The Real Board
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

+2
Markwes
Scooby01_98
6 posters

Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:25 am

Yeah right. AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere, Valero the list goes on all taking charges on earnings, all looking at dropping coverage amounts. Yeah healthcare reform.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575143723100528284.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_emailed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_at_t_health_care

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1

A couple of great quotes form the articles.

"As many as 1.5 million to 2 million retirees could lose the drug benefits provided by their former employer because of the tax changes, according to a study by the Moran Company, a health care consulting firm." Well there goes those medicare savings as companies drop there retirees prescription coverage and make them go on medicare part D.

"Consumers Energy, a Michigan gas and electric company with 2.9 million customers, said it will not take a big first-quarter charge because, like most utility companies, it can try to recover the added costs from its customers through rate hikes." Yeah utility bills are going to go up, I know you are all excited about that.

Anybody want to wager how many companies are going to curtail hiring until they figure out the bottom line. Great way to stimulate jobs. Well unless you want to work for the IRS

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/weekly-remarks-mitch-mcconnell-obama-healthcare.html

" The IRS sure gets a boost, though. An estimated 16,500 new workers will be needed there to enforce a brand new insurance mandate that the bill imposes on employers."
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Markwes Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:09 am

Rational people, like most of us here, saw things like this coming. I don't think the dems in charge are too dense to see the impact of this bill. They just wanted to fool the public (remember hope and change?).
Markwes
Markwes
Jedi Master
Jedi Master

Male
Number of posts : 3096
Age : 59
Location : asylum

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Pez Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:15 am

Think for a second tho...

in the caterpillar example, the 100 million hit they take on earnings is a result of the government charging income taxes on a government subsidy we (you, me, the other taxpayers) receive to provide prescription drug benefits to retirees.

Caterpillar revenues are about 32 billion and change annually. This "charge" isnt really a charge at all, but a net decrease in a tax subsidy the government already gives them.

Pez
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1979
Location : Ft Wayne

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:56 am

Pez wrote:Think for a second tho...

in the caterpillar example, the 100 million hit they take on earnings is a result of the government charging income taxes on a government subsidy we (you, me, the other taxpayers) receive to provide prescription drug benefits to retirees.

Caterpillar revenues are about 32 billion and change annually. This "charge" isnt really a charge at all, but a net decrease in a tax subsidy the government already gives them.

Think about this.... It was promised if you like your doctor & insurance nothing will change..Dems you lied!!!!

Think about this.... The CBO didn't figure in these companies dropping the coverage for these people. Now the CBO figures for the bill are off.

And this is all happening in a week since the bill was signed!! Waiting for this weeks ooppss!!
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Pez Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:13 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:
Pez wrote:Think for a second tho...

in the caterpillar example, the 100 million hit they take on earnings is a result of the government charging income taxes on a government subsidy we (you, me, the other taxpayers) receive to provide prescription drug benefits to retirees.

Caterpillar revenues are about 32 billion and change annually. This "charge" isnt really a charge at all, but a net decrease in a tax subsidy the government already gives them.

Think about this.... It was promised if you like your doctor & insurance nothing will change..Dems you lied!!!!

Think about this.... The CBO didn't figure in these companies dropping the coverage for these people. Now the CBO figures for the bill are off.

And this is all happening in a week since the bill was signed!! Waiting for this weeks ooppss!!

I think you are making it into a bigger deal than it actually is. Caterpillar's real revenues are unaffected. They are just getting fewer tax dollars than they were previously. We wont agree on this so it's probabaly not worth arguing, but did anyone cry socialism when the taxpayers started funding caterpillar's prescription drugs for their pensioners? Wouldnt giving caterpillar less taxpayer money than they were before amount to less socialism? That's a good thing, right? ^_^

Pez
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1979
Location : Ft Wayne

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:51 pm

It's all in the bottom line. If the company made 4 billion last year but only made 3.5 billion this year due to lack of gov't subsidy for health care then that is .5 billion lost in revenue to the companies bottom line.

It will also be taken into account with a company's benefit plan. They no longer have to offer that to employees or retirees because they are no longer being reimbursed for something. So what is the incentive to keep the benefit? If a cat bulldozer and a foreign bulldozer both cost 30K before Obamacare. Now with the lost of subsidy that same cat bulldozer costs 32K to build, who wins the sales war? So now cat has to cut its benefits program to workers and retirees to recoup that 2K cost differential.

In the future what is the incentive to the company to not kick all its workers off the benefits plan? Sure they have to pay a fee (lets call it what it really is a tax) but that is cheaper than most benefit plans to these large companies. Plus those plans the companies buy will be going up because now you have to carry adult children to age 26.

So even then the CBO numbers will be wrong, because they did not factor in companies dropping there retirees or current workers. Along with what incentive is there to keep those jobs in the U.S.? Couldn't the company just move those jobs overseas and lower the tax burden of obamacare?
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Pez Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:16 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:It's all in the bottom line. If the company made 4 billion last year but only made 3.5 billion this year due to lack of gov't subsidy for health care then that is .5 billion lost in revenue to the companies bottom line.

It will also be taken into account with a company's benefit plan. They no longer have to offer that to employees or retirees because they are no longer being reimbursed for something. So what is the incentive to keep the benefit? If a cat bulldozer and a foreign bulldozer both cost 30K before Obamacare. Now with the lost of subsidy that same cat bulldozer costs 32K to build, who wins the sales war? So now cat has to cut its benefits program to workers and retirees to recoup that 2K cost differential.

In the future what is the incentive to the company to not kick all its workers off the benefits plan? Sure they have to pay a fee (lets call it what it really is a tax) but that is cheaper than most benefit plans to these large companies. Plus those plans the companies buy will be going up because now you have to carry adult children to age 26.

So even then the CBO numbers will be wrong, because they did not factor in companies dropping there retirees or current workers. Along with what incentive is there to keep those jobs in the U.S.? Couldn't the company just move those jobs overseas and lower the tax burden of obamacare?

Well, this really only amounts to $1 out of every $320 that caterpillar earns. the subsidy is $1300 per worker... I'm not sure you understood tho... they government (thats you and me) are paying caterpillar $1300 a head to encourage caterpillar to continue prescription drug coverage, then caterpillar was in turn allowed to write off as a tax deduction the money that they spend on covering these benefits.

*** the important part***
At the end of the day this is the closing of a tax loophole that applies to a company (CAT) with revenues of 32 billion dollars a year. I am not personally allowed to deduct MY healthcare expenses except those I actually pay out of pocket. Even though as a family we had $12,000 in medical expenses last year, I can deduct only my copays and scripts, which are a mere fraction of that. What the conservative media is making such hay about is the closing of a tax loophole that shouldnt have existed in the first place. The fact remains that you, me and everyone else are still paying for perscription drugs for caterpillar pensioners, it's just that caterpillar cannot in turn write that off their taxes as money THEY spent on perscription durgs for pensioners.

How can any fiscal conservative object to that?

Pez
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1979
Location : Ft Wayne

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:35 pm

Pez wrote:
Well, this really only amounts to $1 out of every $320 that caterpillar earns. the subsidy is $1300 per worker... I'm not sure you understood tho... they government (thats you and me) are paying caterpillar $1300 a head to encourage caterpillar to continue prescription drug coverage, then caterpillar was in turn allowed to write off as a tax deduction the money that they spend on covering these benefits.

*** the important part***
At the end of the day this is the closing of a tax loophole that applies to a company (CAT) with revenues of 32 billion dollars a year. I am not personally allowed to deduct MY healthcare expenses except those I actually pay out of pocket. Even though as a family we had $12,000 in medical expenses last year, I can deduct only my copays and scripts, which are a mere fraction of that. What the conservative media is making such hay about is the closing of a tax loophole that shouldnt have existed in the first place. The fact remains that you, me and everyone else are still paying for perscription drugs for caterpillar pensioners, it's just that caterpillar cannot in turn write that off their taxes as money THEY spent on perscription durgs for pensioners.

How can any fiscal conservative object to that?

Please provide proof of the $1,300 per head. Everything I read is 28% of actual cost, so not sure what that amount is; as it could vary per claim or plan. Whether it is in the form of a subsidy to a company or straight off the government tit; it is still you and me paying for it in the long run. Either way it hurts these companies bottom line.

So what about the other portions of the questions I asked? Will companies be more likely to just shuck medical plans? Will they move jobs off shore to escape the employee tax for not having a plan? Will insurance companies raise premiums to cover adult children to 26? Will this throw off the CBO numbers?
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:37 pm

Here is another question. You 25 year old daughter is on your insurance plan. She is married and gets pregnant, gives birth who covers the kid? Does the now grandparents plan have to cover the kid?
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Pez Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:13 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:....
Please provide proof of the $1,300 per head. Everything I read is 28% of actual cost, so not sure what that amount is; as it could vary per claim or plan. Whether it is in the form of a subsidy to a company or straight off the government tit; it is still you and me paying for it in the long run. Either way it hurts these companies bottom line.

So what about the other portions of the questions I asked? Will companies be more likely to just shuck medical plans? Will they move jobs off shore to escape the employee tax for not having a plan? Will insurance companies raise premiums to cover adult children to 26? Will this throw off the CBO numbers?



it's an NPR market watch story, can be found here...http://npr.wikinvest.com/wikinvest/api.php?action=viewNews&aid=1087133&page=Stock%3ACaterpillar_%28CAT%29&format=html&comments=0

Here's the bit... I do stand corrected, it's UP TO $1330 per employee, and another npr story says the actual is an average of $650, I didnt mean to spin, the person interviewed on the radio said 1300 literally as I was typing.

Under the old law, companies received a federal subsidy worth up $1,330 per retiree if they provided former workers with drug-care benefits. At the same time, however, companies could deduct the value of the subsidy from their taxable income. See blog on whether the new health care law already is hurting business

re your other questions... I dont see that employees will get rid of medical plans entirely as that will put them on a less than competitive footing when it comes to hiriing and retaining talent. Of course this is a hirer's market now, but as the economy recovers (all but a forgone conclusion we are on that path), benefits will make a significant difference when it comes to recruiting and retention. There will be exceptions I'm sure, some companies in particular financial straits would consider and execute the jettisoning of benefits in the name of health plans, however I suspect that these companies are on the government subsidy anyway.

re: will companies offshore? Well, maybe. I dont see health care plans being anything that is keeping a company in the US, if the slight increase in taxes in the form of a decrease in deductions is all that is keeping a company in the US, it's extremely likely they are on a path to offshore anyway. In addition, using overseas labor is extremely difficult. You really Only see the benefit when your business is of a scale where the very expensive planning and startup costs of overseas operations is offset by large scale production. Mis sized and small companies really dont see a payoff by offshoring, perhaps with the exception of the IT industry... and I would imagine any IT industry that would fire americans in favor of offshore resources would Likely do so anyway, and the cost of healthcare and it's modest increase will have little or no impact on such a decision.

Insurance companies raising premiums, who knows? They are raising premiums anyway now, without the HCR legislation. I'm not very informed about this aspect, but if there is a legitimate effort to control costs and even lower the actual cost of care, such would offset the desire on the part of insurance companies to raise premiums... I said I'm not informed, but my experience is that insurance companies raise premiums whenever farts stink, so...

re: CBO... O dont know what they have factored in to their estimates and what they have not. I would Like to think that any organization with the skills and experience enough to handle budgets in the trillions would be able to factor in such things, but....

Pez
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1979
Location : Ft Wayne

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:54 pm

Pez, didn't think you were trying to spin anything. I have only have seen the 28% figure so was curious of the $1,300 figure. I like to be somewhat informed when putting in my view. Very Happy

I do see corporate profits taking a hit in the future. Whether it will be as big as these companies forecasted I don't know but according to the Dems this wasn't suppose to happen at all, everything was suppose to be rosy. Companies that are already overseas it will be a factor on whether to bring those jobs back (transportation of goods is suppose to increase in cost), so a lot of companies were exploring moving jobs back. Others if going to expand have to consider this in whether to expand her or overseas, much easier if they already have a overseas site.

Unlike the federal government that just prints more money. Business have to look at the best value for the buck and the bottom line. This is for the vitality of the company and shareholders. So expect retirees to be dropped quickly, really what is the retiree going to do to the company?
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  LTRT Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:51 pm

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. We're honored to have you here today. I'm Joyce Ravis (ph) from Lake Wiley, South Carolina. I work at Celgard. We have wonderful CEOs that take care of us and have really helped the company grow.

My question is, though, in the economy times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because it -- we are over-taxed as it is?

Obama's 17 Minute, 14 Second Answer on Higher Taxes and Health Care

"Just words...

...just speeches"
LTRT
LTRT
Jedi Master
Jedi Master

Male
Number of posts : 3456

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  jcopetti Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:47 am

LTRT wrote:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. We're honored to have you here today. I'm Joyce Ravis (ph) from Lake Wiley, South Carolina. I work at Celgard. We have wonderful CEOs that take care of us and have really helped the company grow.

My question is, though, in the economy times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because it -- we are over-taxed as it is?

Obama's 17 Minute, 14 Second Answer on Higher Taxes and Health Care

"Just words...

...just speeches"

You did not like his truthful answer huh? Truth hurts you on the right wing.

jcopetti
Jedi Youngling
Jedi Youngling

Male
Number of posts : 36
Location : local

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  floridafun Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:11 am

cat has their own in-house insurance company since 2000, which is a great cost savings plus profit for the company, no "middle man" to pay..which is smart of them. this info does make me think that its a loss of their profit they might lose a chunk of, NOT necessarily the kind of loss of operational costs etc most folks are thinking they are fretting about. called "captive" insurance companies, cat is listed a little over halfway down in this link which explains pretty well how the captive game is played..

http://cupe1356.blogspot.com/2005/01/insurance-company-tax-evasion.html
floridafun
floridafun
Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight

Female
Number of posts : 2519

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:25 am

jcopetti wrote:
LTRT wrote:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. We're honored to have you here today. I'm Joyce Ravis (ph) from Lake Wiley, South Carolina. I work at Celgard. We have wonderful CEOs that take care of us and have really helped the company grow.

My question is, though, in the economy times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because it -- we are over-taxed as it is?

Obama's 17 Minute, 14 Second Answer on Higher Taxes and Health Care

"Just words...

...just speeches"

You did not like his truthful answer huh? Truth hurts you on the right wing.

More of you don't have a answer, baffle them with bullshit and hope the 17 minutes makes them forget the original question since you don't have a good answer.
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:07 pm

floridafun wrote:cat has their own in-house insurance company since 2000, which is a great cost savings plus profit for the company, no "middle man" to pay..which is smart of them. this info does make me think that its a loss of their profit they might lose a chunk of, NOT necessarily the kind of loss of operational costs etc most folks are thinking they are fretting about. called "captive" insurance companies, cat is listed a little over halfway down in this link which explains pretty well how the captive game is played..

http://cupe1356.blogspot.com/2005/01/insurance-company-tax-evasion.html

They can have whatever they want. The bottom line is Cat will have 100 million less money for R&D, capital improvements, debt liquidation, employee salaries, employee benefits, shareholder dividends and hiring of new personnel. I suppose they can now recoup that money by dropping there retirees and making them go on the gov't dole (which basically wipes out the subsidy money the gov't was counting on to pay for this bill). What about the other companies that don't have that system that are going to be taking multi million dollar hits? All in all bad for business.
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  floridafun Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:09 am

Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is another question. You 25 year old daughter is on your insurance plan. She is married and gets pregnant, gives birth who covers the kid? Does the now grandparents plan have to cover the kid?

?? what parent would have their married daughter on their health insurance..doesnt that make her uh..emancipated from her parents? is iinsurance thru one of the parents employer? because it seems iffy to me the ins would cover for a married child? i can see if they bought an independent plan for her in her name but helped the couple out by paying for it (..uh the hubby on it too or are the parents sending him a "scram loser" message). depending on daughter and her hubbies income/assets in their name of course the pregnancy would be covered by medicaid. if their assets etc make them ineligible why wouldnt the parents think its now daughter and hubbies responsibility to get insurance? just curious..would daughter get the student eligible guidelines if she were married because i doubt that altho i havent looked into it at all. student married changes the game far as loan and other student financial eligibility doesnt it?
floridafun
floridafun
Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight

Female
Number of posts : 2519

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Pez Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:15 am

Scooby01_98 wrote:
floridafun wrote:cat has their own in-house insurance company since 2000, which is a great cost savings plus profit for the company, no "middle man" to pay..which is smart of them. this info does make me think that its a loss of their profit they might lose a chunk of, NOT necessarily the kind of loss of operational costs etc most folks are thinking they are fretting about. called "captive" insurance companies, cat is listed a little over halfway down in this link which explains pretty well how the captive game is played..

http://cupe1356.blogspot.com/2005/01/insurance-company-tax-evasion.html

They can have whatever they want. The bottom line is Cat will have 100 million less money for R&D, capital improvements, debt liquidation, employee salaries, employee benefits, shareholder dividends and hiring of new personnel. I suppose they can now recoup that money by dropping there retirees and making them go on the gov't dole (which basically wipes out the subsidy money the gov't was counting on to pay for this bill). What about the other companies that don't have that system that are going to be taking multi million dollar hits? All in all bad for business.

I've got it! Cat needs a death panel. Smile

Pez
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1979
Location : Ft Wayne

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Scooby01_98 Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:04 pm

floridafun wrote:
Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is another question. You 25 year old daughter is on your insurance plan. She is married and gets pregnant, gives birth who covers the kid? Does the now grandparents plan have to cover the kid?

?? what parent would have their married daughter on their health insurance..doesnt that make her uh..emancipated from her parents? is iinsurance thru one of the parents employer? because it seems iffy to me the ins would cover for a married child? i can see if they bought an independent plan for her in her name but helped the couple out by paying for it (..uh the hubby on it too or are the parents sending him a "scram loser" message). depending on daughter and her hubbies income/assets in their name of course the pregnancy would be covered by medicaid. if their assets etc make them ineligible why wouldnt the parents think its now daughter and hubbies responsibility to get insurance? just curious..would daughter get the student eligible guidelines if she were married because i doubt that altho i havent looked into it at all. student married changes the game far as loan and other student financial eligibility doesnt it?

Hey it's your dumb law they make the rules. Law says child up to and including 26 YOA. I didn't see no exemptions like being married.
Scooby01_98
Scooby01_98
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan

Male
Number of posts : 1642
Location : The Fort

http://www.nola.com

Back to top Go down

Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise Empty Re: Wasn't this suppose to free up money for a raise

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum