Posted on 12/26/2013 9:02:28 PM PST by Innovative
Here comes the ObamaCare tax bill.
The cost of President Obama’s massive health-care law will hit Americans in 2014 as new taxes pile up on their insurance premiums and on their income-tax bills.
But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”
Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
True, but only the portion of any gains over some threshold, $500K for married couples I think, gets included in that income. Not that ANY new tax is ever a good thing, but I don’t want people running around thinking it’s going to be common to pay 3.8% on all gains, or on the sale price.
Thanks for the info. I guess I’m safe from exceeding any of those figures. I’m still against it and still think it will be another drag on the economy.
But the over $200K is misleading, because the capital gains is calculated into that income also, so the converse is true too that people who make $100K think they don’t fall under this rule, but if they have significant cap gains, that pushes them into this.
Not to mention that “the rich” are already paying the major portion of income taxes and continuing increase of taxes takes away incentive and what happens when we will all be equally poor?
The real alarm was ignored by many during 2012 election.
See my tag line. They figured Obama was no worse than the moderate from Massachusetts. Now we all pay the price.
That precisely is president Zero's goal! He wants all the successful people to be brought down to the level of his food stamp people. Then his people will not feel inferior.
Zero thinks he is Robin Hood. Except he will never tell you that in every country which experimented wealth re-distribution, the result was always poverty distribution for all except the ruling class.
True enough.
Check out the details on the IRS website, a more reliable place for info, than posters anywhere, including FR:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Investment-Income-Tax-FAQs
Still Thinking may be well intentioned but he is not correct.
My family is the principal share holder of a S-corporation. The company shows a nice gross profit and a great net ,(on paper).
We do pull income from the company that helps us live a comfortable (for a 70 year old man and wife) life.
The company has 29 employees with an average employment of 20 years. I started it in 1970 with just myself and one other.
I had to get off the medical plan and go on medicare, part a b (medicare for D)
I retired at 62 and began to draw SSI. My latest SSI check was 1770.00.
When I signed up for the Obummer health plan I was told “Your income
(because as a Sub S status) your company showed a great taxable income,
even if you didn’t get it, we are taking 350 a month from your SSI benefits to help offset the people that don’t make what you do.
Somehow I do not feel better about not being able to stay with my family Dr. unless I pay a 8,000 deductible.
“I retired at 62 and began to draw SSI. My latest SSI check was 1770.00.”
I don’t think you really meant SSI, did you — I think you meant regular social security, since it sounds like you worked all your life and paid into it.
SSI is for people who are older and are below the poverty level.
The point you were making that indeed, if you are still generating income, they reduce your social security checks — discouraging people to work.
Yes I looked at it lately as our house is going on the market soon. Was a bit relieved.
Thanks for acknowledging my good intent but I also happen to be correct. Read the examples in Question 11 at your link, taking into account the Section 121 exclusion. If my earlier post was unclear in some way I apologize, but this is exactly my understanding and exactly what I was attempting to convey in my comment. The only way I can see that my comment could conceivably have been misinterpreted is for taxpayers with significant investment income other than from the sale of their home. But thanks for playing.
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.