Obama and the Dems take a piece of the Rock

[werepossum]

Prudential has now reported that it too will take a $100 million charge in the first quarter to help fund its increased tax liability starting in 2013. (Let us all take a moment to remember that anything the government does not take from you is a gift.) It may help to remember that we are taxing health care to pay for, um, health care.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jq4y4VraHNPT_G-NnV80IEiW-FkwD9EOJ5E80

NEW YORK — Insurer Prudential Financial Inc. said Monday that it will take a $100 million charge in the first quarter in relation to the recent health care overhaul legislation.

The life insurance and annuities provider said in a regulatory filing that it will take the charge against earnings in the first quarter.

Prudential joins a growing list of companies that have said they will take accounting charges because of the health care bills. AT&T said last week it would take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter. AK Steel Corp., 3M Co., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy have also said they would take smaller charges.

Prudential said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the health bill signed into law by President Barack Obama last week and a companion measure he is expected to sign Tuesday will reduce its tax deduction for retiree health care costs beginning in 2013.

Companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been getting subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs but could deduct everything they spent on the benefits — including the federal money — from their taxable income.

However, beginning in 2013, the health care overhaul will allow them to only deduct the amount of their own money that they spent. Prudential said it had taken a charge to reflect the increase in taxes it expects because of the changes.

The insurer earned $3.41 billion on revenue of $27.7 billion last year, when it was helped by a gain on the sale of its stake in a brokerage joint venture.

Shares of Prudential rose 70 cents to close at $59.91.

Sounds like analysts approve of this charge. Good to see companies in the financial position to put money aside for this added tax rather than simply dropping health care coverage - the reason for the tax break, after all.

 

[her209]

Prudential has now reported that it too will take a $100 million charge in the first quarter to help fund its increased tax liability starting in 2013. (Let us all take a moment to remember that anything the government does not take from you is a gift.) It may help to remember that we are taxing health care to pay for, um, health care.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jq4y4VraHNPT_G-NnV80IEiW-FkwD9EOJ5E80

Companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been getting subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs but could deduct everything they spent on the benefits — including the federal money — from their taxable income.

However, beginning in 2013, the health care overhaul will allow them to only deduct the amount of their own money that they spent. Prudential said it had taken a charge to reflect the increase in taxes it expects because of the changes.

Sounds like analysts approve of this charge. Good to see companies in the financial position to put money aside for this added tax rather than simply dropping health care coverage - the reason for the tax break, after all.

Their taxes didn't go up. Their subsidy went away.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Their tax scam ended.

Are you righties really trying to vilify this?

 

[CycloWizard]

No new taxes... Just a culling of old tax breaks. Now these companies will be penalized for benefits that they're already on the hook for simply to pay for a pipe dream.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Corporate welfare is a good thing?

Companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been getting subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs but could deduct everything they spent on the benefits — including the federal money — from their taxable income.

However, beginning in 2013, the health care overhaul will allow them to only deduct the amount of their own money that they spent. Prudential said it had taken a charge to reflect the increase in taxes it expects because of the changes.

It sounds like Republicans posting here don't want to end gubment handouts and tax scams?

 

[werepossum]

Their taxes are going up BECAUSE their exemption and subsidies went away.

Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong - although I have a big problem with the idea that government not taking something from you equals government giving you something - I'm just pointing out the ludicrousness of funding health care by making health care less affordable.

 

[Patranus]

Corporate welfare is a good thing?



It sounds like Republicans posting here don't want to end gubment handouts and tax scams?

The company got a tax break for providing benefits to its employees wouldn't have to go on (some portions) of Medicare.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Their taxes are going up BECAUSE their exemption and subsidies went away.

Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong - although I have a big problem with the idea that government not taking something from you equals government giving you something - I'm just pointing out the ludicrousness of funding health care by making health care less affordable.

Dude, they were deducting subsidy money on their taxes. There's no way that should fly for anyone.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The company got a tax break for spending federal money, not just their own money.

Now they still get a tax break, but only for spending their own money.

 

[Vette73]

"However, beginning in 2013, the health care overhaul will allow them to only deduct the amount of their own money that they spent."

So they were deducting money they had not spent because of a tax loophole.
Funny people complain about tax loopholes but when they are closed then they complain how these poor corps now have to pay.

Boo Hoo.

 

[Fern]

Details of the 'mechanism' employed to raise taxes are unimportant (unless you're the one preparing the tax return or financial statement).

