Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: maddogconservative
The “losses” were a loss of a taxpayer subsidy. Having the CEO’s complain about the loss would have sounded like a unemployed person complaining about their unemployment insurance running out.

What in the hell are you talking about here? Please explain your logic?

50 posted on 04/27/2010 3:57:56 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: DBeers

Whenever you get a tax break, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference. Renters subsidize homeowners. Childless couples subsidize Families, etc...

So, using simple accounting, we have the following:
1) Company A spends $100 on insurance for retirees.
2) US Taxpayer cuts a check to Company A for $28.
3) When it comes to tax time, Company A declares a tax deduction of $100 for the insurance expense. So lets assume company a made $5,000, their taxable income would be $4,900.

Now under the Obama plan, step 1&2 would remain the same, but step three would look like this.
3) Company A declares a tax deduction of $72 dollars ($100- 28, the actual amount of money they spent for the insurance). So for $5,000, their taxable income would be $4,928.

What Obama is doing is more in line with standard tax practices. If you move to change jobs you can write that expense off, but if your company reimburses you, you have to declare that income.


55 posted on 04/27/2010 9:10:09 PM PDT by maddogconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson