Total Posts:119|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ObamaCare Tax Calculation

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 3:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.irs.gov...
The ACA Individual Shared Responsibility Payment is calculated as follows:

The greater of:
1 percent of your household income that is above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status, or
Your family"s flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a family maximum of $285,

(But capped at the cost of the national average premium for a bronze level health plan available through the Marketplace in 2014. For 2014, the annual national average premium for a bronze level health plan available through the Marketplace is $2,448 per individual ($204 per month per individual), but $12,240 for a family with five or more members ($1,020 per month for a family with five or more members).)

Household income is the adjusted gross income from your tax return plus any excludible foreign earned income and tax-exempt interest you receive during the taxable year. Household income also includes the incomes of all of your dependents who are required to file tax returns.

Tax return filing threshold is the amount of gross income an individual of your age and with your filing status (e.g., single, married filing jointly, head of household) must make to be required to file a tax return.

tl;dr
Household income is calculated as follows:
AGI income (line 37)
+ tax-exempt interest
+ forign earned income
- tax return threshold (which is personal exemptions plus standard deduction, in other words, the amount one needs to make before they are required to file taxes)
+ all income of all dependants
----------
Total x 1% (or the greater of the flat fee schedule for number in household)
Divide this by 12
Multiply the above number for number of months without qualified coverage

Next year, it should be the same calculation but 2% and the next year it is 2.5%.
The flat fee goes up from $95 to $325 to %695 per adult, and 1/2 the amount per under 18 dependent.

The average cost is $204/individual for qualified insurance.
So, the ACA is forcing a tax on a married couple making $40K who cannot afford their employers' insurance of $500/month, to either spend $408/month to buy insurance, or not have insurance, and pay $197 in taxes, or about $16/month this year.
Next year, it would be $650, or $54/month.
The year after that, it is $1390, or $115/month.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Obama.
Forcing me and my wife to spend 3.5% of our income (in 2016) for NOT buying a product we cannot afford is a super great way to help the middle class, isn't it?

Nevermind the fact that most of these bronze plans have deductibles of $5000 or so, so it's not like the poor can pay that anyway.
Why can't we just let people deduct healthcare expenses off their taxes directly instead of letting businesses do it?
THAT'S why wages stagnate and are lower.

Oh, and if, in 2016, we did buy the bronze plan....assuming we itemized deductions, we'd be taxed on the $4,000 of the $4,896 we paid anyway, so that is still a tax of 1.5% of our income for HAVING insurance, while losing utility of 12.2% of our income!!!
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:48:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sounds like you should opt out of your employers insurance plan. I got one off the government site for $198 a month with a deductible of $2750 and after that not even a copay.

In general I don't understand why everyone is freaking out but we all accept a way higher costs for not having automotive insurance.

I would like us to have a single payer system like Canada. I found out when doing a debate this week that people in Ontario only pay at max $900 a year for health care.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 6:20:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:53:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Is waiting till you get sick to buy healthcare not an option?

LOL oh you.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 7:16:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:53:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Is waiting till you get sick to buy healthcare not an option?

Not until the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. Before then the sickness you had when you bought health insurance was not covered. :op
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:17:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 7:16:01 PM, gomergcc wrote:
At 12/10/2014 5:53:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Is waiting till you get sick to buy healthcare not an option?

Not until the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. Before then the sickness you had when you bought health insurance was not covered. :op

ObamaCare doesn't work and it will never work, plus it's completely a violation of the constitution, people don't have a right to Health Care
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:51:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:53:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Is waiting till you get sick to buy healthcare not an option?

If you are referring to directly purchasing healthcare, then, yes, except for the tax as explained above.

If you are referring to buying health insurance, then, I can wait until I get sick, but I do have to wait for the enrollment period. We cannot purchase it at the drop of a hat, but on a yearly basis.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 9:00:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:48:31 PM, gomergcc wrote:
Sounds like you should opt out of your employers insurance plan. I got one off the government site for $198 a month with a deductible of $2750 and after that not even a copay.
Well, I can get one for me and my wife for $225, but has a $6600 deductible.
That is largely not my point.

