Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance"

Quote

Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
This is another example of how, for people like you, the "truth" is only available to those who only look at portion of the truth.

I will repeat. In the last post I gave you a link to the GAO that showed that you and people like you receive over $1T / year in Tax Subsidies and that those Tax Subsidies are about the same size as all the Govt spending on the link that you provided us.

So the ENTIRE truth is that despite your protestations otherwise, you and those like you get, according to the GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY office, as much from the US FED Govt as all other govt social expenditures.

The ENTIRE truth is the you are a loud mouthed hypocrite who likes to take cherry picked facts and scream about how you are mistreated when in fact, the ENTIRE truth shows that you are sloping from the govt trough as much as those you make racist rants about.
Click to expand...

Explain to me what you think a tax subsidy is. What is it?
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
This is another example of how, for people like you, the "truth" is only available to those who only look at portion of the truth.

I will repeat. In the last post I gave you a link to the GAO that showed that you and people like you receive over $1T / year in Tax Subsidies and that those Tax Subsidies are about the same size as all the Govt spending on the link that you provided us.

So the ENTIRE truth is that despite your protestations otherwise, you and those like you get, according to the GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY office, as much from the US FED Govt as all other govt social expenditures.

The ENTIRE truth is the you are a loud mouthed hypocrite who likes to take cherry picked facts and scream about how you are mistreated when in fact, the ENTIRE truth shows that you are sloping from the govt trough as much as those you make racist rants about.
Click to expand...

BTW... NOWHERE in your GAO link does it even mention the term "tax subsidy". So seriously, WTF are you talking about??? Completely irrelevant.
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
BTW... NOWHERE in your GAO link does it even mention the term "tax subsidy". So seriously, WTF are you talking about??? Completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

For a payer an payment is an "Expenditure" for the payee a payment is a "Subsidy".

So when the GAO calls the Federal Government spending "Tax Expenditures" and the National Bureau of Economic Research calls those government payments to "tax Subsidies". And vice versa, If the GAO report was regarding what the government pays to you then they would have correctly used the word "Tax Subsidies" and if the EBER paper, written by the president of that organization (an MIT economist), would have been about the payments the government makes to you they would have correctly used the term "Tax Expenditures".

You are a fucking moron and the truth is, what you think that you know is completely irrelevant except for the fact that there is a party full of fat, old, white, Southern, Evangelical men, who think that they know the same things and vote.
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
For a payer an payment is an "Expenditure" for the payee a payment is a "Subsidy".

So when the GAO calls the Federal Government spending "Tax Expenditures" and the National Bureau of Economic Research calls those government payments to "tax Subsidies". And vice versa, If the GAO report was regarding what the government pays to you then they would have correctly used the word "Tax Subsidies" and if the EBER paper, written by the president of that organization (an MIT economist), would have been about the payments the government makes to you they would have correctly used the term "Tax Expenditures".

You are a fucking moron and the truth is, what you think that you know is completely irrelevant except for the fact that there is a party full of fat, old, white, Southern, Evangelical men, who think that they know the same things and vote.
Click to expand...

How the fuck can I pay the government in taxes, but also be claimed as an expenditure by the government if somehow because of a tax-break I have to pay less?

Someone who pays NO taxes yet gets money or benefits from the government that actually cost money, that is an expenditure.

Definitions
expenditure (usually uncountable, plural expenditures)
(uncountable, countable) Act of expending or paying out.
(uncountable, countable) Amount expended; expense; outlay.
The expenditure of time, money, and political capital on this project has been excessive.

subsidy (plural subsidies)
financial support or assistance, such as a grant
(dated) money granted by parliament to the British Crown

You libs try to takeover and redefine the language. Expenditures and subsidies are not the same. Moron.
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

BTW... Ever gonna answer my question? When someone works and earns money, who does that money belong to?
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
How the fuck can I pay the government in taxes, but also be claimed as an expenditure by the government if somehow because of a tax-break I have to pay less?

Someone who pays NO taxes yet gets money or benefits from the government that actually cost money, that is an expenditure.