The point is that the bill increases the cost of HC contrary to it's stated purpose. And this was obviously done so they can say the HC bill will reduce our deficit. Reducing the deficit by increasing HC costs strikes me as a bit stupid.

Fern

 

[Slick5150]

It's mindboggling that someone would somehow vilify this. But yet, here are the usual P&N suspects.

 

[Patranus]

Details of the 'mechanism' employed to raise taxes are unimportant (unless you're the one preparing the tax return or financial statement).

The point is that the bill increases the cost of HC contrary to it's stated purpose. And this was obviously done so they can say the HC bill will reduce our deficit. Reducing the deficit by increasing HC costs strikes me as a bit stupid.

Fern

It is also assuming that these companies will continue to provide the benefits instead of eventually dumping these people onto Medicare.

 

[Fern]

It's mindboggling that someone would somehow vilify this. But yet, here are the usual P&N suspects.

Really?

Let me ask how do you think many on left would have reacted if the Repubs had cut this government funding helping provide medical care to retirees?

As a fiscal conservative I certainly do not approve when the government hands out these kinds of subsidies, yet I do note the absurdity of a bill purporting to provide more HC and reduce costs of HC yet does exactly the opposite (at least in parts).

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

The government has to have more tax revenue from the HC costs than it will cost to impliment HC.

That have been one of the implied promises/statements -
IT WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEFICIT.
IT WILL REDUCE THE DEFICIT.

The only way for that to succeed, is to obtain tax revenue that cover the costs to the government; by by increasing taxes and/or reducing loopholes/deductions/credits.

This is the standard mechanism of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[werepossum]

Really?

Let me ask how do you think many on left would have reacted if the Repubs had cut this government funding helping provide medical care to retirees?

As a fiscal conservative I certainly do not approve when the government hands out these kinds of subsidies, yet I do note the absurdity of a bill purporting to provide more HC and reduce costs of HC yet does exactly the opposite (at least in parts).

Fern

This exactly.

 

[Patranus]

Really?

Let me ask how do you think many on left would have reacted if the Repubs had cut this government funding helping provide medical care to retirees?

As a fiscal conservative I certainly do not approve when the government hands out these kinds of subsidies, yet I do note the absurdity of a bill purporting to provide more HC and reduce costs of HC yet does exactly the opposite (at least in parts).

Fern

I would much rather have the government incentivize business by offering them tax breaks rather than those companies simply dumping their retirees onto Medicare.

 

[Ozoned]

The company got a tax break for providing benefits to its employees wouldn't have to go on (some portions) of Medicare.

I wonder if the CBO scored the bill under the assumption that the companies receiving these subsidies will continue to provide the benefits without it?

Would you? My guess is that taking away the subsidies will show as revenue, but there is no accounting for any additional cost incurred in the final CBO score.

The reason for the government to give the incentives to provide the benefits was that the TOTAL cost to the government was less than if provided through medicaid.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm really sitting here in disbelief at some of these comments. To reiterate, these companies were claiming tax deductions on money that was spent that wasn't theirs. In what world, for whatever reason, to whatever end, is this OK and should not be fixed? I guess when it's in a world where Democrats are doing the fixing.

 

[werepossum]

I'm really sitting here in disbelief at some of these comments. To reiterate, these companies were claiming tax deductions on money that was spent that wasn't theirs. In what world, for whatever reason, to whatever end, is this OK and should not be fixed? I guess when it's in a world where Democrats are doing the fixing.

Interesting. When government gives ACORN money that money becomes ACORN's; apparently not so with Prudential, AT&T, etc.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Interesting. When government gives ACORN money that money becomes ACORN's; apparently not so with Prudential, AT&T, etc.

Really, Acorn? Want to inject Bill Ayers into this somehow too? The fact is claiming subsidy money as a tax deduction should be ended no matter who is the recipient.

 

[Hacp]

How many actuaries will prudential hire in China and India instead of the US now? More high tech jobs going overseas b/c of Obama.

 

[her209]

Interesting. When government gives ACORN money that money becomes ACORN's; apparently not so with Prudential, AT&T, etc.

Why is the government giving ACORN money?

 

[werepossum]

Why is the government giving ACORN money?

Because the government is dominated by the Democrats and ACORN helps Democrats get elected, by hook or by crook. Everyone knows this.

 

[Slick5150]

Ah yes, the usual tactic of completely changing the subject when the issue at hand doesn't fit into one's neatly packed view of the world.

Well done werepossum, well done.