Awesome

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and i don't see a correlation between adding that line now and a tax on the info later. but maybe i'm just being naive in that degree. they already track income before and then income after 401k deposits, even tho the after is the only one to be taxed at the time.

Q-What would the first step be if you (IRS) were going to include benefits as taxable income?

A-Carve out a line on the W-2 for the dollar value of your employers plan.

The IRS doesn't collect information for informational purposes. The Cadillac plans are already going to be taxed. The rest of us are the next step.

[Riot]

Linda Bergthold
Health policy consultant
Posted: July 10, 2010 04:40 PM

Your Health Insurance Will NOT Be Taxed Next Year

There is another email making the rounds that claims that the new health reform law requires that you pay taxes on your employer-sponsored health insurance. It's not true. Politifact rates this email "pants on fire" and Snopes also rates this "false."

The email says the following:

Starting in 2011--next year--the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided. It doesn't matter if you're retired. Your gross income WILL go up by the amount of insurance your employer paid for. So you'll be required to pay taxes on a larger sum of money that you actually received. Take the tax form you just finished for 2009 and see what $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 additional gross income does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it puts you into a much higher bracket. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for fifteen (15) percent that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases, but it's not really a "tax increase" as such, it a redefinition of your taxable income.

Politifact explains why this is not true about as well as anything I could write, including the following explanation (although Politifact does acknowledge that there is one piece of the email that is accurate):

The chain e-mail is correct that employers will be required to start listing the cost of insurance. The requirement starts for the tax year 2011, so employees will see it on the W-2s they receive in 2012.


But that amount will not be taxed. Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that.

Why is this provision in the law? It is there to assist the IRS in determining who has health insurance and who does not, because when health reform is fully implemented, there will be penalties for people who do not have health insurance and increased taxes starting in 2018 for the so-called "cadillac" plans -- plans that have a value above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family policies.

Requiring employers to report the value of the health insurance they provide employees is not a bad idea, by the way. Most people have little idea how much their employer contributes, because they pay only a portion of the premium -- usually around 20 to 30%. The W2 will make it clear just what the value of that insurance is to the employee.

If you want an excellent summary of the provisions of the new law, go to the Kaiser Family Foundation (no relation to Kaiser health plans) website and look at the section on "new taxes." As mentioned above, employer provided health insurance is NOT taxable and the law does NOT change that provision.

There are no fewer than 4,250 "hits" on Google related to the key words "HR3590 and 2011 W 2 forms". Most of these sites repeat the misrepresentation of this provision in exactly the same words as the original email. Few sites question the accuracy of the information and most are fairly hysterical about it. In fact, I was only able to make it through 8 pages of the Google search before I gave up on websites such as well regulated American militias, swamp bubbles, duck south, and divorce forum. So if you receive this email or hear about it -- pass along the accurate information!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Linda Bergthold
Health policy consultant
Posted: July 10, 2010 04:40 PM

Your Health Insurance Will NOT Be Taxed Next Year

There is another email making the rounds that claims that the new health reform law requires that you pay taxes on your employer-sponsored health insurance. It's not true. Politifact rates this email "pants on fire" and Snopes also rates this "false."

The email says the following:



Politifact explains why this is not true about as well as anything I could write, including the following explanation (although Politifact does acknowledge that there is one piece of the email that is accurate):

The chain e-mail is correct that employers will be required to start listing the cost of insurance. The requirement starts for the tax year 2011, so employees will see it on the W-2s they receive in 2012.


But that amount will not be taxed. Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that.

Why is this provision in the law? It is there to assist the IRS in determining who has health insurance and who does not, because when health reform is fully implemented, there will be penalties for people who do not have health insurance and increased taxes starting in 2018 for the so-called "cadillac" plans -- plans that have a value above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family policies.

Requiring employers to report the value of the health insurance they provide employees is not a bad idea, by the way. Most people have little idea how much their employer contributes, because they pay only a portion of the premium -- usually around 20 to 30%. The W2 will make it clear just what the value of that insurance is to the employee.

If you want an excellent summary of the provisions of the new law, go to the Kaiser Family Foundation (no relation to Kaiser health plans) website and look at the section on "new taxes." As mentioned above, employer provided health insurance is NOT taxable and the law does NOT change that provision.

There are no fewer than 4,250 "hits" on Google related to the key words "HR3590 and 2011 W 2 forms". Most of these sites repeat the misrepresentation of this provision in exactly the same words as the original email. Few sites question the accuracy of the information and most are fairly hysterical about it. In fact, I was only able to make it through 8 pages of the Google search before I gave up on websites such as well regulated American militias, swamp bubbles, duck south, and divorce forum. So if you receive this email or hear about it -- pass along the accurate information!

