OBAMACARE, The Tax.. [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

afchic

06-29-2012, 10:32

Ok, if it is a tax... then why doesn't the House lower the tax to 0% under budget reconciliation - then all you need is 51 senators to vote for it (under Senate rules they cannot filibuster a budget reconciliation)!?!

What likely will happen is the House will vote for full repeal on the 11th of July and the vote will be pretty much along party lines.

Republican Governors will take a page from Obama's play book and refuse to comply with the ruling, stating they will wait until after the election to see how it plays out.

If Romney wins the election, he will use another page from Obama's playbook and simply state that by eexecutive order, he will not be enforcing the provisions of Obamacare.

If Republicans Keep the House, and can get a 51/49 Majority in the Senate, the House will vote to repeal and send it to the Senate. Because this is now a tax, the law can be voted on under Reconciliation in the Senate, and the Republikcans can block a fillibuster, andvote for repeal as well, then send it to the POTUS' desk for signature.

I give it less than a month, if the Republicans can sweep the board.

JJ_BPK

06-29-2012, 10:36

I give it less than a month, if the Republicans can sweep the board.

I like the way you think... :lifter

JimP

06-29-2012, 12:37

Concur with AFCHIC. And, YES, I DO think that this opinion means they can tax anything they want. The key is excercise power via ballot. Vote the bastards out.

Anyways, if I have to pay for the healthcare of some porcine fat bastige, I want them out PT'ing with me and eating nothing more than I eat. Yesterday, it was 103 at Scott AFB. I was the only one running the airfield. I expect that shit to end if we have to pay for a bunch of 4-fried-chicking-eating-fat-bodies.

Dozer523

06-29-2012, 12:46

Yesterday, it was 103 at Scott AFB. I was the only one running the airfield. :DOh boo hoo. :D
I was swimming laps at the pool. Got the same cardio without the sweat.

Scott has an awesome outdoor pool and it's empty most of the mornings.

Mav

06-29-2012, 12:58

Why worry about health when we (approx. 50% of us) will be taxed to death.

King George III would be enjoying our latest fiasco.

:D

JimP

06-29-2012, 13:16

Dozer - even as a graduate of Key West, I usually get exhausted by my two little hoodlums wanting to roughhouse in the pool. They swim like fish!! I'm bummed they closed the Essex pool - that's only a block from the hootch.

cjwils3

06-29-2012, 13:51

Why worry about health when we (approx. 50% of us) will be taxed to death.

King George III would be enjoying our latest fiasco.

I'd take "Farmer George" and his geniune love of country and family any day over the current administration....

Snaquebite

06-29-2012, 14:19

Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
Bert Atkinson Jr. June 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law

More here...
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

MR2

06-29-2012, 14:47

If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY)

Ben Swann Reality Check breaks down the Affordable Care Act ruling by the Supreme Court and looks at why the determination that the law is a tax, may make it invalid.

JJ_BPK

06-29-2012, 14:57

Didn't this come up when barry-care was voted on??

That if it doesn't originate in the Congress it is not a valid law?? :confused:

Sigaba

06-29-2012, 16:16

And this is why our founding fathers only enfranchised landowners and merchants, what are now termed viable economic units. Give the vote to the mass of unwashed, unmotivated, untalented masses and they will vote themselves a well undeserved raise.:munchinIIRC, the founders also voted themselves a raise by: the nationalizing war debts incurred by individual states, perpetuating human slavery through the three-fifths clause, protecting of that institution by making it the federal government's responsibility to "suppress insurrections," and by limiting opportunities for other types of professions (such as soldiers) to come to the table of power as fully vested stakeholders.

My point is that when we celebrate the idealism and vision of the founders, we should not forget that they were also mortal men motivated by self-interest and not beyond using the mechanisms of government to advance those interests. (When the founders warned each other--and us--about the corrupting nature of power, were they just talking about the British and pointing fingers at their opponents in America, or were they also tacitly acknowledging their own traits and how those traits could easily become flaws?)

Pete

06-29-2012, 16:33

All I know is that lots of Folks are running around talking about all this "Free Health Care" that is fixin' to be all over the place..................

And meanwhile the President is fixin' to veto a defense bill because it doesn't hike up my Tri Care payment.

"Free" sure costs me money out of my wallet.

GratefulCitizen

06-29-2012, 18:50

Nothing new.
75 years ago, the SCOTUS ruled that social security was just a tax.

Back then, it was also "insurance".
Funny, they seem to be able to change the "premium" when politically convenient and regardless of actuarial realities (just like a tax!).

Taxes (by any name), deficits, debts, and earmarks are just smoke and mirrors.
Money isn't real; goods and services are real.

Dusty

06-29-2012, 19:13

GratefulCitizen

06-29-2012, 19:32

What you say may be true, but the issue to me and many others is the blatant dishonesty displayed in the transaction.

It's all blatantly dishonest.
The congress, through the spending of fiat currency, has the power to confiscate a percentage of the economy at will.

All of this tax, deficit, earmark, and "balanced budgets" stuff is complete bull.
It's all just a game with the express purpose of deception.

This deception is designed to take advantage of people's misunderstanding of money.
The goal is to harness the productivity of the people.

Various taxes, subsidies, health care and other programs are just carrots and sticks.
The power to spend is the harness; elections are the bit.

Dusty

06-29-2012, 19:33

It's all blatantly dishonest.
The congress, through the spending of fiat currency, has the power to confiscate a percentage of the economy at will.

All of this tax, deficit, earmark, and "balanced budgets" stuff is complete bull.
It's all just a game with the express purpose of deception.

This deception is designed to take advantage of people's misunderstanding of money.
The goal is to harness the productivity of the people.

Various taxes, subsidies, health care and other programs are just carrots and sticks.
The power to spend is the harness; elections are the bit.

Well spoken.

Team Sergeant

06-29-2012, 19:35

Glad to see socialism in America is progressing well. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

tonyz

06-29-2012, 20:03

"What we are left with is a health care law that is a nothing more than a $4 billion tax on the American people, mostly the middle class, and that’s killing jobs, increasing the deficit, and drowning our health care system in a sea of bureaucracy and regulations. And, as we know from the Court’s opinion, the law was sold to the American people based on false claims that the individual mandate is not a tax."

I submit that AG Bondi makes some valid points.

Sarski

06-29-2012, 21:22

...
(When the founders warned each other--and us--about the corrupting nature of power, were they just talking about the British and pointing fingers at their opponents in America, or were they also tacitly acknowledging their own traits and how those traits could easily become flaws?)

I would answer yes, and yes. I just don't think they invisioned that power turned against the country, by one individual, who holds the highest seat, set to destroy the very premise on which it is supposed to function, versus the standard greed, corruption, abuse of power for personal gain, supression of freedoms, and so on.

Paslode

06-29-2012, 21:51

I would answer yes, and yes. I just don't think they invisioned that power turned against the country, by one individual, who holds the highest seat, set to destroy the very premise on which it is supposed to function, versus the standard greed, corruption, abuse of power for personal gain, supression of freedoms, and so on.

I would say more than one individual is involved and it takes more than one person to ruin a country. I mean if a large majority of both houses wanted, they could evict The One and his apparatus. They could stop the banking scams, healthcare, immigration, the Border, etc.

But they haven't and they don't.....because they are in on the greedy game as well.

The only standard of greed is that there is never enough, thus the greedy will feast until there is nothing left to feast on.

Sarski

06-29-2012, 22:11

I would say more than one individual is involved and it takes more than one person to ruin a country. I mean if a large majority of both houses wanted, they could evict The One and his apparatus. They could stop the banking scams, healthcare, immigration, the Border, etc.

But they haven't and they don't.....because they are in on the greedy game as well.

The only standard of greed is that there is never enough, thus the greedy will feast until there is nothing left to feast on.

Agreed, Paslode. But I think the idea had to start somewhere, and then blanks filled in along the way. The "right" people picked for the job(s), and realization of a plan of destruction of the foundation built by the forefathers delegated.

As far as evicting The One, it would all depend on just how much power we are talking about, because the power that comes to light and that we see is what we are talking about. I'm about 99.99% certain there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in terms of this power that we do not see.

Mr Furious

06-30-2012, 05:54

I am going to be upfront before comment and disclose that our company is an active member and supporter of NFIB. As most are aware, it was NFIB that took this law to the SCOTUS.

As an employer, after direct labor, the greatest cost impact to us is bundled in the form of tax and insurance. Think about the far reaching effects of this new tax; not just the immediate costs but the correlating programs it will have an effect on. Right now our largest federal expenditure is social welfare programs at over 40% of the annual budget; it is a significant portion of our GDP. We have FICA where the employee and employer currently pay 6.2% each. Medicare as a separate tax where the employee and employer pay 1.45% each. Medicaid that is rolled into federal and state taxes levied on employees and employers, and consumes on an average of 20% of a state’s annual budget.

Medicare is projected to double in the next 10 years and reach $1T in annual expenditures. Do you think that Medicare tax will stay at its current rate of 3%? After the latest recession, the new projected figures put social security assets exhausted by 2036. Do you think FICA will stay at its current tax rate of 12.4%?

Now we have our government, the same one who can’t balance a budget and extends the debt ceiling to avoid default broadening their powers in the healthcare industry. The tax burden implemented by ACA is going to be shared by employer and employees. Early indications are that some insurers will keep some of the early, popular benefits such as the requirement that dependents can remain on parents' policies until age 26 and prohibitions on rescission of policies. These early benefits increased premiums roughly 2-3%, but it appears that they are here to stay. Insurers will have to increase premiums for provisions that begin in 2014 - community rating, guaranteed issue, essential health benefits, and the small business health insurance tax. Insurance providers do not absorb these costs; they pass them along to individuals and businesses in the form of higher premiums. Think about that, it is a separate cost and issue from the taxes we are discussing. Furthermore, we aren’t even including federal and state unemployment taxes and other required insurance in these figures.

Soon enough, half of your gross check will be owned by government mandates alone. Our children will never know a difference as they will enter the workforce when this is all considered the norm. November cannot come fast enough for me.

tonyz

06-30-2012, 09:46

Soon enough, half of your gross check will be owned by government mandates alone. Our children will never know a difference as they will enter the workforce when this is all considered the norm. November cannot come fast enough for me.

So true.

Then add sales and use taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, etc.,...these additional taxes add up annually - in addition to payment, the cost of compliance for a small business, in time and treasure can add up...throw in an audit - and defending that...

We need only look at Greece and California to see the probable outcome of such irresponsible, big government, tax and spend policies.

Go Devil

06-30-2012, 10:04

Soon enough, half of your gross check will be owned by government mandates alone. Our children will never know a difference as they will enter the workforce when this is all considered the norm. November cannot come fast enough for me.

You can't vote yourself out of this.

Politicians (from the President>southward) are the crusted cheese foreskin of banking cartels.

(1VB)compforce

06-30-2012, 14:53

As an employer, after direct labor, the greatest cost impact to us...

Source (http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010) for all of my new tax numbers

There's another long term effect that hasn't been discussed by the media or here. The plight of the new business. It's well known that an early stage startup's growth is constrained by cash flow. Companies like mine can only grow when our cash flow is positive enough that we can get enough money in the bank to float several months of the expense of a new employee. We push ourselves hard to do as much as we can while we get our cash flow up.

Let's take an example: If a hypothetical startup had employees whose total compensation (without health care) was $48,000 each (to make for round numbers), then the company would have to have at least $4,000 X 3 months =$12,000 cash in the bank on top of the monthly fixed and operating expenses before they would be in a position to create that new job.

Now enter Obamacare (OC). There is a clause in OC that says that we are on the hook for health care when we have 50 employees. If we don't, we are fined $2,000 per employee. If one of those employees participates in the state exchange, it goes to $3,000 for that employee, EVEN IF YOU OFFER A HEALTH PLAN.

So what is the net effect? In planning to hire the first 49 employees, it's business as usual. But when the company is ready to hire employee number 50, the cash requirement is NOT $4,000. It's at least $154,000. $4,000 for the employee's normal compensation PLUS 50 (employees) X $3,000 = $150,000. Even if you take best case, which no employer would use, it's $104,000 to hire that employee. Right now you're thinking that a company with 50 employees should be able to afford this cost. This is true in the case of high margin, low effort industries like software and mobile app development. For those low margin, high effort industries like research and development or manufacturing, it is rare for a company to have $150,000 in the bank at the point where they have 50 employees. A pretty famous case is Home Depot, who was in business for several years and had over 100 employees before the founders could afford to pay themselves a salary. (edited because I couldn't find the specific source for the Home Depot numbers Here's their story (http://www.frantarkenton.com/component/content/article/54/335-even-home-depot-was-once-a-startup))

As it stands now, entrepreneurs fight for expansion capital every day in order to hire employees. We can't get it from the banks any more so now we have to give away a part of the company in the capital markets to a private equity firm in order to get the funding to expand. But OC also includes a raise in the tax on dividends from 15% to 43.4% which means that, for the private equity firm to make money, they have to take a much larger piece of the company because the risk of not getting to a good exit is not mitigated by dividends in the interim. Where before they might have, based on valuation, taken 20%, now they will need 45% or more to get the same internal rate of return (IRR).

Here's how I think this all turns out... Two years from now (2014 tax season) when the taxes kick in, small startups will either stay smaller than 50 employees deliberately to maximize their profits or they will stay smaller than 50 employees for much longer while they amass the capital to cover that 50th hire. Some companies that already have more than 50 employees will do the math and find out that they would make more money if they cut to under 50 and will have layoffs. The independent contractor market will grow exponentially as that will be how companies continue to grow most cost effectively. This overwhelming supply of contractors will necessarily cause professional services rates to drop precipitously starting in 2015 and businesses that provide services on an as-needed basis will take over the market. Overall this will lower tax revenue as the companies making more than $250,000 will lose market share to the influx of low cost providers. IPOs will also become less common and less lucrative as the dividend tax will surpass income tax making it a better financial move to stay private unless Facebook or Google sized offerings are expected.

Ultimately, the result will be extremely high unemployment and, taking the upcoming inflation and health premium increases into account, a large increase in the number of households earning less than the official poverty level.

I seriously hope Romney wins and can effectively get this law repealed. If not, we are looking at an upcoming situation that is perfect ground for government to step in, declare an emergency and turn us into a socialist society as very few will be able to survive without government assistance.

Paslode

06-30-2012, 15:27

As far as evicting The One, it would all depend on just how much power we are talking about, because the power that comes to light and that we see is what we are talking about. I'm about 99.99% certain there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in terms of this power that we do not see.

That is true. If he and his apparatus have been allowed to accumulate enough power, then the handlers that put them in office could lose control and we could have a dictator.

Sigaba

06-30-2012, 15:38

@(1VB)compforce--

I would like to raise questions about some points you made in your eloquent post.

First, is it valid to assume that industries will not find ways to adapt to the new rules of the game? The future scenario you present is based upon a set of "current conditions." What happens if politicians in Washington, D.C. trade some horses and say "Okay, we need to empower the private sector to make the health care legislation work"? What happens if (when/if) banks bring to market products geared towards the scenario you present? What if investors put their money (and trust) into small businesses as part of broader plans to get in on the ground floor of the "next big thing"? What if owners of small businesses collaborate across industries to find loopholes and practices that allow them to get that 50th employee without breaking their backs? For instance, two software companies sharing a building in which a third provides administrative and operational support, and a fourth provides HR services?

Second, I question your evaluation of software development as high margin / low effort enterprise and r&d as low margin / high effort. I worked for a software firm that went from being an R&D lab to being a software development company. I saw just about every piece of paper related to accounts payable/accounts receivable and had a front row seat on the business side of the building). I have done R&D work for a structural engineering consultancy. These experiences fit into the analysis of R&D that The Economist published c. 2005ish. Namely, R&D is not very profitable. And, for that matter, neither is a certain niche of the software industry. (Which is much of the reason why I'm sitting here and not elsewhere. But that was years ago, and I am as not bitter now as I was not bitter then.)

Third, I question your contention that there will be a boom in the IC market. it is my understanding (again, based upon my own experiences) that the IC market is on the ropes--at least in comparison to the 1990s and first decade of this century. Too many firms tried to use ICs to keep costs down and the federal has government cracked down on this hard. I don't see how the IC market could boom as it once did because of the heightened level of scrutiny and the ongoing economic crisis and firms being unwilling to take this risk.

This is not to say that my experiences trump yours. I am merely suggesting that the fact that our experiences differ so drastically, that maybe the environment is more complex--if not also dynamic--and that this complexity will provide opportunities to entrepreneurial-minded Americans who bring to market products and services that will address the issues you, and others, have raised.

My $0.02.

The Reaper

06-30-2012, 15:47

Who's to say that today's 50 employee limit will not become 40, or even less tomorrow?

Uncertainty is not good for business, or the market.

I don't see small business and the related job numbers imnproving till the madness has subsided and sanity returns.

Vote in November for change.

TR

(1VB)compforce

06-30-2012, 16:02

@(1VB)compforce--

I would like to raise questions about some points you made in your eloquent post.

First, is it valid to assume that industries will not find ways to adapt to the new rules of the game?

Industries will always find ways to adapt. I question whether they will find ways to adapt in time to avoid my scenario.

The future scenario you present is based upon a set of "current conditions." What happens if politicians in Washington, D.C. trade some horses and say "Okay, we need to empower the private sector to make the health care legislation work"?

Valid point. The issue that I have is that Washington doesn't care about businesses that have less than $5MM in revenue. Even the partnership created through the jobs act to assist startups, Startup America, had their director state flat out in an interview (I'll see if I can find a link) that their focus wasn't on early stage startups and that they were focused on companies that had made it to the proverbial J-curve.

What happens if (when/if) banks bring to market products geared towards the scenario you present?

They haven't had any products like that since the Dot-Com bubble in the 90's. Too much risk for the banks.

What if investors put their money (and trust) into small businesses as part of broader plans to get in on the ground floor of the "next big thing"?

They do that now. One of the problems is that the cost of doing so is going to nearly triple for the investor.

What if owners of small businesses collaborate across industries to find loopholes and practices that allow them to get that 50th employee without breaking their backs? For instance, two software companies sharing a building in which a third provides administrative and operational support, and a fourth provides HR services?

That's the current model for both outsourcing and cloud computing. It still has all of the same problems, just delayed, but a multiplied impact when it happens.

Second, I question your evaluation of software development as high margin / low effort enterprise and r&d as low margin / high effort. I worked for a software firm that went from being an R&D lab to being a software development company. I saw just about every piece of paper related to accounts payable/accounts receivable and had a front row seat on the business side of the building). I have done R&D work for a structural engineering consultancy. These experiences fit into the analysis of R&D that The Economist published c. 2005ish. Namely, R&D is not very profitable. And, for that matter, neither is a certain niche of the software industry. (Which is much of the reason why I'm sitting here and not elsewhere. But that was years ago, and I am as not bitter now as I was not bitter then.)

With the shift to mobile application development and the new toolkits out there, you can go from idea to app on the market in less than a month. When I say effort, I meant in terms of number of employees. Software development shops tend to have less than 20 employees now until they are able to cross the sales threshold that makes them successful. I'm not doubting your experiences, just seeing trends that change the metrics. I wrote an article The IT Hiring Model is Dying (http://blog.dba-in-a-box.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=17) discussing how the trend is changing. Add in cloud computing and the resulting reduction in required infrastructure for IT projects and you can have a software development company where everyone is either sales or developers. It doesn't take but two or three people to build a profitable software company now.

Third, I question your contention that there will be a boom in the IC market. it is my understanding (again, based upon my own experiences) that the IC market is on the ropes--at least in comparison to the 1990s and first decade of this century. Too many firms tried to use ICs to keep costs down and the federal has government cracked down on this hard. I don't see how the IC market could boom as it once did because of the heightened level of scrutiny and the ongoing economic crisis and firms being unwilling to take this risk.

If you agree that a person working at a company is either an employee or a contractor, the natural result of the "penalty" for hiring employees is that the company shifts to an all outsourced model. ICs for things that have to be done in-house and service based companies for everything else.

This is not to say that my experiences trump yours. I am merely suggesting that the fact that our experiences differ so drastically, that maybe the environment is more complex--if not also dynamic--and that this complexity will provide opportunities to entrepreneurial-minded Americans who bring to market products and services that will address the issues you, and others, have raised.

My $0.02.

I'm not saying that my experience is any better or worse than yours. It's an opinion and we are both entitled to our own. You definitely brought up valid points.

What is your take on the future impact of OC to early stage startups?

Sigaba

06-30-2012, 17:03

I'm not saying that my experience is any better or worse than yours. It's an opinion and we are both entitled to our own. You definitely brought up valid points.I certainly hope my questions didn't come across as johnson measuring.:o I just saw on your profile that you're a programmer and wanted to establish myself as having a POV based upon experience.

One thing attributing to our differing perspectives is that you're working in an environment where you have fewer layers between the work you and end users. By contrast, the company I worked for was in an industry (cable television) where clients, partners, and third parties could simultaneously be your best friend and worst enemy depending upon the specific issue.
What is your take on the future impact of OC to early stage startups?As I said a few years back, I am of the view that the president's plan is to push the economy in directions where it will provide more work for technocrats and urbanists. IMO, OC is not only going to add to the existing bloat of the federal bureaucracy, it is going to lead to a niche industry in the private sector centered around OC compliance. In both cases, good times ahead for technocrats who can count the beans and build data bases.

My spit balling in some of my recent posts is about finding ways for us to make sure we play a pivotal role in how this niche industry unfolds. IMO, it provides a great opportunity to undermine the political ideology of the president's supporters. (Imagine, if you would, the fall out if the implementation of OC leads to the growth of a Wal-Mart-type company.)

One thing is for sure. I didn't think anyone could make me miss the 1970s until our current president got elected.

(Damn. I am bitter. I know what will help me get my perspective back on track <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCk3bnvO5Y)>>.)Who's to say that today's 50 employee limit will not become 40, or even less tomorrow?

Uncertainty is not good for business, or the market.

I don't see small business and the related job numbers improving till the madness has subsided and sanity returns.

Vote in November for change.

TRTR--

My concern is that the opposition has already started to craft a powerful counter narrative. That is, what is causing the uncertainty is the unwillingness of the president's opponents to accept the "will of the people" and to move on. And the reason why there aren't jobs is because the private sectors have learned that they can make more money by cutting expenses to the bone and squeezing more work out of staff.

I think the last place we should be is in a position in which we've gotten labeled as "The Party of 'No'" or "The Party That Says 'Can't Do.'"

I augur that those would be hard soundbites to overcome this fall.

My $0.02.

Sarski

06-30-2012, 17:29

Ultimately, the result will be extremely high unemployment and, taking the upcoming inflation and health premium increases into account, a large increase in the number of households earning less than the official poverty level.

That, and considering the main reason a person or persons might start a business is to make a decent income for themselves. In the long run, this takes away, cutting, bit by bit, from what might have been profit, and income for that individual or group that starts a business.

It will take even longer to establish a small business, longer than the two to four years normally given. It will take longer for that owner to take a salary (as in the case you present for Home Depot), and what they do get to keep will be miniscule.

This is a serious deterent to entrepreneurship, the American Dream, and IMHO we will see less and less folks willing to jump into business ownership given those numbers.

The Reaper

06-30-2012, 17:34

TR--

My concern is that the opposition has already started to craft a powerful counter narrative. That is, what is causing the uncertainty is the unwillingness of the president's opponents to accept the "will of the people" and to move on. And the reason why there aren't jobs is because the private sectors have learned that they can make more money by cutting expenses to the bone and squeezing more work out of staff.

I think the last place we should be is in a position in which we've gotten labeled as "The Party of 'No'" or "The Party That Says 'Can't Do.'"

I augur that those would be hard soundbites to overcome this fall.

My $0.02.

Too late.

All who oppose the POTUS and his failed policies are racists.

Welcome to the club! :D

TR

(1VB)compforce

06-30-2012, 17:41

This is a serious deterent to entrepreneurship, the American Dream, and IMHO we will see less and less folks willing to jump into business ownership given those numbers.

Exactly, and given that, according to statistics often quoted by Startup America CEO Scott Case, ALL net new jobs come from companies in their first five years in business, we never recover from the current unemployment levels and over time employment continues to erode. Unless government steps in to stop the erosion and dilutes their own potential power at the same time.

Pete

06-30-2012, 17:50

The beast must be fed.

Do not expect it to let the little fish go in hopes they will come back bigger.

It will just use a net with a smaller mesh until there is nothing left in the sea.

Dusty

06-30-2012, 17:50

Exactly, and given that, according to statistics often quoted by Startup America CEO Scott Case, ALL net new jobs come from companies in their first five years in business, we never recover from the current unemployment levels and over time employment continues to erode. Unless government steps in to stop the erosion and dilutes their own potential power at the same time.

As soon as a Conservative in the vein of Ronaldo Magnifico is elected POTUS, and repubs own both sides of Congress, all this bullshit will start to clear up.

Quit worrying about it. The only thing you can do is vote for Romney, and convince as many others as you can to do the same.

Sarski

06-30-2012, 17:52

Exactly, and given that, according to statistics often quoted by Startup America CEO Scott Case, ALL net new jobs come from companies in their first five years in business, we never recover from the current unemployment levels and over time employment continues to erode. Unless government steps in to stop the erosion and dilutes their own potential power at the same time.

Then, if that is the case, what is being taxed is actually less, and less. All the while inflation sends prices upward. What the government is actually able to take in, in the form of taxes will continue to shrink, no matter how high they raise taxes.

Could you imagine this scenario coupled with the $8.00+ dollar a gallon gasoline Obama invisions?

(1VB)compforce

06-30-2012, 17:56

I certainly hope my questions didn't come across as johnson measuring. I just saw on your profile that you're a programmer and wanted to establish myself as having a POV based upon experience.

I didn't take it as anything other than honest debate. I also hope you take my answers the same way. As an aside, I'm not really programming any longer. Now I own a business that provides outsourcing services in the database administration niche. I built this business when I noticed the trend moving towards outsourcing/cloud services.

As I said a few years back, I am of the view that the president's plan is to push the economy in directions where it will provide more work for technocrats and urbanists. IMO, OC is not only going to add to the existing bloat of the federal bureaucracy, it is going to lead to a niche industry in the private sector centered around OC compliance. In both cases, good times ahead for technocrats who can count the beans and build data bases.

yup... There's a piece of OC that forces some requirements on businesses that will provide a very nice niche if I can get far enough ahead to put in some development time.

My spit balling in some of my recent posts is about finding ways for us to make sure we play a pivotal role in how this niche industry unfolds. IMO, it provides a great opportunity to undermine the political ideology of the president's supporters.

To undermine their ideology, you have to make emotional appeals that get the masses thinking with their hearts and not their heads. That's the key to the whole left's success. Combatting emotion with facts is a doomed strategy. Facts can only overcome other facts. Just look at the entire sales industry and the psychology of sales. (There's some pretty good material to be found in Sales Training tapes/cd's Think Brian Tracy and Zig Ziglar...)

(Imagine, if you would, the fall out if the implementation of OC leads to the growth of a Wal-Mart-type company.)

Dangerous thinking, it would validate Obama's plan from the perspective of the masses.

BTW, I post stream of consciousness so if something comes across harsh, I probably didn't mean it unless it is a direct statement to someone.

Paragrouper

06-30-2012, 18:40

who already receive a health plan;

first consider this-"Businesses paid an average of $12,680 for every family health plan they provided to employees in 2008, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. Workers' annual contributions to these plans was an average of $3,354 in 2008, the study said."

Sources are here (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1865012), and here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122221225991369069.html) both of which were researched here (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/Employer-Health-Insurance-Costs-and-Worker-Compensation.cfm) and here (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/06/art3full.pdf)

Now, armed with these facts, go talk to your employer and ask him "since the fine from the government is far less than the cost of my health plan, will you continue to offer me health insurance after 2014?"

Bosses really dig this question, trust me.

Please remember to vote.

Sigaba

06-30-2012, 18:44

Too late.

All who oppose the POTUS and his failed policies are racists.

Welcome to the club! :D

TRThen it seems that I've taken to drinking vodka at the appropriate time!

I didn't take it as anything other than honest debate. I also hope you take my answers the same way. [SNIP] BTW, I post stream of consciousness so if something comes across harsh, I probably didn't mean it unless it is a direct statement to someone.No, I didn't. And, FWIW, I sometimes use that stream of consciousness style myself.

yup... There's a piece of OC that forces some requirements on businesses that will provide a very nice niche if I can get far enough ahead to put in some development time. I think the president's core assumption for his pie-in-the-sky master plan is that if the economy is booming and people are working productively, and making a nice living, Americans won't mind paying taxes to fund a federal bureaucracy that redistributes wealth by subsidizing a variety of social services.

Under this plan, Americans would be tempted to let things ride rather than asking tough questions about the appropriate balance between pragmatism and principle. He knows that this plan can work because Clinton used it.

I never thought I'd get to the point where someone would make me miss the 1990s.

Richard

07-01-2012, 11:13

Here's MoveOn's tack:

Today's Supreme Court health care ruling is a huge victory for people power. Even when millions of dollars are spent against us, we can win!

Millions of people—our neighbors, our parents, our kids—will keep their health care thanks to this decision.

But Mitt Romney has sworn to repeal Obamacare, so today's victory would turn into a defeat if Romney is elected. And Republicans have said they will end Obamacare and Medicare.

This amazing Supreme Court decision makes the stakes this November even higher. The Romney campaign raised $100,000 within minutes of the decision, and the Koch brothers just announced that they're launching a $9 million ad campaign against Obamacare.

Romney has no reasonable plan for affordable health care. He refuses to cover everyone with a pre-existing condition,2 even though polls say that 85% of Americans disagree with him.3 He says, "I want to get health care to act more like a consumer market, meaning like the things we deal with everyday in our lives—the purchases of tires, of automobiles, of air filters."4

So, if Romney and his rich friends get sick, they'll go to fancy doctors, and if the rest of us are lucky, we'll go to Sears. That's Romney's vision of America, with perks and privileges for the wealthiest 1%, and living in fear of not being able to afford a doctor for the 99%.

