• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama's Tax Increase on the Middle Class. YES, Increase

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
That's the problem, they are distracting knuckle draggers like you with bread and circuses and you clamor to blame others. They love it. "Hey, look, blame the upper middle class!"

lol.
Obama wasn't blaming anyone idiot, he was, in the words of his advisor:

"We proposed it because we thought it was a sensible approach, part of consolidating six programs to two and expanding and better targeting education tax relief for the middle class," said the White House official. "Given it has become such a distraction, we're not going to ask Congress to pass the 529 provision so that they can instead focus on delivering a larger package of education tax relief that has bipartisan support."
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Wait till over 1 million people find out they were overpaid subsidies on ACA and now the IRS is owed over $1,000 . . . . ACA armagedden is coming.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
$120k for a child certainly is sizable.
It is precisely enough to pay for 5 years at an in-state school. Sizable is a good definition of the cost of education.

An IN STATE land-grant school like A&M or x-State is going to cost about 24k/year; if you don't have 100k/ child saved you are going to pay heavily

How about he do something real, like, you know, fix the fucking education inflation problem?

Instead, he just wants to triple-fuck the middle class and debt enslave entire generations.
Inflation is too dollars goods chasing too few goods.

When the % of the population getting a college degree goes from 7% to 30% and the population increases then you get a LOT more people wanting that thing.

This means more buildings, more professors, and more administrative overhead. It also means worse professors, worse buildings, and worse administrators. (price and quality trade off with each other).

So everyone you know is blowing their money instead of saving it and that means everyone who doesn't use this saving plan is like them too? Not only that but you are sacrificing now to save for later, thus you are better in this regard than everyone you see?
Seriously, he's a better person for being more responsible. Fuck you for making fun of him for it.
No, he's saying this:

Currently you pay $100 in taxes. If a piece of legislation passes that has one part that gives you a $10 tax increase and another part that gives you a $20 tax cut, the overall effect of the legislation is a tax cut.
If it meant taking $10 from me and $30 from someone who was more responsible than me so that we could both get $20 in a different cut then NO I do NOT want that tax cut.

And fuck Obama for wanting to screw people who are more responsible.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
Wait till over 1 million people find out they were overpaid subsidies on ACA and now the IRS is owed over $1,000 . . . . ACA armagedden is coming.
You mean being able to just estimate your salary willy nilly might have caused problems?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Wait till over 1 million people find out they were overpaid subsidies on ACA and now the IRS is owed over $1,000 . . . . ACA armagedden is coming.
How is this any different from claiming too many exemptions on your W4, and then finding out you've under-withheld and owe additional tax when you file your 1040? "Income tax armageddon?"

But I'm sure righties will play this up as though it's some huge flaw in the ACA, when it fact it's just people ending up getting exactly the net subsidy their income warrants.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
How is this any different from claiming too many exemptions on your W4, and then finding out you've under-withheld and owe additional tax when you file your 1040? "Income tax armageddon?"

But I'm sure righties will play this up as though it's some huge flaw in the ACA, when it fact it's just people ending up getting exactly the net subsidy their income warrants.
Asking people to enter their previous year's W2 (+/- earnings changes) would have been useful for avoiding this situation. Seems like a major oversight.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,136
18,910
136
Wait till over 1 million people find out they were overpaid subsidies on ACA and now the IRS is owed over $1,000 . . . . ACA armagedden is coming.
When can we expect this Armageddon? Just ballpark it for me. I see so many ACA armageddons predicted that it's hard to keep them all straight.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,131
13,071
136
Asking people to enter their previous year's W2 (+/- earnings changes) would have been useful for avoiding this situation. Seems like a major oversight.
Exquisitely lame. The difference between monthly income & annual income is a factor of 12. Those 2 numbers are closely related, unlike educational tax breaks & this duh-version.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
The most scary situation will be for those who due to loss income ended up making below the poverty level. They will have to repay all tax credits back, money that they obviously don't have. Someone who was making $1000 a month when they signed up would qualify, but lets say in February their income drops to $900, they stop qualifying. They don't know this and continue to receive their health insurance. When they file this year, they will owe all of the credit to the IRS.

If someone looses their job and becomes unemployed, their income could fall below the minimum earned income requirement to receive a subsidy in the ACA, again all subsidies must be repaid.


This will be a big worry for those who don't live in areas were medicaid has expanded.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,131
13,071
136
The most scary situation will be for those who due to loss income ended up making below the poverty level. They will have to repay all tax credits back, money that they obviously don't have. Someone who makes $900 a month will owe thousands of dollars to the IRS, leaving them with little option.

This will be a big worry for those who don't live in areas were medicaid has expanded.
wut?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
The ACA has a minimum earned income requirement for the credit, you must make at least 100% of poverty to receive the credit.

However I see the credit repayment is capped at 300 to 1250 based on income, so these people would owe $300 back, if single. Married people who become unemployed would owe $600 back.

The worst thing would be they no longer qualify for healthcare unless they move to state that supports expanded medicaid.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
The ACA has a minimum earned income requirement for the credit, you must make at least 100% of poverty to receive the credit.

However I see the credit repayment is capped at 300 to 1250 based on income, so these people would owe $300 back, if single. Married people who become unemployed would owe $600 back.

The worst thing would be they no longer qualify for healthcare unless they move to state that supports expanded medicaid.
Correct; although you need to make above 150% to not auto-qualify for medicaid. So there's a 50% above poverty buffer before you started needing to get the credit.

Doesn't mean the family that started at 151 in January couldn't have lost one job in March and then been screwed though. That is a scary situation.

Fortunately, the EIC for people in this range will likely buffer any 'real' losses; though a large number of people rely on annual EIC to pay off the credit cards that they use as their emergency funds.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,131
13,071
136
The ACA has a minimum earned income requirement for the credit, you must make at least 100% of poverty to receive the credit.

However I see the credit repayment is capped at 300 to 1250 based on income, so these people would owe $300 back, if single. Married people who become unemployed would owe $600 back.

The worst thing would be they no longer qualify for healthcare unless they move to state that supports expanded medicaid.
Which doesn't mean that the IRS won't waive penalties in such circumstances. Even Repubs wouldn't have the nerve to complain. ACA participants can also change enrollment information on a month by month basis. That's particularly important for subsidy recipients who started making more as the year progressed.

Lots of people fall in & out of the gap in states w/o medicaid expansion. It's a feature of Repub governance, fucking low wage workers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY