Posted on 09/06/2010 5:47:52 AM PDT by Rashputin
sfl
what about the word “excludable?” are you taking that into consideration?
Too bad this is not true.
Too bad this is not true.
AND (does it?) this means retirees like my parents will see a W-2 for the first time in years, perhaps, and take a hit in their social security payments cuz their ‘income’ is now too high????
My dad is from the generation of 35 years with one company and nice retiree benefits and pensions.
Why the blanket “not true”? What do you have to the contrary? At least this post has a citation.
This really is concerning for my parents ‘cuz of the “... it doesn’t even 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 what you actually received. Try taking the tax form you just finished filing for 2009 and see what an additional $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 gross income does to your tax debt.”
Curious, sincerely why you say not true.
Yes, as ready as I’m ever going to be.
What we DO need is a 300k-500k person march to the location where some administrator (or board members) either in schools or business tells a conservative to shut up. The entire place needs to be shut down until the supervisors (and/or board members) doing that are terminated or flee. Now, THAT would be effective. Anything else is poppycock and is being stirred up by someone in the health insurance industry trying to lobby for their financial rights.
Employer-Provided Health Coverage — Not Taxable Starting in tax year 2011, the Affordable Care Act requires employers to report the value of the health insurance coverage they provide employees on each employee's annual Form W-2. This reporting is for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers. The amount reported does not affect tax liability, as the value of the employer contribution to health coverage continues to be excludible from an employee's income and it is not taxable.
The information you presented has been making the rounds on e-mail for months. Don’t feel too bad, I have friends who are normally very reliable and very well-informed falling for this. It’s just not true that the benefits will be taxed as ordinary income. Think about it: if it were true, do you think the republicans running for office this fall wouldn’t have seized upon it and made it the centerpiece of their argument for repeal? This tax would push some people’s tax liability through the roof.
I would have no problem if company paid health insurance were taxable. It would level the playing field for the self employed, who...if they purchase HI...do so with taxed income.
I didn’t present it, the poster did. I am just seeking the usual FReeper double confirmation. But thanks!
Good point, but that isn’t what’s being discussed.
I accept that this isn't yet going to be taxed, but I don't accept that it will not be taxed as income and is placed on the W2 just for information purposes. At some point, anything above a “fair” amount on that line of the form will be taxed. Then, your theoretical $21,000 will show the ‘fair’ $12,000 deducted and the balance added to the money you stole from the masses and must make restitution for.
have a nice day
I get you. Didn’t intend to say you were the originator.
IF the 'cadillac' plan tax ever goes into effect, some people MAY get hit with a higher tax bill. That is years away and hopefully will never happen if we can convinve enough people, BASED ON FACTS, to repeal this monster.
Well, that makes this article a double gem since it gives you a chance to dispel a widely held misconception or deception. You're welcome.
whatever
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.