The scary thing is that Romney and President Obama are deadlocked in key swing states.5 We've got to get the truth out right now, while voters are still making up their minds.

That's why we're aggressively campaigning against Romney. You've probably already seen the extensive media coverage—we've been flying banner-toting planes over his rallies and shadowing his bus tour with our own Romneymobile. And MoveOn members are reaching out to more than 10,000 potential progressive voters a day, helping them register to vote.

If we can raise enough money this week, we're ready to produce a new round of hard-hitting TV ads that make sure everyone knows Romney would roll back our hard-earned health care victory. We'll also build new technology to turbocharge our voter registration project, and do so much more.

It's gonna be a long summer.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Team Sergeant

07-01-2012, 11:19

Here's MoveOn's tack:

It's gonna be a long summer.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

It's already been a very long 3 1/2 years.......

I can't wait to see the look on the Teleprompter Reader of the United States face when Mitt Romney repeals the OBAMACARE Tax.
The federal government needs to stay out of the peoples "choices".

Sarski

07-01-2012, 11:26

Seems that even Justice Roberts has it all wrong. And by the way, the debate is over, according to White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew.

The White House insisted Sunday the consequence for Americans not having health insurance is a penalty fee, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is a tax, and said the debate on the Affordable Care Act should finally end.

White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on "Fox News Sunday" that “when the Supreme Court rules” the country “has a final decision” and that the presidential campaigns should focus on the economy and jobs.

“What we need to do is go forward with the implementation” of the law, Lew said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/01/white-house-says-health-care-penalty-not-tax-debate-is-over/#ixzz1zOPyzwBN

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/01/white-house-says-health-care-penalty-not-tax-debate-is-over/

Dusty

07-01-2012, 11:29

lol The Obama crowd has no idea how bad this shit is gonna backfire on it's ass. :D

This will be worse than "Read my lips..."

greenberetTFS

07-02-2012, 08:27

Just another Tax!..........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

BryanK

07-02-2012, 10:10

Just another Tax!..........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

These pictures have been popping up everywhere. Here's a couple good ones I saw this morning :D

Badger52

07-02-2012, 10:25

LINK to full FoxNews story. (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/07/01/gov-scott-florida-will-not-implement-insurance-exchanges-or-expand-medicare)

Scott claims Medicaid has been growing in Florida at three-and-half times the state's general revenue. He calls the law the "biggest job killer ever" and says Floridians cannot afford the $1.9 billion dollar increase he believes the law will cost.

Gov. Scott doesn't believe the law will go into effect in 2014. As a result, he's also not expanding his state's Medicaid program. And he says Florida can do without the federal money it will lose.

"That's still Florida taxpayers paying that," he said. "It's not like there's free federal money. Every program cuts back and you create this dependency and then they cut back like they did with our schools."

Scott claims he is not alone. He says other Republican governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are with him.

ETA: Stossel had a pretty good take on POTUS' speech (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/06/29/obamas-victory-speech-translated) after running it thru his KL-7.

GratefulCitizen

07-02-2012, 15:30

I think the president's core assumption for his pie-in-the-sky master plan is that if the economy is booming and people are working productively, and making a nice living, Americans won't mind paying taxes to fund a federal bureaucracy that redistributes wealth by subsidizing a variety of social services.

Exactly.
He doesn't seem to realize that people adjust their behavior based on what they perceive the consequences will be.

If their is too much uncertainty, businesses will hunker down and wait until the rules are written in pen rather than pencil.
A recent article illustrating the idea: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/a_cautionary_tale.html

Furthermore, any funding scheme which attempts to soak the rich won't work because they have the most financial flexibility.
An article illustrating the idea: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/one-simple-reason-and-two-easy-steps-to-show-why-obamas-soak-the-rich-tax-hikes-wont-work/

GratefulCitizen

07-02-2012, 16:09

As it stands now, entrepreneurs fight for expansion capital every day in order to hire employees. We can't get it from the banks any more so now we have to give away a part of the company in the capital markets to a private equity firm in order to get the funding to expand. But OC also includes a raise in the tax on dividends from 15% to 43.4% which means that, for the private equity firm to make money, they have to take a much larger piece of the company because the risk of not getting to a good exit is not mitigated by dividends in the interim. Where before they might have, based on valuation, taken 20%, now they will need 45% or more to get the same internal rate of return (IRR).

This is where some dirty tricks are happening.
A perverse incentive system is being set up in order for governments to cover their tracks on spending.

When Basel III starts kicking in, the risk-weighting rules incentivize banks into buying government debt.
This drives down servicing costs for governments, which, if combined with just a little inflation, is a pretty effective stealth tax on savers (accumulaters of capital...).

When the private market and foreign governments eschew US debt, the fed buys it.
Normally, this would cause all sorts of high inflation problems.

However, the fed learned a new trick.
They pay interest on bank reserves.

So the fed creates all sorts of money in order to suppress yields on government debt.
Then they pay banks not to lend that money in order to keep inflation under control.