In general I don't understand why everyone is freaking out but we all accept a way higher costs for not having automotive insurance.
I don't follow.
But, people freak out because:
1. I can be taxed for not engaging in commerce. This is a wholly new concept, and the next time the government bails out a car company, I suppose they can just say "but a GM car, or pay a $300 tax".
2. Healthcare =/= health insurance
3. The FEDERAL government is now heavily regulating the already regulated insurance market, including restricting the types of policies they can sell.
4. As you saw from my calculations, this law hurts the young to help the older, and hinders the upward mobility of Americans. (i.e. it hurts the middle class)
5. The law strengthens corporations control of wages, since they continue to offer benefits in lieu of wages.

I would like us to have a single payer system like Canada.
I would probably prefer that over this, TBH.
I found out when doing a debate this week that people in Ontario only pay at max $900 a year for health care.
I find this hard to believe this applies to all Canadians.
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In general I don't understand why everyone is freaking out but we all accept a way higher costs for not having automotive insurance.
I don't follow.
But, people freak out because:
1. I can be taxed for not engaging in commerce. This is a wholly new concept, and the next time the government bails out a car company, I suppose they can just say "but a GM car, or pay a $300 tax".

No it is a fine not a tax. It is a fine given by IRS but a fine none the less. The don't say buy a GM Car, or pay a fine. They do say buy automotive insurance or face a fine.

2. Healthcare =/= health insurance
3. The FEDERAL government is now heavily regulating the already regulated insurance market, including restricting the types of policies they can sell.

You mean like they have done with every other type of insurance for decades.

4. As you saw from my calculations, this law hurts the young to help the older, and hinders the upward mobility of Americans. (i.e. it hurts the middle class)
5. The law strengthens corporations control of wages, since they continue to offer benefits in lieu of wages.

Corporations are in general paying games with wages, and this is just one of the ways they are. Another is we cant afford to pay people over the poverty line because we only made 9 billion this year. Another game they are playing is offering health insurance they know you cant afford and not one you could.

Me and my girlfriend a very low middle class, 30k a year. The ACA really didn't effect us that much financially. We had to cut out one fast food trip a week and going to Starbucks to afford it. You could afford this. Again I personally don't understand this. Everyone is talk about how people cant afford something that is around 2% or 3% of there income. All the while every time a new $500 Iphone comes out people like up around the block.

I would like us to have a single payer system like Canada.
I would probably prefer that over this, TBH.
I found out when doing a debate this week that people in Ontario only pay at max $900 a year for health care.
I find this hard to believe this applies to all Canadians.

Ontario was the only one I could find that was in English and not French. The person I was debating stated they were from Canada and health care was 20% when I countered with this stat they forfeited the next round. So at this moment it is the best I could come up with.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ObamaCare doesn't work and it will never work, plus it's completely a violation of the constitution, people don't have a right to Health Care

Is working for me. :) Well its been attacked 6 ways from Sunday by lawyers trying to say it a violation of the constitution and each time its been shown its not.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:48:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 2:18:26 PM, gomergcc wrote:
In general I don't understand why everyone is freaking out but we all accept a way higher costs for not having automotive insurance.
I don't follow.
But, people freak out because:
1. I can be taxed for not engaging in commerce. This is a wholly new concept, and the next time the government bails out a car company, I suppose they can just say "but a GM car, or pay a $300 tax".

No it is a fine not a tax. It is a fine given by IRS but a fine none the less. The don't say buy a GM Car, or pay a fine.
You can call it what you want, but it is a tax. The IRS doesn't do penatlties, except in relation to taxes. The subsidies people talk about, are tax credits. It is a tax.

Regardless, what is to stop the government from saying to buy a car or pay a minor penalty. It's for the good of America, after all. That is how the ACA was sold, it will make insurance cheaper, which it did....except for those who didn't have it before and now are forced to pay for a product they do not want.

They do say buy automotive insurance or face a fine.
Really?
I am unaware that people who do not drive or own cars or drive on public streets are required to have insurance.

2. Healthcare =/= health insurance
3. The FEDERAL government is now heavily regulating the already regulated insurance market, including restricting the types of policies they can sell.

You mean like they have done with every other type of insurance for decades.
Oh, do you care to show me the law/regulation that says Geico cannot spend less than 80% of its revenue on claims?

4. As you saw from my calculations, this law hurts the young to help the older, and hinders the upward mobility of Americans. (i.e. it hurts the middle class)
5. The law strengthens corporations control of wages, since they continue to offer benefits in lieu of wages.

Corporations are in general paying games with wages, and this is just one of the ways they are. Another is we cant afford to pay people over the poverty line because we only made 9 billion this year. Another game they are playing is offering health insurance they know you cant afford and not one you could.

Me and my girlfriend a very low middle class, 30k a year. The ACA really didn't effect us that much financially. We had to cut out one fast food trip a week and going to Starbucks to afford it. You could afford this.

Oh, can I know?
Care to tell me where I can come up with the money?
My wife needed a new car, since she works 30+ miles away. $500
My mortgage (which we bought when we were making better money) $1500 (mind you rent for a cheaper 2 bedroom apt is around $900)
School loans $400
CC debt $400
Debt consolodation loan due to failed business $325
Car insurance $125
That is $3250/mo or $39K/yr.
This does not include utilities, or the cable/internet bill which is the SOLE source of entertainment we've had for the last three years.
Nor does this include taxes, which, on $40K, is about another $5K (or $416/mo)

So, please tell me where I have the $500/mo that I can spend on insurance through my employer, let alone the $225 through the exchanges?

Again I personally don't understand this. Everyone is talk about how people cant afford something that is around 2% or 3% of there income. All the while every time a new $500 Iphone comes out people like up around the block.

Well, the cheapest insurance I can find is $225/month, and nearly triple your deductible. that is $2700/yr. We make about $40K, so we if we weren't "penalized" we are talking about 6.75% of our income. Further, we would be taxed about 22% on that $2700, so that is another 1.5% of our income that we lose in taxes paid on a mandated product we may or may not want. So, this insurance is actually 8.25% of my income.

Where do you get 2-3%? Oh, and by your own figures, that is 7.92% of your income.
Also, again, the issue is I should be able to buy (or not buy) what I wish in "the Land of the Free". I do not wish to buy health insurance, except catastrophic insurance, which they don't sell anymore thanks to the ACA (even though it was rare before).



I would like us to have a single payer system like Canada.
I would probably prefer that over this, TBH.
I found out when doing a debate this week that people in Ontario only pay at max $900 a year for health care.
I find this hard to believe this applies to all Canadians.

Ontario was the only one I could find that was in English and not French. The person I was debating stated they were from Canada and health care was 20% when I countered with this stat they forfeited the next round. So at this moment it is the best I could come up with.

So, in other words, you don't know how much the average Canadian pays.
Further, 20% is a very different number than $900. Do they only make $5K/year?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:48:31 PM, gomergcc wrote:

Bottom line:
The ACA actually HURTS upward mobility.
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:56:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No I only know how much it costs someone that makes over 200k in Ontario, $900 that may or may not be part of there top ter tax rate of 13.6%.

How does it effect up wards mobility. As I said I only see how it effects how may luxury items one can afford.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:02:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 2:56:23 PM, gomergcc wrote:
No I only know how much it costs someone that makes over 200k in Ontario, $900 that may or may not be part of there top ter tax rate of 13.6%.

How does it effect up wards mobility. As I said I only see how it effects how may luxury items one can afford.

Let's use you.
You pay nearly 8% of your income towards insurance.
If you did not have it, that is 8% more money you would have.
That money could be money spent on luxury items, yes, or wasted in other ways.
However, those people usually don't move upwards, do they ;)

That is 8% of your income you cannot invest, save, or otherwise pay off debt.
That has a HUGE impact.
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:22:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's use you.
You pay nearly 8% of your income towards insurance.
If you did not have it, that is 8% more money you would have.
That money could be money spent on luxury items, yes, or wasted in other ways.
However, those people usually don't move upwards, do they ;)

That is 8% of your income you cannot invest, save, or otherwise pay off debt.
That has a HUGE impact.

Who is paying 8% though. For example your situation is 2.2%. My situation is about 3%.

There is ways of lowering bills with out having to really feel a impact. For example I am able to watch any show I want at any time just from the internet. I don't have a single cc, I know loan sharks with better interest rates. $500 car payment tell me you bought a nicer car than you needed. If you had added your cc debit to the consolodation you would have been one less bill.

