$2000 to $3000 more a year in income rax so those people without health insurance can get a tax break?
2007-01-23 23:49:06 · 9 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actually I think you misinterpreted the plan. Those with employer provided insurance or those who are able to provide for their own insurance needs would see a tax break. The problem with his plan as I see it is that it would do nothing to help the poor who are uninsured.
Example: With my contributions and my employers the total comes to about 6000 a year for my family. This 6000 would become taxable income under the President's plan, but I would get a 15,000 dollar tax break. So basically I would be able to write off an additional 9000 in income from my yearly gross. Thus I would get a tax break.
Those people who have employer sponsored health plans would fair well so long as the total amount of the contributions is below 15,000 for a family or 7,500 for an individual. However, people who do not have sponsored plans and are already living either at or beyond their means will not be able to add additional costs for self insurance simply with the goal of getting a larger tax return at the end of the year. Therefore there is no real benefit to the poor.
2007-01-24 00:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You were told wrong. There are a number of reasons for this misunderstanding. 1. Starting this year there will be a line entry on your W-2 showing how much your employer paid for your health insurance. Right now, that's informational only. Going forward it will be proof that you have health insurance so you won't be penalized for not having it. Also, once your state sets up the insurance exchanges (or has them set up by the federal government if your state refuses to set it up) you can use that information to determine if you can get a better deal elsewhere. 2. Some "Cadillac" healthcare programs will incur an additional tax. Some folks mis-read the law (accidentally or on purpose) and assumed that that will be a tax on the employee. The tax is actually on the insurance company. Presumably it will be passed on to whomever pays the premiums as increased premiums. Most of those types of plans are 100% employer paid as inducement to attract highly skilled or senior management employees. 3. For political reasons, some folks just like to lie outright about the PPACA. When you hear someone declaring that it's "The largest tax increase in US history," you have encountered one of those political trolls.
2016-03-29 00:05:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did that to get twice the tax. They know a family can't afford to pay for health insurance in the first place so their not going to be able to deduct anything. It's just another tax to not raising taxes and most of the people really believe it's raining and it's piss in their ear
2007-01-24 00:02:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we need health care & tax breaks, if not we all pay for them both in the long run.
2007-01-23 23:58:52 · answer #4 · answered by yawhosucs 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is great. Now people can put their money where their mouth is. You wanted universal coverage for the poor, well now pay for it!
2007-01-23 23:53:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but who says its going to cost that much anyway? The UK provides comprehensive health care at less cost than the USA.
2007-01-23 23:52:41 · answer #6 · answered by skip 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i will be delighted to pay my share for the weak and downtrodden whatever it is. praise jesus!
2007-01-23 23:52:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No way.
2007-01-23 23:50:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hell no!
2007-01-23 23:58:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