The government gets negative real interest rates on its debt (stealth tax/default).
The banks get to quietly recapitalize (stealth bailout).

The misallocation of actual resources (goods and services) has already happened.
It cannot be undone.

All of these financial shenanigans are just a way to stick someone with the bill.

kgoerz

07-02-2012, 17:00

It's already been a very long 3 1/2 years.......

I can't wait to see the look on the Teleprompter Reader of the United States face when Mitt Romney repeals the OBAMACARE Tax.
The federal government needs to stay out of the peoples "choices".

If the poles do start showing a big Romney lead as the election gets closer. I see Obama doing something extreme to try and win. With no thought as to it's effect on us. Can't wait to see the liberal out cry if he loses. They don't seem to take losing as well as the Republicans, thats for sure.

JJ_BPK

07-02-2012, 17:12

I see Obama doing something extreme to try and win.

I think it's already in the bag,, or tote,, or bowl.. Whatever..

kgoerz

07-02-2012, 17:30

I think it's already in the bag,, or tote,, or bowl.. Whatever..

Joking aside, that would land him a tremendous amount of Votes.

tonyz

07-05-2012, 12:49

and it won't increase business costs to analyze and comply...now if you want some real fiction supposedly read some of Obama's writings. Just sayin'...

This phony has got to go in November election.

Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, July 5, 2012, 12:37 AM

Gateway Pundit

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/

VVVV

07-05-2012, 13:41

Didn't Romney put a similar plan in effect in Massachusetts a number of years ago?

mark46th

07-05-2012, 16:27

Romney's was in a state, not the entire country. Romney's plan didn't hire 16,000 new IRS agents to ensure compliance nor did it take control of 12% of the economy.

tonyz

07-05-2012, 17:11

Didn't Romney put a similar plan in effect in Massachusetts a number of years ago?

I'm not really sure how similar - how are those MA statutes and regs currently affecting a Florida business? Or any business - other than a Massachusetts business?

The thousands of pages of federal regulations - in addition to numerous pages of federal statute - and the thousands of federal employees required to administer this monstrosity - will hit home for most of us.

That MA thing - not so much.

Badger52

07-08-2012, 07:05

if one has time to nug through it.

The law, however, severely limits the ability of the IRS to collect the penalties. There are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it and the IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.

So how can the IRS enforce the mandate? Scary letters and threats to withhold tax refunds.

The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds to collect the penalty, and most filers get refunds. This year, 77 percent of the 135 million individual income tax returns processed by the IRS qualified for a refund. The average refund: $2,707.

Article here. (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120707/D9VS2E3O0.html)

If true, the millions of Americans who typically get a refund (and sadly rely on it as some type of savings account) need to do a simple thing long overdue. That is to look back over their 1040's and take the time to look at how they can adjust their W4 so that they have no refund coming - but have alot more of their income in their pocket, paycheck to paycheck. Especially since the G does not pay interest for using your money.

With the stat cited that's approx $365,445,000,000 in unnecessary overpayments to the Government.

tonyz

07-08-2012, 08:17

Some more interesting reading - note the date of the article (2010).

One of these authors participated in the filing of a brief with the Supreme Court for the recent Obamacare decision...I think someone might have read it...at least parts of it.

Of Constitutional Decapitation and Healthcare

Steven J. Willis
University of Florida - Fredric G. Levin College of Law

Nakku Chung
affiliation not provided to SSRN

July 10, 2010

Tax Notes, Vol. 128, No. 2, July 12, 2010

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589190

Abstract:
Willis and Chung demonstrate how I.R.C. § 5000A – the HEALTH CARE ACT penalty – is an unapportioned Capitation Tax, violative of U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, Section 9. As they demonstrate, the "penalty" is – at least on its face - a tax. To be a Constitutional tax, it must be an Excise Tax, an Income Tax, or a proportional Capitation Tax. Through the process of elimination, they demonstrate the penalty is none of these.

Others convincingly demonstrate the "penalty" is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. They argue the "penalty" is indeed a penalty and not a tax. Willis and Chung pick up where that argument leaves off: if that argument fails and the Court finds this is a tax, it is an unconstitutional unapportioned Direct Tax.

Despite being labeled an Excise Tax by Congress, the penalty is unlike any existing Excise Tax because it applies to the failure to act by an individual. Existing failure-to-act Excise Taxes differ because they apply to entities which have chosen to partake in particular activities. The provision thus fails the historic requirements of an Excise Tax, namely that it apply to an activity, transaction, or the use of property. The tax also fails the traditional "pass-on" nature of Excise Taxes. If the Court were to approve it as a uniform Excise Tax, the Direct Tax apportionment requirement would be eviscerated.

The penalty similarly fails the 16th AMENDMENT definition of an Income Tax. Not only does it appear not to tax income, it fails to operate as an Income Tax, and it fails the 16th AMENDMENT realization requirement long accepted by the Supreme Court. Willis and Chung dismiss - as unrealistic academic dogma - arguments for ignoring the realization requirement. They acknowledge, but refute, academic arguments criticizing the Pollock and Macomber decisions, as well as arguments for ignoring the CONSTITUTION's Direct Tax apportionment requirement.