Me and my child's mother go rounds and rounds over this same ideas. My son as 12 set of clothes. Any more is a luxury.

I know I am a bleeding heart liberal but I come from a conservative family with many members in the Marines. If you put you political views into action in your house hold you would see a huge improvement in your personal finances.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 3:22:53 PM, gomergcc wrote:
Let's use you.
You pay nearly 8% of your income towards insurance.
If you did not have it, that is 8% more money you would have.
That money could be money spent on luxury items, yes, or wasted in other ways.
However, those people usually don't move upwards, do they ;)

That is 8% of your income you cannot invest, save, or otherwise pay off debt.
That has a HUGE impact.


Who is paying 8% though. For example your situation is 2.2%. My situation is about 3%.
You are paying 8%.
198 x 12 / 30,000 = 7.92% - these are the numbers you have given me in this thread
What are your calculations?

There is ways of lowering bills with out having to really feel a impact. For example I am able to watch any show I want at any time just from the internet. I don't have a single cc, I know loan sharks with better interest rates. $500 car payment tell me you bought a nicer car than you needed. If you had added your cc debit to the consolodation you would have been one less bill.
My finances are not the issue here, so please stop talking about them.

Me and my child's mother go rounds and rounds over this same ideas. My son as 12 set of clothes. Any more is a luxury.
Not relevant to the point.

I know I am a bleeding heart liberal but I come from a conservative family with many members in the Marines. If you put you political views into action in your house hold you would see a huge improvement in your personal finances.

What do you know about anything about me, my finances, or my political views?
You can't even do math, so don't lecture me about things you know nothing about.
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I didn't not give 100% information on my personal finances, as I really don't want to give them out online, but gave round about information to show what income bracket I am in.

If you didn't want some one to use your personal finances in a rebuttal then don't post your personal finances.

What do you know about anything about me,
I know you are passive aggressive.

my finances,
Well since you posted your monthly bills I know a lot assuming that the information was correct.

or my political views
Well you posted about your political view lol

FYI I am very good at math. You just assumed that I was as willing to post about my personal finances as you are.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:50:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 3:42:55 PM, gomergcc wrote:
I didn't not give 100% information on my personal finances, as I really don't want to give them out online, but gave round about information to show what income bracket I am in.
So, you lied about your income. For what purpose?


If you didn't want some one to use your personal finances in a rebuttal then don't post your personal finances.
The fact that my expenses are higher than my income is all you need to now about why I cannot afford insurance. I did not ask for your advice, as you know nothing about the circumstances of our landing in this mess.

What do you know about anything about me,
I know you are passive aggressive.
How so?

my finances,
Well since you posted your monthly bills I know a lot assuming that the information was correct.
Your advice was not correct nor helpful, nor asked.
You made a comment about what I can do. I have given you evidence that I cannot, in fact, purchase health insurance.
Am I the common man in my situation? I have no idea, but, again, that is not really the point of the thread. You made a personal statement, and I told you you are wrong.

or my political views
Well you posted about your political view lol
My view on a law is not a political view per se, nor is it enough to establish any sort of "if a ran my house as I view my politics" statement.

FYI I am very good at math. You just assumed that I was as willing to post about my personal finances as you are.

Okay, then what calculation did you use to reach my insurance is whatever you calculated it at?
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:19:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, you lied about your income. For what purpose?
No I gave an estimate.

why I cannot afford insurance. I did not ask for your advice, as you know nothing about the circumstances of our landing in this mess.

Apparently you felt I need to know more than that as you gave me more information than that. It was not so much as advice as a rebuttal to you claim you can afford it.

What do you know about anything about me,
I know you are passive aggressive.
How so?

Ummm let see we having a nice respectful debate then you got all snappy because I crossed some line by talking about the same exact things you were. I line you never stated you had and give me every indication that your personal personal finances were part of this debate; since you brought them up and not me. This is classic passive aggressive behavior.

my finances,
Well since you posted your monthly bills I know a lot assuming that the information was correct.
Your advice was not correct nor helpful, nor asked.

Again was not advice was a rebuttal.

