good morning folks;
Are you folks doing anything differently [selling this year instead of holding to stocks/bonds] due to new increase in taxations [capital gains +++ extra 3.8% for dividends/capital incomes] in 2013 if you sell after 1/1/2013 attached to the healthcare mandate?
When it's too good to be truth, it's probably not true [in other words, we have to pay for the new health care mandates somehow and it will hurt the small investors/middle income classes like folks @ MFO]. I don't want to touch the politics questions, but you must be very careful about voting this Nov... Less hiring and more taxations/more penalty taxes for ones that don't want to buy HC insurance
Thanks
Comments
A most complex subject; like most anything related to taxes, laws and seeking a utopian society. I used to have about a bazillion links when the healthcare debate first started, and I really read a fair amount of the pre-law wording for particular sections.
You asked: "Are you folks doing anything differently [selling this year instead of holding to stocks/bonds] due to new increase in taxations [capital gains +++ extra 3.8% for dividends/capital incomes] in 2013 if you sell after 1/1/2013 attached to the healthcare mandate?"
>>>>> The question then becomes and do what with your investments? I must also presume your house's income/investments meet certain guidelines.
tax rate ranges
>>>>> Few are aware of; nor has this area had much public disclosure regarding family health plan costs and tax credits beginning in 2014. This area has always been part of the original legislation. Plug in numbers of your choice.
Caluclator
>>>>> We are all paying for something for someone else in some fashion or another. The facts remain that there are and will always remain all of us who will be in or at various levels of the economy. How one may fix this to become the ultimate utopian society is past my level of thinking ablities. The below link is only a reference point and I am not picking on unions in general.
10% more for your UAW vehicle?.
Also to note. When the healthcare plan was passed; within a few months, special conditions were allowed to (my best recall) about 150 large companies who stated they would not be able to maintain health plans for their employees as set forth in the new law. This request was directly to Mr. Obama and the rules were changed for those with the most persausion.
Is there really any fairness to be found in much of anything? Would we not prefer to be sitting in the "big room" at the Fed. Reserve and know what exactly is coming down the road for policy? But, we must await a policy announcment weeks or months later. My, would not one be able to reap the rewards of knowledge so many weeks ahead of 99.8% of everyone else?
Fairness..........a new law is in place from the Republican controlled MI government. An old and poorly formed method of taxing MI businesses was replaced.......and that was good. But, the offset of the lost revenue from business taxes will be offset with a strange set of age based tax rules upon a special sector of the retired population. Duh? Okay, take away more net pension monies and the monies will not be spent back into the ecomomy. The grand plan of course, is that this reduced/cleaned up corp. tax plan will draw bigger businesses to MI. Poo............ The main reason, which still exists in MI for the may auto related companies not moving to MI for the past 20 years; is that those companies don't want to be involved with the unions. Ask the folks in Tenessee, Alabama and the Carolina's. So, a delightful wish and thought in their minds; albeit a strange one from Republicans. Good luck with this to them. I don't find it will do much of anything and the only major work that will arrive in MI is from Federal monies via grants for some magical type of industry.
A sidenote to wages/benefits and tax revenues that have gone bye-bye based upon real estate taxation. Our local school district's June report indicates that 89% percentage of the budget from the tax base is now directed towards wages/benefits. Four percent is allocated to supplies and educational related items for the students. I must also note that the MI gov't has reduced funding to school districts from the general fund of monies available.
Inflation is a nasty and silent tax that most citizens do not regard or think about. Other costs come from any number of areas of a business or service we use. Do I think person "x" is paid too much or has too many benefits that are passed along to me as an added expense? Yup ! Tis everywhere.
Would I think you are paid too much for your education and your skills that you deliver to me as a customer? I may. But, I would have to know the added cost.
As to the healthcare bill. Some parts will be viewed as total crap to some. I will and must agree with this; as I doubt any of us could agree to all areas of any legislation about any topic; and especially related to taxation. I would prefer we not be the cops of the world and take some of that money off the table of debt. However, those buildings the drones an those who built the Tomahawk/Cruise missles would probably disagree. Related to this is what do you presume is the cost back towards your house in medical expenses that related to those without any healthcare coverage and are using the emergency areas of hospitals for their primary care facilities? Do you think these added burdens and costs just vanish into thin air? At the very least, for profit hospitals are writing off the costs and paying a lesser tax to the governments.
Have you calculated what your house's actual cost will be in the form of taxes based upon your investment/household income? Will you have to begin paying in 2013?
Off the stump, as I have to much other work to complete.
Regards,
Catch
The 'penalty tax' statement drives me crazy. The people who choose not to buy insurance are the ones picking "your" pocket now. They don't pay for HC either because they choose to gamble with your money or because they just can't afford it. They basically get HC paid for by you. You and I are the ones paying their premium costs. Isn't that a tax? So the plan would be to supply affordable HC plans for all, not just those lucky enough to have their employer kick in the costs. Take politics out of the equation. Doesn't that sound like a good thing? An quite frankly, most of the people without HC are in that boat not because they choose to be, but because their employer doesn't supply it and their wages are to low to afford it. HC for individuals without employer contributions is out of reach for many Americans.
One thing the administration did very poorly was communicate the benefits of the HC plan, so I see why it's detractors are winning the propaganda battle. It's actually the middle and lower class that will benefit the most from this law, but they don't even realize it. They have heard loud, politically motivated voices saying only that it comes from Obama and it is bad.
There are things in this law that when taken individually, people actually like. Yes, people like being able to keep their kids on their policy for a longer period of time while they become established. Yes they believe an insurance company should not be able to drop your policy or denie you a policy because of pre-medical conditions. Yes, they would like more affordable options if they loose their job. No, they don't think it's fair for people to not pay for HC but still be able to go to hospitals for care - on your money. Yes, they like that physicals and pretests for certain cancers will be free so life threatening problems can be detected in early stages.
So, do we throw it all away and go back to what has not worked, or do we work together to improve this idea, HC for all? Someone has to pay for it. Hey, wait, we are already paying for it! (UNLESS you're a politician, HC is free for them for life - how ironic).