Many House Democrats strongly disliked the Senate’s proposed excise tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance policies. In the Senate-passed bill, that provision would have raised $150 billion over 10 years. Mr. Obama and White House officials reached a deal with organized labor groups to delay the implementation and limit the impact of that tax. As a result, the excise tax will raise only $32 billion over 10 years, according to the budget office.
Of course, that meant coming up with another $118 billion elsewhere to plug the hole. Not a problem: the final legislation imposes a 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income” such as dividends and interest, or on regular income above $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
This story leads you to believe that responsible, principled budget decisions are being made. It neglects to acknowledge that benefits are delayed, while new taxes/fees take effect immediately in order to produce a more palatable ten year number. The backloading of the spending is given scant attention by the cheerleading MSM.
🙄
And here we have the first of many Robin Hood taxes to be imposed by Obama and company. I am not saying that people should not pay their fair share, but we are turning into a country where we blatantly hand out entitlements to people who will pay nothing for them and clearly tell these folks that as long as they vote for the “right” candidates, more will be taken from the earning class to give it to the newly entitled class. When they have emptied the pockets of whoever they define as the “evil” rich, the definition of rich will keep being defined downward. This is sowing the seeds of serious social unrest, IMHO. Fewer and fewer people are no taxes and receiving more and more benefits.
As has been said many times, the problem with this sort of governance is that you run out of other people’s money in the end, which brings down your government. But with the ingenuity of folks in this country to avoid taxes, this government may fall sooner rather than later from bankruptcy.
So…(scratches head)…if this is going to cost us about a Trillion Dollars over 10 years…um…how is it [i]saving[/i] us $150 billion over 10 years, or $32 billion over 10 years, or whatever?
I mean, if it is going to [b]cost us all $940,000,000[/b] over a 10 year period as the President said, how is it [i]saving[/i] us anything at all?
If we are going to be paying more for 3-4 years [i]before[/i] there is any benefit added…how is this a good thing for me and my family?
The kind of “creative accounting” that purportedly makes this new entitlement program “cost-saving” is the same stuff that would or should get ordinary taxpayers and companies in very hot water with the IRS and other regulatory agencies if they engaged in it. But it’s all good for the President and our legislators to do so. Go figure.
BTW, no major federal entitlement program passed in the last 50 years has ever remotely hit its projected budget over ten years. Medicare and Medicaid have both gone wildly over budget. So now we’re supposed to believe the earnest assurances of Obama, Pelosi/Reid, et al.?
Not sure if it is in the current calculations, but there was one piece of the earlier bills that counted on a large increase in tax revenue. This was due to the assumption that the reduction in employer medical costs would translate into immediate and equal raises in pay by those employers, resulting in increased tax revenues. Anyone who believes this bill will ACTUALLY reduce the deficit is living in a dream world. Our Congress’ idea of a budget cut has, and will likely always be, a smaller increase year over year. I’d love to be educated on even one major federal program that came in at the projected cost. In our current governmental financial position this bill is incredible folly.