As documented by Americans for Tax Reform, here are 18 of Senator Reid's tax hikes within H.R. 3590 with bill section and estimated cost. Which ones will cost you in terms of dollars or quality of service?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Stable climate equals peace?
The black portions are a response to an article from the Heritage Foundation criticizing the President's (or teleprompter's) linking climate change and peace in his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech. The red is my response.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)