H/T Hewitt: BREAKING: Comprehensive List of Taxes
In House Democrat Health Bill
From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:20 PM
atr.org
H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" has been introduced--all 1990 pages of it. This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):
***
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).
Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.
Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act
Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
Permalink | Email | Print | Tags: TAXES, HEALTHCARE
Comments
GOD HELP US! We need to replace everyone in congress and the senate with conservatives!
>> Charles Cook Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:34 PM
God bless, Amerika. Land that I loved. Now, I do not even closely recognize the nation that I honorably served under four different Presidential administrations.
>> Lance Cordill Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:37 PM
I am with you Charles - Congress and the Senate need to listen to their Constituents and are not!
>> Linda Weiss Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:47 PM
FOX news reported last night that in a recent poll, 57% of americans support a "public option." So I guess one can argue that Congress IS listening to its constituents, not just the "conservative" ones.
>> John Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:57 PM
Congress doesn't need to listen to the constituents because this is a Republic and not a Democracy. We elect them as representatives so they will govern based on the beliefs they espoused during their campaign. What we need to do is elect better representatives, those that have philosophies based on protecting individual rights and liberty. First we have to educate those 57% of people that want economic slavery, that the government is not the solution, but the problem. Until that happens, we will continue down this "road to serfdom."
>> TCH Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:47 PM
SCOTUS will throw out individual mandate and it all comes crashing down
>> George Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:19 PM
Tax hikes that are directly related to a new program are not bad. Someone and somebody has to pay for these new services. A reflexive attack on any tax increase is not going to convince any moderates to join with the republicans. Keep saying no and be prepared to be the minority for a long long time.
>> Cory Glaberson Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:54 PM
Sorry guys, I don't really object to these. Incenting businesses to provide coverage (which by the way decreases the size of the public option, something you all say you want) is a desirable thing. Similarly, the individual mandate surtax is just enacting they key feature of the bill - requiring everyone to buy insurance so that we're not stuck paying their bills when they do get sick. The rest of these seem like pretty straightforward loophole closings, with the exception of "Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses" which is a bonafide new tax. I'll admit I don't love that and wish they could just cut it out of the bloated spending we've already got. But overall this seems like a step in the right direction.
>> Jordan Graf Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:56 PM
We have 14 employees in our business with a payroll of about $500,000. The cost of providing insurance for all of them is about $51,000 a year. If we opt not to insure them we would pay an excise tax of 2% of $500,000. In other words $10,000. We could save $41,000 by not insuring them. We won't do that to our employees but there are plenty that will and who knows about us if things get really tight. So off they go to the "public option". "If you are happy with your insurance right now you can keep it ..." yeah, right, provided your employer doesn't dump you into the public option.
>> Rob Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:22 PM
Rob, You're entirely correct, but that's not a bug--it's a feature. The Dems WANT to make it more expensive for employers to insure, because they WANT people to get pushed into the "public option." I'm reminded of something I heard long ago, "under capitalism, if you don't work you don't eat; under socialism, if you don't obey you don't eat." Replace "eat" with "receive health care" and you will understand where the left wants to go with this.
>> Mike Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:42 PM
Think we all knew there would be tax hikes and mandates.....nothing new there. What I'm not learning is what the cost of a "qualifying" policy will be for us individual peons, the ones that dont qualify for low income assistance because we're a couple bumps above the poverty line....assistance I dont want and wouldnt accept anyway because it goes against the fiber of my being. The same exact catastrophic policy for my husband & myself, with a $10,000 deductible is $200 LESS in Nebraska than in Nevada. $200 a month would sure help our younger-than-yer-average-no chronic health issues-retiree-retirement-budget. I fear the government will mandate a "qualifying" policy that I dont need and it will be more expensive.
>> B Johnson Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:31 PM
Does the 1990 page plan say what it will cost? The public option may cost me my job, but I'm not worried, The Individual Mandate Surtax will make sure I pay for my public healthcare.
And if I manage to keep my job, The FSA cap and the restriction against non-prescription medications are going to cost me personally. I cannot speak for my employer, but I would think the taxes on large firms will be reflected in the price of our health plans, reducing our ability to compete with the taxpayer subsidized "public" option. The deck is quite stacked.
>> Jim Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:52 PM |
