- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,136
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Its called a hammer-nail relationship. Does a nail that's been hammered only once stick? Didn't think so.
Let it go. You've won the argument 15 times already. This is just what they do, twisting themselves into these verbally gymnastic word contortions with a host of preset Alinsky tactics, muddying up the debate by sending you on a rabbit trail. Then they return back to the home base for further orders.
Congratulations on your victory.
You're definitely missing the part where it clearly states that one can reduce one's bracket by putting money in a tax-deferred account.
You're missing the point where we shouldn't be pay higher subsidies to people to save their own money. I don't care how they reduce their own income. Its still a bad system.
Not really.
First, no one said anything about holding anyone back that I know of. Second, people can work together for common goals and not hold anyone back. And capitalism is full of use of force. Remember, someone always wins.
I'm just saying less of the propaganda and more facts would be appreciated. I'd not advocating for socialism. I just think factual arguments are better than vague emotion driven generalities.
IOW, you got pwned, so now you're going to try and change the subject and hope no one notices. :lamo
You should go back to the original point I commented on. He specifically says that less work for some equals more work for others. He's said in the past that it is a good thing that employers are cutting hours, because it will mean more jobs. If that isn't the definition of holding someone back, then I don't know what is.
And no, someone doesn't always win. This isn't a zero sum game.
That's what he says. Which means nothing to actual socialism. He did not say in a socialism . . . . . You did,out of the blue, with no support, and no comment that mentioned socialism. His argument, as you recount here, isn't about socialism.
As a point of fact, cutting hours did stimulate the economy in the past. More people had more free time, and with money to spend. This led to greater consumerism, which led to more jobs, and so on. None of that was socialism btw. But on that point, he is correct.
No one changed the subject...... The subject clearly is that the subsidies are bracketed instead of scaled, and this leads people to attempt to game the system to maximize their subsidy. Which is bad design. So don't be the guy who falsely claims "he changed the subject and hoped no one will notice" and hope no one will notice.
A tapered subsidy would make more sense. But will the GOP allow such a fix?
What is "bad" about a system that encourages people in their 60's to avoid taxes by encouraging them to put more money in their tax-deferred IRA's?
Do I really need to hold your hand going back through this post? I said that this sort of thinking, along with numerous other posts he has made in the past, is what forms the basis of socialism.
And you're right, so a 5 hour work week would be that much better right?!? Yeah no. There is a nice happy medium where you work enough to be good at your job and productive, but not so much that you are burnt out and unable to do anything else with your life. Which is how we ended up with a 40 hour workweek, which has worked perfectly fine for almost 100 years. So why did the ACA take the liberty to declare that full time is 30 hours? The only people this is going to hurt are those who are now only get 25-29 hours at their part time job instead of 35-36. Besides, there is a huge difference between saying businesses have to pay overtime on a per hour basis, and saying that they have to pay thousands of dollars more for a 29 hour worker than a 30 hour worker.
Well, maybe. But working less still means less money. I'm not at all sure how the subsidy works. It should be progressive, which would avoid much of the nonsense. If one is putting $50,000 into a SEP plan and spending down their cash in order to get a subsidy....well, that's just one more loophole that has to be fixed. Putting money into a tax-deferred savings account should not invoke subsidies. If it does? It needs fixing.
IOW, you got pwned, so now you're going to try and change the subject and hope no one notices. :lamo
What is "bad" about a system that encourages people in their 60's to avoid taxes by encouraging them to put more money in their tax-deferred IRA's?
Lol. Because this law is only for people in their 60's right?
What's bad is that the subsidies aren't scaled. Paying people 1,000s of dollars to save an extra hundred isn't good policy. Why are you defending this?
The subsidies are scaled. They get lower as one's incomes gets higher.
The subsidies are scaled. They get lower as one's incomes gets higher.
ACA Subsidy Cliff May Incentivize Some To Earn LessThey are bracketed. Bracket =/= scale.
From the premium data we can see that the second lowest silver plan (this is the plan used to determine subsidies) available on the exchange from Freelancers costs $394.58 for an individual and will cost $1,065 for a family monthly. On an annual basis, this plan would cost $12,784 before subsidies. As we stated above, if the family above earns less than $78,120 they will only be required to spend $7,421, with the government subsidizing the rest. That's a total savings of $5,363!
$78,120 - $7,421 = $70,699 of take-home income after health insurance.
What happens if the family earns $78,121 dollars? Suddenly they lose the entire amount of the savings and are actually worse off than they were before.
$78,121 - $12,784 = $65,337 of take-home income after health insurance.
Since the subsidies come in the form of tax credits, any dollar amount a household receives is essentially after taxes. Therefore to regain the $5,363 dollars in post tax dollars, the family's income would actually have to rise greater than that amount once you account for state, federal and payroll taxes. To illustrate: For a family in this income bracket, they would be responsible for 25% in federal taxes, 6.2% in FICA and 1.45% for Medicare. This family would need to earn $7,962 additional dollars or $86,083 to end up where they were before. For the self-employed because who contribute double to FICA and Medicare they would need to earn $8,983 additional dollars.
ACA Subsidy Cliff May Incentivize Some To Earn Less
Here is an example to illustrate.
In this example, making one dollar above $78,120 requires the household to increase their gross salary by $7,962 in order to return to the same level of take home pay.
This has already been discussed.
The solution is not to work less and earn less money. If they make $78,121/yr then the simple solution is to put a dollar into their tax-deferred IRA.
And hopefully you will be available to provide that tax avoidance advice to the millions of households that will need it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?