You made a comment about what I can do. I have given you evidence that I cannot, in fact, purchase health insurance.
Am I the common man in my situation? I have no idea, but, again, that is not really the point of the thread. You made a personal statement, and I told you you are wrong.


Your personal finances and ability to pay the ACA are the topic one that your currently being all snappy about.

or my political views
Well you posted about your political view lol
My view on a law is not a political view per se, nor is it enough to establish any sort of "if a ran my house as I view my politics" statement.

Your view on the law, any law, is by its definition your political view. Ok I admit I might have assumed a bit with that statement.

FYI I am very good at math. You just assumed that I was as willing to post about my personal finances as you are.

Okay, then what calculation did you use to reach my insurance is whatever you calculated it at?

You made this statement "Well, I can get one for me and my wife for $225, but has a $6600 deductible" @ time stamp 9:00:35 AM, @ time stamp 2:48:48 PM you state you make about 40k, in your first post you showed how your employer offered insurance is over 9.5% of your income.

It is 9300 total cost for that insurance plan. You then get a 5500 tax deduction for paying this amount. Since your employer offered insurance is over the 9.5% of what you make you will also get the following on your taxes 360 back from your payroll taxes, a subsidy of $793 for monthly premium cost, a $1480 cost sharing subsidy. This comes back on tax time because you were not enrolled last year.

9300-5500-360-793-1480= 1167
1167/40000=0.029175

or 2.9% and it was 2.4% that I rounded down when I used amounts in my area and not yours.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 7:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:19:44 PM, gomergcc wrote:
So, you lied about your income. For what purpose?
No I gave an estimate.
So, why are our percent of incomes so far off.
Below may explain it.

Ummm let see we having a nice respectful debate then you got all snappy because I crossed some line by talking about the same exact things you were. I line you never stated you had and give me every indication that your personal personal finances were part of this debate; since you brought them up and not me. This is classic passive aggressive behavior.

Sorry I snapped, but talking about my failures in my household is a sensitive issue.
Let's continue the respectful conversation.

Telling me that I could have done things differently is not progressing the conversation. Saying what I can do is also of little relevance, as I cannot even refinance my mortgage (which I would love to do, to get rid of that pesky mortgage insurance), so we are stuck in this situation until we find better work.

The issue is, as of right now, we cannot afford $225/mo.
It sounded like advice, and not something I wanted to hear. I apologize.

Your personal finances and ability to pay the ACA are the topic one that your currently being all snappy about.
Funny, I did not realize my OP was using my numbers. I thought it was a generic hypothetical, but the numbers still work.

The fact that it is still whatever percent is still true, but obviously, different families have different situations. Some are better off, others are just getting by, and the reasons for these scenarios run all around.
To be honest, $40K is probably on the very low end of a married income.

or my political views
Well you posted about your political view lol
My view on a law is not a political view per se, nor is it enough to establish any sort of "if a ran my house as I view my politics" statement.


FYI I am very good at math. You just assumed that I was as willing to post about my personal finances as you are.

Okay, then what calculation did you use to reach my insurance is whatever you calculated it at?

You made this statement "Well, I can get one for me and my wife for $225, but has a $6600 deductible" @ time stamp 9:00:35 AM, @ time stamp 2:48:48 PM you state you make about 40k, in your first post you showed how your employer offered insurance is over 9.5% of your income.

This last part, I don't understand.
The affordability requirement applies ONLY to myself, so, the fact that I could have insurance for $200 or so is used for this figure, not the $500 (me and wife plan).
The numbers I quoted for cost of insurance is the national average, which is used for the calculation for tax purposes. (the first half of the post was how to figure the penalty)

It is 9300 total cost for that insurance plan.
Where do you get this number?

You then get a 5500 tax deduction for paying this amount.
Why?
Since your employer offered insurance is over the 9.5% of what you make you will also get the following on your taxes 360 back from your payroll taxes, a subsidy of $793 for monthly premium cost, a $1480 cost sharing subsidy. This comes back on tax time because you were not enrolled last year.
Where do you get these numbers?

If your employer offers insurance, and you do not take it, you generally do NOT qualify for tax credits, so I'm not sure where you are getting these numbers.

Now, regardless of the fact that, in my case (and the one presented in the OP) the credits do not apply, I still want to know where you get these numbers.


9300-5500-360-793-1480= 1167
1167/40000=0.029175

or 2.9% and it was 2.4% that I rounded down when I used amounts in my area and not yours.
I can follow that ;)
My work here is, finally, done.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The first time I ran the numbers I honestly was using estimates of the top of my head. Like I said I am good at math but I did actually look up the numbers when you called me out.

The affordability requirement applies ONLY to myself, so, the fact that I could have insurance for $200 or so is used for this figure, not the $500 (me and wife plan).

As of Jan, 1, 2015 the IRS states, "If these employers do not offer affordable health coverage that provides a minimum level of coverage to their full-time employees (and their dependents)." It goes on to state that affordable is 9.5% of income of about $316 dollars a month for you.
http://www.irs.gov...

I got 9300 this way. $225 a month times 12 months= $2700 $2700+$6600 deductible=$9300 out of out of pocket expenses for that plan.

You then get a 5500 tax deduction for paying this amount. Why?

IRS allows for all out of pocket medical expenses to be added on a itemized deduction. For medical the out of pocket expenses of that are 9.5% of you income cant not be deducted. Leaving 5500 that can be.

Where do you get these numbers? If your employer offers insurance, and you do not take it, you generally do NOT qualify for tax credits, so I'm not sure where you are getting these numbers. Now, regardless of the fact that, in my case (and the one presented in the OP) the credits do not apply, I still want to know where you get these numbers.

360 due to a added due to a .9% Medicare tax increase IRS state is refundable to any under 400% of the poverty line for a married couple that's about $67k a year.

a subsidy of $793 for monthly premium cost, a $1480 cost sharing subsidy. This comes from a online calculator on the health the monthly premium subsidy. (I had to use your zip code and I put in that your both the same age.) The cost sharing subsidy I had to use a estimates from obamacarefacts.com as the IRS and Health care website will not give you the amounts would qualify for with out a more information than I have about you. They base it of the taxable income and not the gross amount you make. There was a formula on the IRS site but you needed the adjusted gross income.

You qualify for tax credits if the one your employer offers is more than 9.5% of your gross income. I do admit I think that you will have to jump though some hoops to get it. If the employer says they offer a plan that is affordable then I doubt that government site will automatically give you the subsidy. They are not even required to make it affordable for 100% of there work force, only 95% of what is claimed on W2s. Many factors can though that off. Me and my girl claim 0 depends on our W2s. That will throw off what the our employer thinks is afford able. I personally will be having to jump though some loops to get subsidies after we do our taxes because of this.

My girl has a ton of past debt. So I understand not really wanting to talk about personal finances. Any thing you felt was coming from me being critical was honestly coming from a place of you can do this. I know I come off like an donkey (Had to change that word to post). lol
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:39:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 8:38:13 PM, gomergcc wrote:
The first time I ran the numbers I honestly was using estimates of the top of my head. Like I said I am good at math but I did actually look up the numbers when you called me out.

The affordability requirement applies ONLY to myself, so, the fact that I could have insurance for $200 or so is used for this figure, not the $500 (me and wife plan).

As of Jan, 1, 2015 the IRS states, "If these employers do not offer affordable health coverage that provides a minimum level of coverage to their full-time employees (and their dependents)." It goes on to state that affordable is 9.5% of income of about $316 dollars a month for you.
http://www.irs.gov...

This law is so damn confusing...
Your source applies to if the employer is subject to penalty, and, in question 22, it states that a spouse is not a dependent, so a spouse's affordability is irrelevant, so, it appears the $200 I am charged, is "affordable", even if the $500 for us is "not affordable".
I eagerly await the tax forms and publications to be final so I can see this in print....

I got 9300 this way. $225 a month times 12 months= $2700 $2700+$6600 deductible=$9300 out of out of pocket expenses for that plan.
Let's not use the deductible, as my core complaint of the law is what I MUST pay, and there is no reason to assume every year I meet my deductible.

You then get a 5500 tax deduction for paying this amount. Why?
9300 - 9.5 * 40K = 5500
I see this now, but this depends on two major factors:
1. I itemize, and being married, that is $20,300 in deductions.
2. This further assumes I actually use the insurance. If I do not, then the floor is $3,800, of which, $2700 is not more than.

IRS allows for all out of pocket medical expenses to be added on a itemized deduction. For medical the out of pocket expenses of that are 9.5% of you income cant not be deducted. Leaving 5500 that can be.

Can possibly be, yes.

Where do you get these numbers? If your employer offers insurance, and you do not take it, you generally do NOT qualify for tax credits, so I'm not sure where you are getting these numbers. Now, regardless of the fact that, in my case (and the one presented in the OP) the credits do not apply, I still want to know where you get these numbers.

360 due to a added due to a .9% Medicare tax increase IRS state is refundable to any under 400% of the poverty line for a married couple that's about $67k a year.
I've not heard this. (I am aware of the increase on the rich, however)
http://www.irs.gov...
Under eligibility:
are ineligible for coverage through an employer or government plan;

It stands to reason that if I am eligble (which I am), I do not qualify.
Again, I do not want to read the rules, I'll wait for the forms.

a subsidy of $793 for monthly premium cost, a $1480 cost sharing subsidy. This comes from a online calculator on the health the monthly premium subsidy. (I had to use your zip code and I put in that your both the same age.) The cost sharing subsidy I had to use a estimates from obamacarefacts.com as the IRS and Health care website will not give you the amounts would qualify for with out a more information than I have about you. They base it of the taxable income and not the gross amount you make. There was a formula on the IRS site but you needed the adjusted gross income.
I used this site (which is listed on your site):
http://kff.org...
Notice how the question is if my job offers insurance.
Also, when I used this site, changing the answer from yes to no, changed the answer from "most likely do not qualify" to "likely qualify with $0 subsidy". (if insurance was more costly, a dollar figure would be present)

This forces me to use my employers insurance (assuming certain criteria is met) or go it alone on the exchange (or directly with the insurance company).
In my scenario (or anyone's who has outside influences at to why they do not purchase their employer's insurance), it appears I do not qualify for any subsidy, tax credit, or cost sharing incentives.
Also, obamacarefacts.com is, IMO, an awfully bias site, so I do not trust them.
I will absolutely trust the IRS when their forms are completed.

You qualify for tax credits if the one your employer offers is more than 9.5% of your gross income. I do admit I think that you will have to jump though some hoops to get it. If the employer says they offer a plan that is affordable then I doubt that government site will automatically give you the subsidy. They are not even required to make it affordable for 100% of there work force, only 95% of what is claimed on W2s. Many factors can though that off. Me and my girl claim 0 depends on our W2s. That will throw off what the our employer thinks is afford able. I personally will be having to jump though some loops to get subsidies after we do our taxes because of this.
Again, job offered insurance is less than 9.5% of income, and spouse's increased cost does not count.
Second, you claiming 0 has no bearing on your tax liability or your W2 wages.
Whether you claim 0 or 3, the amount of taxes you owe is the same; however, claiming 0 rather than 3 means you had more money withheld from your weekly pay, so your refund is bigger, because you overpaid by a larger amount (or amount owed is smaller, because you already paid more in).

Your employer's thoughts are irrelevant to your claiming 0. Just like, I assume, what is "affordable" via your employer is unaffected by you having a second job or additional income.


My girl has a ton of past debt. So I understand not really wanting to talk about personal finances. Any thing you felt was coming from me being critical was honestly coming from a place of you can do this. I know I come off like an donkey (Had to change that word to post). lol
It's fine. No hard feelings. We can, and will, get through this, and it's not like we don't have some wealth via the house. Our financial woes are largely income, not expense, IMO. A higher income (which for her will come with time, me with experience) will solve our woes.
I've been in this mess for four years, and it aggravating.
I also just finally went back to working two jobs. I really enjoyed having a weekend off :(

Part of my rant about this law is that the employer has even more control over insurance, since I am forced to buy insurance or pay a tax, and my choices on the market are less due to the ACA, and the money I am forced to spend is money I cannot use to acquire wealth or retirement. The way this was sold was deceptive.
As far as I am concerned, it is facism, and a better solution would be to disallow companies from deducting health benefits, and offering individuals a statutory deduction for them.
My work here is, finally, done.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:53:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Is waiting till you get sick to buy healthcare not an option?

Only if you have a law that allows you to not be denied health services or are comfortable being denied health services for not being able to pay up front.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 8:17:39 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 12/10/2014 7:16:01 PM, gomergcc wrote:
At 12/10/2014 5:53:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Is waiting till you get sick to buy healthcare not an option?

Not until the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. Before then the sickness you had when you bought health insurance was not covered. :op

ObamaCare doesn't work and it will never work, plus it's completely a violation of the constitution, people don't have a right to Health Care

That is not what the Supreme Court said.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:06:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:00:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:48:31 PM, gomergcc wrote:
Sounds like you should opt out of your employers insurance plan. I got one off the government site for $198 a month with a deductible of $2750 and after that not even a copay.
Well, I can get one for me and my wife for $225, but has a $6600 deductible.
That is largely not my point.

In general I don't understand why everyone is freaking out but we all accept a way higher costs for not having automotive insurance.
I don't follow.
But, people freak out because:
1. I can be taxed for not engaging in commerce. This is a wholly new concept, and the next time the government bails out a car company, I suppose they can just say "but a GM car, or pay a $300 tax".
2. Healthcare =/= health insurance
3. The FEDERAL government is now heavily regulating the already regulated insurance market, including restricting the types of policies they can sell.
4. As you saw from my calculations, this law hurts the young to help the older, and hinders the upward mobility of Americans. (i.e. it hurts the middle class)
5. The law strengthens corporations control of wages, since they continue to offer benefits in lieu of wages.

I would like us to have a single payer system like Canada.
I would probably prefer that over this, TBH.
I found out when doing a debate this week that people in Ontario only pay at max $900 a year for health care.
I find this hard to believe this applies to all Canadians.

Are you mainly disputing this at the federal level? Because you clearly can be fined(aka taxed) for not engaging in certain commerce at the state level as an individual.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:10:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 2:49:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:48:31 PM, gomergcc wrote:

Bottom line:
The ACA actually HURTS upward mobility.

Technically that would be poverty that hurts upward mobility. the ACA may contribute to your poverty, but you do so at the risk that I have to pay for you and we know how much personal responsibility is of value.

I should not have to be at risk of paying your health bills to give you upward mobility because you can't afford health insurance.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:11:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In fact, we should be just like Singapore and take 30% of your earnings and apply that to health care and retirement in the name of forced responsibility.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:21:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 12:10:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 2:49:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:48:31 PM, gomergcc wrote:

Bottom line:
The ACA actually HURTS upward mobility.

Technically that would be poverty that hurts upward mobility. the ACA may contribute to your poverty, but you do so at the risk that I have to pay for you and we know how much personal responsibility is of value.

Lot's of things affect it. Spending habits are one. Forcing me to buy a product I do not need or desire limits what I can do. If I waste it on gambling or smokes or booze or even iphones, that doesn't help me. But, me spending/saving $3,000/yr to save for a house/retirement or pay down debt has long term effects.

I should not have to be at risk of paying your health bills to give you upward mobility because you can't afford health insurance.

How are you at risk?
How are you at risk any more than any other product?
Should you also not pay more for those who use credit cards at the gas station?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:22:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 12:06:37 PM, slo1 wrote:

Are you mainly disputing this at the federal level? Because you clearly can be fined(aka taxed) for not engaging in certain commerce at the state level as an individual.

I dispute this on numerous levels and issues.
How does the state do this?
Give me two examples, please.
My work here is, finally, done.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 1:00:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 12:22:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/12/2014 12:06:37 PM, slo1 wrote:

Are you mainly disputing this at the federal level? Because you clearly can be fined(aka taxed) for not engaging in certain commerce at the state level as an individual.

I dispute this on numerous levels and issues.
How does the state do this?
Give me two examples, please.

Getting immunizations to be eligible to attend public school. (yet you pay property tax for the school district should you choose to home school children)
Car insurance (you still pay taxes specifically to enable transportations infrastructure should you choose not to drive on roadways.)

Granted you can choose not to drive or attend public school. You can't choose to not be alive (another fine restriction that conservatives place upon our freedoms.)