Keywords or comments:
-"Your Health Insurance Will NOT Be Taxed Next Year"
"next year" is just one year

- "Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that."
Yes we know this. But there is nothing to say that it wont be done in the future. 6 months ago, mandatory healthcare wasnt a current law either.

- It is there to assist the IRS in determining who has health insurance and who does not, because when health reform is fully implemented, there will be penalties for people who do not have health insurance and increased taxes starting in 2018 for the so-called "cadillac" plans -- plans that have a value above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family policies.
Remember the "next year" comment above? The information IS going to be used to tax individuals, just not yet. So in 8 years from now a $10200 policy will still be a cadillac plan? ok.

-"employer provided health insurance is NOT taxable and the law does NOT change that provision"
yeah THIS one doesn't but as brian pointed out another one could.

-"There are no fewer than 4,250 "hits" on Google related to the key words "HR3590 and 2011 W 2 forms". Most of these sites repeat the misrepresentation of this provision in exactly the same words as the original email. Few sites question the accuracy of the information and most are fairly hysterical about it. In fact, I was only able to make it through 8 pages of the Google search before I gave up on websites such as well regulated American militias, swamp bubbles, duck south, and divorce forum. So if you receive this email or hear about it -- pass along the accurate information"

Sure only nutjobs are worried that they might be taxed on their benefits because all the sane people trust the IRS to fairly tax them their "just" share.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Keywords or comments:
-"Your Health Insurance Will NOT Be Taxed Next Year"
"next year" is just one year

- "Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that."
Yes we know this. But there is nothing to say that it wont be done in the future. 6 months ago, mandatory healthcare wasnt a current law either.

- It is there to assist the IRS in determining who has health insurance and who does not, because when health reform is fully implemented, there will be penalties for people who do not have health insurance and increased taxes starting in 2018 for the so-called "cadillac" plans -- plans that have a value above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family policies.
Remember the "next year" comment above? The information IS going to be used to tax individuals, just not yet. So in 8 years from now a $10200 policy will still be a cadillac plan? ok.

-"employer provided health insurance is NOT taxable and the law does NOT change that provision"
yeah THIS one doesn't but as brian pointed out another one could.

-"There are no fewer than 4,250 "hits" on Google related to the key words "HR3590 and 2011 W 2 forms". Most of these sites repeat the misrepresentation of this provision in exactly the same words as the original email. Few sites question the accuracy of the information and most are fairly hysterical about it. In fact, I was only able to make it through 8 pages of the Google search before I gave up on websites such as well regulated American militias, swamp bubbles, duck south, and divorce forum. So if you receive this email or hear about it -- pass along the accurate information"

Sure only nutjobs are worried that they might be taxed on their benefits because all the sane people trust the IRS to fairly tax them their "just" share.

Congress writes the tax laws, not the IRS. The IRS just collects $$ and enforces the law. Members of Congress love the IRS because they take the heat (hate?) for Congress in the taxation dept. Congress is the real crook. As usual.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Speculation would be a better word. But when the IRS starts requiring us to add the dollar value of benefits to the form on which we show income for tax purposes it is hardly a stretch to think that these benefits wont eventually be taxed.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Anyone who thinks that the govt, the current admisistration especially, isn't going to eventually dig deeper into your pockets to pay for their spending sprees is kidding themselves.

Those are some neat guesses.

I also think that the IRS has our employers include the amount withheld from our checks because someday down the road they are just going to return that money to us.

It's not law yet, but it's pretty easy to see that it's coming. I mean, since we just get to guess and make sh*t up depending on our political view rather than reality on the ground, right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Those are some neat guesses.

I also think that the IRS has our employers include the amount withheld from our checks because someday down the road they are just going to return that money to us.

It's not law yet, but it's pretty easy to see that it's coming. I mean, since we just get to guess and make sh*t up depending on our political view rather than reality on the ground, right?

LOL

I am not "making anything up". What I am proposing is hardly far fetched and in 2018 it actually comes true "according to law". You see the "cadillac" plans ARE going to be the basis of a tax according to the law. Perhaps you simply want to close your eyes and pretend it won't happen or believe that you are safe because you won't have one of those plans but one thing that is sure is death and taxes and when numbers go onto your W-2, eventually it will be taxed.

And when the GOP retakes control, it proves to difficult/impossible to repeal the healthcare debacle, they may be the ones that execute the plan on taxing health benefits.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Congress writes the tax laws, not the IRS. The IRS just collects $$ and enforces the law. Members of Congress love the IRS because they take the heat (hate?) for Congress in the taxation dept. Congress is the real crook. As usual.

While the IRS is the "hitman" for Congress, we dont deal with Congress individually when determining our taxes, we deal with the IRS. And we write the checks to the Treasury.

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061402769.html

"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is expected to propose a new tax on the health benefits that millions of Americans currently receive tax-free through employers.

Economists say taxing employer-sponsored benefits would help trim runaway health costs and force society to broadly share the burdens of reform. The idea also has bipartisan appeal. Former president George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 GOP presidential candidate, championed a form of the tax; so did Obama advisers Jason Furman and Ezekiel Emanuel before they joined the administration"

It didn't happen because it would have kept the bill from passing but those like Brian who think it wont are sadly mistaken. The healthcare bill is funded via accounting tricks and pie in the sky assumptions. It will be woefully underfunded. And when that happens you can expect this to be revisited.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While the IRS is the "hitman" for Congress, we dont deal with Congress individually when determining our taxes, we deal with the IRS. And we write the checks to the Treasury.

But we vote for members of Congress. That's the point. Rangel makes the laws and Geitner takes the money . It doesn't get much better! Where's the IRS when you really need them?

[Riot]

Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit

Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.

"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."

In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.

"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.

[Cannon Shell]

^^^

Has nothing to do with the subject of the thread

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

^^^

Has nothing to do with the subject of the thread

True, but the "subject of the thread" was a completely erroneous claim made by the original poster. There is only so much to discuss about something that somebody just made up in their head.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

True, but the "subject of the thread" was a completely erroneous claim made by the original poster. There is only so much to discuss about something that somebody just made up in their head.

It may well be erroneous currently but there is much evidence that won't be the case moving forward. Surely you arent of the belief that these benefits wont be taxed in the near future as doing so is one of the very few topics that has bi-partisan support. Obama doesn't want to broach the subject in the near future for self preserving political reasons but when Baucus and McCain are both on the same side of the fence it is only a matter of time regardless of who is eventually in charge.

And I'm sure that if in one of the countless Sarah Palin threads, I posted something that was critical of Obama or Democrats in general, there would be howls of protest from the usual originator of those threads.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It may well be erroneous currently but there is much evidence that won't be the case moving forward. Surely you arent of the belief that these benefits wont be taxed in the near future as doing so is one of the very few topics that has bi-partisan support. Obama doesn't want to broach the subject in the near future for self preserving political reasons but when Baucus and McCain are both on the same side of the fence it is only a matter of time regardless of who is eventually in charge.

And I'm sure that if in one of the countless Sarah Palin threads, I posted something that was critical of Obama or Democrats in general, there would be howls of protest from the usual originator of those threads.

You could be right of course, but I'm not convinced anything involving the health care bill is "only a matter of time" at this point. I actually think there are huge portions of the program that could change significantly over the next few years. They could be changes I'm happy about, or they could be changes you are happy about, or maybe both or neither.
Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012, do you think they will mount a full-scale repeal campaign or not? If not....why not?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

You could be right of course, but I'm not convinced anything involving the health care bill is "only a matter of time" at this point. I actually think there are huge portions of the program that could change significantly over the next few years. They could be changes I'm happy about, or they could be changes you are happy about, or maybe both or neither.
Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012, do you think they will mount a full-scale repeal campaign or not? If not....why not?

I don't really think you could even venture an accurate guess because it will greatly depend on the shape of the economy and who emerges as the powerbroker on the GOP side among other things.

Repealing it will require a plan to replace it. That will take some time to do and we might wind up in a similar mucked filled mess that the current one went through to get passed. Isn't it really a stretch to think that there wont be any meaningful bi-partisan work done in the near future. If I had to guess I would say that they would try to reshape the current plan. Changing the funding mechanisms (and perhaps including the benefits that we are talking about in this thread-especially if the economy is heating up again), undoing the requirement that everyone must participate, granting tax relief to the businesses, etc.

If the tea party movement gains more strength and grabs a real hold on some of the power in the party (and the polls favor it), I wouldnt rule out an attempt at a full scale repeal but at this point you would think that is a longer bet than simply tweeking it.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by miraja2

True, but the "subject of the thread" was a completely erroneous claim made by the original poster. There is only so much to discuss about something that somebody just made up in their head.

I didnt make it up in my head ...it was sent to me as an email and maybe a bogus one at that but I dont think Cannon is far fetched at all with how he thinks things will go down.

Really, you dont think the government can just get a statement from the employer about what they pay for health insurance? Why does it need to be on the employees W2 form?