EducatedOwl
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Posts
- 366
Oh hold the fucking phone...
Jen got a job with her little online degree she finished up.
Hey Jen, can I tell them what you do???
Please.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh hold the fucking phone...
Jen got a job with her little online degree she finished up.
Hey Jen, can I tell them what you do???
Hey Jen, can I tell them what you do???
only if you tell your wife first.
*barfs*
*passes nappie*
OBAMACARE’S TOLL: Average Marginal Labor Income Tax Rates under the Affordable Care Act. “The law increases marginal tax rates by an average of five percentage points (of employee compensation), on top of the marginal tax rates that were already present before the it went into effect. The ACA’s addition to labor tax wedges is roughly equivalent to doubling both employer and employee payroll tax rates for half of the population.”
Oh hold the fucking phone...
Jen got a job with her little online degree she finished up.
Hey Jen, can I tell them what you do???
Thanks to the President and the idiots who support him:
AFL-CIO PRESIDENT TRUMKA ADMITS OBAMACARE MAKING EMPLOYERS CUT HOURS
by WARNER TODD HUSTON 5 Sep 2013, 1:48 AM PDT
As President Obama attempts to convince Americans that employers are not cutting employees' hours to save their jobs from the costs of the Affordable Care Act, evidence to the contrary is piling up.
Even the President of one of the largest private sector unions in the country has admitted that Obamacare is costing employees hours.
In a recent interview, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said employers are "restructuring their workforce," giving employees fewer hours—and it's all because of the negative impacts of Obamacare.
AFL-CIO PResident Richard Trumka: The Affordable Care Act does need some modifications to it, because as it does right now, what's happening is, you have employers that the law says if you pay your, if your employees work 30 hours or more a week, you've got to give them healthcare. So they're restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don't have to provide them healthcare. They’re also doing some taxing to nonprofit plans to pay for for-profit plans.
Meanwhile, a growing list of up to 258 large employers in states all across the country have announced that they are cutting jobs and hours as a result of the impact Obamacare will have on their businesses, organizations, and institutions.
Employers such as Subway sandwich shops, Republic Foods (owner of Burger King), Royal Farms Convenience Stores, public institutions such as Southern Illinois University, Youngstown State University, as well as counties and government agencies on the state level are laying off employees and cutting the hours of others in order to steer clear of the fees and taxes imposed by Obamacare.
With this admission by one of Obama's biggest boosters and largest political donors, the AFL-CIO casts further doubt on the claim that Obamacare is good for American's jobs.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...urs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
How could this possibly be, Obama said......
EPTEMBER 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact
By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”
From a tax perspective, the Affordable Care Act is in a different league than the Massachusetts health reform law passed in 2006.
The Affordable Care Act was intended to expand the fraction of the United States population covered by health insurance. The law includes taxes on employers and various implicit taxes on employees that go into effect over the next two years. Economic theory suggests that such taxes will contract the labor market in an amount commensurate with the amount of the new taxes.
The federal government and other advocates of Obamacare have dismissed concerns that the coming labor market contraction would be significant, or even noticeable, by pointing to Massachusetts’s experience with its so-called Romneycare system, also designed to expand insurance coverage. Because the Massachusetts labor market did not noticeably contract relative to the rest of the nation after its system went into effect, an official of the federal Department of Health and Human Services told The Washington Examiner that the experience in Massachusetts suggested “that the health care law will improve the affordability and accessibility of health care without significantly affecting the labor market.”
Prof. David Cutler of Harvard recently addressed, on this blog, concerns about possibly adverse tax effects, saying, “Additional data from Massachusetts, where a state law was the precursor to the Affordable Care Act, suggests that the fears are overblown” and “at this point the evidence overwhelmingly suggests no need for major worry.”
This position assumes that the Massachusetts system increased marginal labor income tax rates in the state by roughly the same magnitude that the Affordable Care Act will increase them in the United States (by marginal labor income tax rate, I mean the extra taxes paid, and subsidies forgone, as the result of working, expressed as a ratio to the total compensation from working). This assumption is no longer necessary, because the methods I have used to measure marginal tax rates from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unemployment insurance expansions and the Affordable Care Act can also be applied to the Massachusetts health reform law. The results are shown in the chart below.
The left bar shows that the Massachusetts law did, on average, increase marginal tax rates and thereby reduce the reward to working. But the impact was well under one percentage point, and for that reason it’s probably not surprising that, relative to other states that were not experiencing health reform, the Massachusetts labor market did not change noticeably after the law went into effect.
The right bar shows the impact of the Affordable Care Act on nationwide marginal tax rates: it increases national rates about 12 times as much as the Massachusetts law increased rates. Earlier this year I explained why the Massachusetts law was so different from a tax perspective: among other things, its employer penalty is an order of magnitude less, the state’s population is not the same as the national population, and Massachusetts had already been helping unemployed people with health insurance.
It follows that the effect of the Affordable Care Act on employment and work hours would be roughly 12 times as great as the effect of the Massachusetts law. That doesn’t by itself tell us the exact impact of the national law because we don’t have a precise estimate of the impact in Massachusetts, except that it was small. For example, if the Massachusetts law reduced employment by 0.1 percent, the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be roughly 1.2 percent; not small. If the Massachusetts law’s effect were 0.25 percent (still small), the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be 3 percent: again, not small. The bottom line was that it was wrong to expect the two laws to have had the same effects.
Call me gloomy, but I’m one economist who thinks that adding, on average, five percentage points to marginal tax rates will noticeably depress the labor market, while adding a few tenths of a point in Massachusetts did not.
How could this possibly be, Obama said......
EPTEMBER 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact
By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”
From a tax perspective, the Affordable Care Act is in a different league than the Massachusetts health reform law passed in 2006.
The Affordable Care Act was intended to expand the fraction of the United States population covered by health insurance. The law includes taxes on employers and various implicit taxes on employees that go into effect over the next two years. Economic theory suggests that such taxes will contract the labor market in an amount commensurate with the amount of the new taxes.
The federal government and other advocates of Obamacare have dismissed concerns that the coming labor market contraction would be significant, or even noticeable, by pointing to Massachusetts’s experience with its so-called Romneycare system, also designed to expand insurance coverage. Because the Massachusetts labor market did not noticeably contract relative to the rest of the nation after its system went into effect, an official of the federal Department of Health and Human Services told The Washington Examiner that the experience in Massachusetts suggested “that the health care law will improve the affordability and accessibility of health care without significantly affecting the labor market.”
Prof. David Cutler of Harvard recently addressed, on this blog, concerns about possibly adverse tax effects, saying, “Additional data from Massachusetts, where a state law was the precursor to the Affordable Care Act, suggests that the fears are overblown” and “at this point the evidence overwhelmingly suggests no need for major worry.”
This position assumes that the Massachusetts system increased marginal labor income tax rates in the state by roughly the same magnitude that the Affordable Care Act will increase them in the United States (by marginal labor income tax rate, I mean the extra taxes paid, and subsidies forgone, as the result of working, expressed as a ratio to the total compensation from working). This assumption is no longer necessary, because the methods I have used to measure marginal tax rates from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unemployment insurance expansions and the Affordable Care Act can also be applied to the Massachusetts health reform law. The results are shown in the chart below.
The left bar shows that the Massachusetts law did, on average, increase marginal tax rates and thereby reduce the reward to working. But the impact was well under one percentage point, and for that reason it’s probably not surprising that, relative to other states that were not experiencing health reform, the Massachusetts labor market did not change noticeably after the law went into effect.
The right bar shows the impact of the Affordable Care Act on nationwide marginal tax rates: it increases national rates about 12 times as much as the Massachusetts law increased rates. Earlier this year I explained why the Massachusetts law was so different from a tax perspective: among other things, its employer penalty is an order of magnitude less, the state’s population is not the same as the national population, and Massachusetts had already been helping unemployed people with health insurance.
It follows that the effect of the Affordable Care Act on employment and work hours would be roughly 12 times as great as the effect of the Massachusetts law. That doesn’t by itself tell us the exact impact of the national law because we don’t have a precise estimate of the impact in Massachusetts, except that it was small. For example, if the Massachusetts law reduced employment by 0.1 percent, the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be roughly 1.2 percent; not small. If the Massachusetts law’s effect were 0.25 percent (still small), the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be 3 percent: again, not small. The bottom line was that it was wrong to expect the two laws to have had the same effects.
Call me gloomy, but I’m one economist who thinks that adding, on average, five percentage points to marginal tax rates will noticeably depress the labor market, while adding a few tenths of a point in Massachusetts did not.
How could this possibly be, Obama said......
EPTEMBER 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact
By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
What a surprise, an economist from The American Enterprise Institute is opposed to the ACA...
So much for The NYT being a bastion of leftist thought that doesn't present any dissent though huh. AJ will not be pleased with you for this.
You'll deny the truth no matter what the methodology is.
Technology really you can't even use spell check are autotype so we all know that's a lie.
Are the material facts of the article in error?