Keep Tipping Your Servers

alloytoo said:
FSA's are interesting animals.

It seems to involve setting aside pretax money for potential medical expenses.

The gamble of course is that the funds can only be used for their designated purpose, so that imposes a practical limit to how much people can put away. (So they're weren't really unlimited in reality.)

The other factor is that these funds are "Use if or Lose it." so potentially they can effectively be 'taxed' at 100%.

There are two kinds, Health care, limited to $2500 per year and dependant care deductions are already limited to $5000 pa.

It would seem to me that the special needs kids would fall under the later, which is unchanged.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that is the case?
I would certainly hope so.

@OrbitalDawn, this is what I was referring to.
 
empirex said:
Luckily I read and quoted the full version :rolleyes:

Top Five Worst Obamacare Taxes Coming in 2013

It still does not change the tax facts.
Click to expand...
I never argued the facts I highlighted the irony of you talking about others having not read both articles properly when you in fact hadn't read both articles properly. Hilarious stuff. Foot wedged oh so deep in mouth. A classic empirex move. :D

Again the article you refer to isn't the article "Five Major Obamacare Taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013." on FoxNews.com which is the one being referred to as having not included the $200 000 figure (which is entirely true I might add, it didn't mention the figure). It is the same author I will give you that (weird how the same author can actually write more than 1 article huh?) but beyond that it is a clear example of you not taking the time to check exactly which article is being dissected. In short,and in a massive case of irony, you didn't read both articles properly.

Now not only didn't you read both articles properly you didn't read my post properly either.

Well done. Truly inspiring.

Feel free to apologise for your errors.
 
Last edited:
alloytoo said:
Not all the "Tax Facts" are attributable to Obamacare.
Click to expand...

That is also true. I just think "Obamacare" will be yet one more nail in the coffin of the US economy that is all.

I really hope it turns out for the better; but at this stage I do not see it working that way.
So much power and control is being centralised.
 
porchrat said:
Again that isn't the article "Five Major Obamacare Taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013." on FoxNews.com which is the one being referred to. It is the same author I will give you that (weird how the same author can actually write more than article huh?).

So not only didn't you read both articles properly you didn't read my post properly either.

Well done. Truly inspiring.
Click to expand...

Genius -- the article I posted does include the references and is written by the same person, it was post number two.

That critique is of an earlier article written in July; this one was written on 28th September.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Yes, I know, which I why I said the article you posted didn't provide the full context or indeed reality about the FSAs.
Click to expand...

Well neither did the rebuttal?


Flexible spending account cap:
Kartch:
“The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.

Facts:
Under current law millions of people don’t take advantage of these accounts, because if you don’t use the money in them within a year, you forfeit all of the money in these accounts. It is known as the ‘use it or lose it rule.’ Most people don’t use these accounts because they can’t predict their future health care needs, and don’t want to forfeit the money at the end of each year.

Another thing he doesn’t mention is although before Obamacare there is no legal limit on these accounts, 78% of large employers set limits, typically around $5,000.

Be on the lookout for a change to the ‘use it or lose it rule’ sometime in the future.
Click to expand...
 
empirex said:
Genius -- the article I posted does include the references and is written by the same person, it was post number two.

That critique is of an earlier article written in July; this one was written on 28th September.
Click to expand...
You called the mention of the lack of $200 000 figure a "lie". It wasn't. The article on FoxNews.com does indeed not contain that figure. If you were aware that it wasn't a critique on your actual article why did you erroneously claim it was a lie and then refer back to your own article (the one that wasn't being critiqued) as though that somehow demonstrated that the critique was lying?... come on this makes no sense and you know it. Feeble attempt to hide the lack of reading is feeble.

It looks very much like you weren't aware that that comment, and indeed that entire article, was referring to the article on FoxNews.com and not your article. Either that or you weren't aware of the content of the FoxNews.com article (because you hadn't read that one properly). Pick one.

Looks very much like you didn't read the articles properly. If you had you would have picked up on that pretty much instantly. It took me all of 10 seconds to notice it.

You really expect people to think you didn't fail to read the articles carefully?... come on nobody is buying that when we consider your posts on the matter. Does your foot taste like caramel or something? Is that why you keep jamming it in your mouth so vigorously?



Try admitting your error just this once. You won't get struck by lightning or anything I promise.
 
Last edited:
empirex said:
That is also true. I just think "Obamacare" will be yet one more nail in the coffin of the US economy that is all.
Click to expand...

Once the the FUD clears these types of adjustments tend to be ultimately neutral in the economy. Some individual players in the healthcare industry will experience flux, but the overall health spend in the US economy should track downward in the long term.
 
alloytoo said:
The rebuttal does not attempt to mislead and confuse the facts about FSAs
Click to expand...

Neither does it clarify anything.
Which is even worse, because the author didn't know any better,so instead just but attempted to fudge the point made!
 
alloytoo said:
Once the the FUD clears these types of adjustments tend to be ultimately neutral in the economy. Some individual players in the healthcare industry will experience flux, but the overall health spend in the US economy should track downward in the long term.
Click to expand...

That's some fantastic hopeful speculation on your part, but means nothing in terms of how things will play out in reality.
 
empirex said:
Neither does it clarify anything.
Which is even worse, because the author didn't know any better,so instead just but attempted to fudge the point made!
Click to expand...

No point has been made.

Your article seeks to blame Obamacare for substantial tax increases facing the american economy when in reality Obamacare is a small percentage of the those increases.

Your article misleads people on the subject of FSA's by confusing two types, and the expenditure for which they are earmarked. He uses the emotive "Oh suffer the children" routine to blame Obamacare for a deduction limit which a) doesn't effect that type of expenditure and b) hasn't changed at all.

This entire thread is premised on false claims.
 
empirex said:
That's some fantastic hopeful speculation on your part, but means nothing in terms of how things will play out in reality.
Click to expand...

As apposed to your fantastic morbid speculation?

My speculation is based on historical data which indicates that UHC systems (of which we have many examples) tend to offer better outcomes at a lower cost.

"Reality" tends to favour my speculation.
 
alloytoo said:
As apposed to your fantastic morbid speculation?

My speculation is based on historical data which indicates that UHC systems (of which we have many examples) tend to offer better outcomes at a lower cost.

"Reality" tends to favour my speculation.
Click to expand...

That would be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X