Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (42806)	4/20/2010 7:26:07 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Pretty shaky 'analysis'. (Much of that --- the "Cadillac tax" for example, are phased in over a considerable period of time and designed specifically to incent people to modify their behaviors so they do not pay these taxes at the end of the day anyway. With the secondary goal being to remove the artificial government subsidy - the tax exempt status of this one form of compensation - so as to provide a truer picture of compensation structure and health insurance costs, to help people put downward pressure on the rate of increase in these costs... to 'bend the cost curve' downward as the lingo goes. And... why should ONE FORM of payroll compensation be taxable and another form tax exempt? Of COURSE costs in that sheltered area rise, given the tax subsidy that it has enjoyed all these years.) And, what does THIS particular charge refer to? "Payroll taxes on investment". (They never specify, so I have no idea what they are talking about there....) Re: "These lost wages, largely out of the pockets of low- and middle-income families...." That is HILARIOUSLY bogus double-speak! LOL! (Good ole Heritage!)