be $2,762.50. (10% up to $16,750, 15% thereon)
Under this system, with no PE and SD, your taxes would be $1,700.
Even if you added two children (and got 2 $950 dependent deductions) your taxable income falls to $22,100 and your taxes would be $2,477.50.
I'm sure you could come up with some way that taxes would be increase (especially once you got over $100k) but its tough. The rates are lower at every bracket.
____________________
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking”
Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 04:18 pm |
|
15th Post |
bodine
Member
|
Darth Penguin wrote: bodine wrote: Darth Penguin wrote: I can do here..
Section 001 - Individual Income Taxes
Subsection 1 - Total all income from every reportable source.
Subsection 2 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table.
(Begin Table)
$0-$20,000 = 1% per dollar earned
$20,000.01 - $40,000 = 5% per dollar earned
$40,000.01 - $100,000 = 10% per dollar earned
$100,000+ = 15% per dollar earned
(End Table)
Section 002 - Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 1 - Dividends are not reported income to an individual
Subsection 2 - Dividends are not deductible from the Corporate Income Tax
Subsection 3 - Calculate your tax burden from the following table, using cash-basis income.
(Begin Table)
$0-$200,000 = 1%
$200,000.01 - $500,000 = 5%
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000 = 10%
$1,000,000+ = 15%
(End Table)
---
Done!
and your point is???
As an entrenched middle class family, your plan would double my taxes, with no refund/rebate.
I don't mind paying taxes, even a an increase. But not by doubling the rate, and not if it negatively affects cash flow by a factor of at least four....
no thanks.
Really?
Actually... assuming you are a married couple, no children, making $50k per year.
PE and SD reduce that to $24,000. Your taxes would be $2,762.50. (10% up to $16,750, 15% thereon)
Under this system, with no PE and SD, your taxes would be $1,700.
Even if you added two children (and got 2 $950 dependent deductions) your taxable income falls to $22,100 and your taxes would be $2,477.50.
I'm sure you could come up with some way that taxes would be increase (especially once you got over $100k) but its tough. The rates are lower at every bracket.
Your final assertion "done" makes me assume that there are no deductions, this is presentation of a flat tax. If that is not the case, then I am wrong.
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 04:44 pm |
|
16th Post |
Darth Penguin
High Penguin of the Sith
|
Yep, there are no deductions on this simple plan. The reduction to the rate brackets themselves is factoring that in.
But yes, this is a simple flat tax for individual and corporate rates (although you'd need to split the difference between on-shore and off-shore cash profits, but that's easy enough to do. Once cash comes on-shore, it gets taxed. At the lower rate).
____________________
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking”
Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 04:48 pm |
|
17th Post |
Red Oak II
Junior Crumedgeon
|
Kevin McCarthy wrote: just this one line in an article in today's ny times:
More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
from a less-govt., pro main street point of view it would say:
More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to save taxpayers about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
The Collectivists believe that a self supporting individual is a unit of production for the FEDGOD, and the parasitic individual is a unit of political power.
____________________
The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
Frederic Bastiat
1801-1850
From "The Law
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 07:25 pm |
|
18th Post |
Bob Of Burleson
...And the smell of gunsmoke
|
Red Oak II wrote: Kevin McCarthy wrote: just this one line in an article in today's ny times:
More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
from a less-govt., pro main street point of view it would say:
More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to save taxpayers about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.
The Collectivists believe that a self supporting individual is a unit of production for the FEDGOD, and the parasitic individual is a unit of political power.
I really don't understand why the original wording in the article is objectionable. The phrasing connotes a saving of government money through the elimination of tax breaks. With all the hoopla over federal expenditures and the need to cut spending, isn't this a desirable thing?
Sounds like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 07:29 pm |
|
19th Post |
SpaceCowboy
Member
|
Has to do with who makes the money and whom it is being taken away from.......an inconvenient distinction for libs/dems
____________________
When asked on her history exam 'Where was the Declaration of Independence Signed?' Jami answered:
At The Bottom
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27th, 2010 07:31 pm |
|
20th Post |
Current time is 11:23 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