Definitions
expenditure (usually uncountable, plural expenditures)
(uncountable, countable) Act of expending or paying out.
(uncountable, countable) Amount expended; expense; outlay.
The expenditure of time, money, and political capital on this project has been excessive.

subsidy (plural subsidies)
financial support or assistance, such as a grant
(dated) money granted by parliament to the British Crown

You libs try to takeover and redefine the language. Expenditures and subsidies are not the same. Moron.
Click to expand...

You wrote:

"You libs try to takeover and redefine the language. Expenditures and subsidies are not the same. Moron."

From the GAO website linked to above:

"The tax revenue that the government forgoes is spending channeled through the tax system."

In recent years, spending through the tax code has approached the size of federal discretionary spending (Figure 2 compares tax expenditures to other federal spending). However, tax expenditures do not compete with other priorities in the annual appropriations process, and many are not subject to congressional reauthorization. Instead, many tax expenditures operate like mandatory spending, such as Medicare, with eligibility rules and formulas that provide benefits to those who are eligible and wish to participate.

Largest Income Tax Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2012

Exclusion of employer provided health insurance $184.3 B
401(k) and employer plans $90.6 B
Mortgage Interest Deduction $81.9 B

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/tax_expenditures/issue_summary

It seems that the "Liberal" GAO doesn't agree with you that you don't get paid from the US Govt for the largest 3 Tax Expenditures.

Also, I could like the the EBER study that shows that anyone covered buy an employer provided health insurance gets a subsidy but facts don't matter to you.

You seem very comfortable being an ignorant racist.
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
You wrote:

"You libs try to takeover and redefine the language. Expenditures and subsidies are not the same. Moron."

From the GAO website linked to above:

"The tax revenue that the government forgoes is spending channeled through the tax system."

In recent years, spending through the tax code has approached the size of federal discretionary spending (Figure 2 compares tax expenditures to other federal spending). However, tax expenditures do not compete with other priorities in the annual appropriations process, and many are not subject to congressional reauthorization. Instead, many tax expenditures operate like mandatory spending, such as Medicare, with eligibility rules and formulas that provide benefits to those who are eligible and wish to participate.

Largest Income Tax Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2012

Exclusion of employer provided health insurance $184.3 B
401(k) and employer plans $90.6 B
Mortgage Interest Deduction $81.9 B

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/tax_expenditures/issue_summary

It seems that the "Liberal" GAO doesn't agree with you that you don't get paid from the US Govt for the largest 3 Tax Expenditures.

Also, I could like the the EBER study that shows that anyone covered buy an employer provided health insurance gets a subsidy but facts don't matter to you.

You seem very comfortable being an ignorant racist.
Click to expand...

You like to ignore this one don't thou? The facts get stuck sideways in your rectal sphincter!
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was about healthcare and how your president lied and continues to lie...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthrefo...hcare-overview

For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was about healthcare and how your president lied and continues to lie...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthrefo...hcare-overview

For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.
Click to expand...

No one but freeloading GOPer's think that is true!

hahaha
 












Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
You admit this was and continues to be a lie that nobody was supposed to believe???
Click to expand...

The law explicitly said, form the beginning when it was signed, that if you are in the individual care insurance market and it didn't meet the standards, you would have to sign up for one that does.

No lies, it was meant to be that way.

Everyone knew that the statement that you are harping on, only applied to those 59% of the people in the US already with group plans.

Thus, like many of the other portions of the policy, are a surprise to morons like you.

What you are harping on, no one cares but you and people like you.

Fucking moron.
 



Re: Natl Bureau of Econ Research:"Tax Subsidies to Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Anonymous said:
The law explicitly said, form the beginning when it was signed, that if you are in the individual care insurance market and it didn't meet the standards, you would have to sign up for one that does.

No lies, it was meant to be that way.

Everyone knew that the statement that you are harping on, only applied to those 59% of the people in the US already with group plans.

Thus, like many of the other portions of the policy, are a surprise to morons like you.

What you are harping on, no one cares but you and people like you.

Fucking moron.
Click to expand...

So the law says one thing, but Obama told the public it was something else. Let me guess... He didn't know?

What a moron you are.
 



Top Bottom
Back
Quote