2014***ObamaCare***2014

"And that second point was reaffirmed by the CBO in their analysis. Their forecast for the "risk corridors" (or as Don Diego referred to them in an earlier post "insurance bailout") is going to be a net positive for tax payers"

I find it to believe that when you increase the payout & people are working less it magically doesn't cost more. Have they factored in the lost income/ss/medicare tax revenue.

I see that in the same report they reduced the signup goal to 6 million. Soon it will be around 5 million & obama will claim they acheived their goal.

The govt still won't release the number of people who have actually paid their premium, which is an indicator that the sell thru could be low

People can do basic math no real surprise. What a lot of folks are saying is I can work less to make 20k a year and get Medicaid for my family with no real out of pocket costs. The alternative is I can work my ass off never seeing my family to make 32k, but not really being financially ahead because I will have to pay $12,500 in out of pocket costs with the private insurance.

DonDiego and pjstroh are apparently in agreement.
DonDiego would prefer replacing that "10,000 page book" [probably a low-ball estimate] with a much simplified straightforward set of rules.
Nonetheless, DonDiego sees a difference in at least some tax breaks.

When DonDiego hears "tax break" he thinks first of the decrease/deferral in taxes on capital expenses. In this case there is a significant difference from the Obamacare subsidy:
__The "tax break" allows a company to reduce its taxes, thereby keeping some of its own money, when it increases or improves its fixed assets, because the Government judges capital improvement to be a benefit to society.
__In the Obamacare subsidy case, the Government gives money to someone who never had it to defray an expense the Government judges to be a benefit to society.

In both cases the Government has made a value judgement, but in one case that results in a company keeping its own money and in the other case it results in the Government distributing money to someone.
If pjstroh cannot see this difference DonDiego suggests his parents demand a refund from his elementary school.

Presumedly the value judgement which serves a the basis in either case is debated during the creation of the
applicable legislation; it can still be debated among reasonable citizens. DonDiego can see the benefits, but he wouldn't mind a simpler tax system which would eliminate even the capital expenditure tax breaks.


There are many other kinds of tax breaks, . . . most of which DonDiego opposes outright.

They are typically presented as a subsidy or grant, sometimes in the form of loans or sometimes a grant similar to the Obamacare subsidy.
__A recent example of loans is the Solyndra Corporation. This Corporation was given several $hundred-million from the Government to develop a solar energy product. The officers of the Corporation, in some cases major donors to political campaigns, managed to secure mid 6-figure incomes for several years and waste, . . . well, . . . pretty much all of the subsidy funds, . . . even buying $tens-of-millions of rare expensive specialty glass tubes which they destroyed, instead of selling, once bankruptcy was inevitable. Somebody should've gone to jail.
The US taxpayers lost over $500-million.
__The Farm Subsidy is another straightforward grant/subsidy. [DonDiego understands this is at least being corrected a mite as he types.]
DonDiego doesn't care for these.

Or they are presented as simple straightforward bailouts, . . . no explanation needed.
DonDiego opposes bailouts.

The govt providing an incentive not to work is bad economic policy

Oh, but I do fail to see a difference because the fiscal bottom line is exactly the same in either case. You can a hand debtor a $100 bill ... or you can tell that debtor he owes you $100 less money. Either way you are out a $100. I'm thinking I learned that math in 3rd Grade. Thank you, Ms Beattle! No need for a refund.

Don Diego likes to teach us the dangers when a government picks winners and losers and redistributes wealth ....unless it manifests itself as an entity keeping more of its own money....then suddenly those dangers are not so dangerous after all.

Funny thing about math...it doesn't have double standards.

I recognize your need to always bear the mantle of victim. To believe that all comments here are directed at you personally. To always demand sympathy as the persecuted "poor poor DonDiego", as you put it. I get it, this need of yours runs deep.

But at some point it should matter than no one accused you of claiming that 2 million jobs will be lost.

Perhaps this is that point. Probably not, but I'm a hopeful sort.

That is likely to go down as today's dumbest post. (Admittedly we haven't heard from albeadle33 yet.)

Things that hoops2 apparently thinks are bad ecomonic policies because they allow people to work less than they are physically capable:

* Overtime laws
* Social security
* Anti-employee stoning and whipping laws
* Family and medical leave
* Restrictions on child labor
* Occupational safety regulations
* Allowing workers to save income so that they can retire

By no means an exhaustive list.

Actually chilly's post is the dumb one because in his example the govt is not providing a subsidy for working age adults to work less

You didn't say "subsidy", you said "incentive". They are different words, they have different meanings.

Hmm, . . . allowing someone to retain some of their own money after they have spent their own funds to improve capital assets is the same as giving someone who has done nothing some money to buy himself something..
DonDiego still sees a difference.

But, nonetheless, DonDiego recommends pjstroh read his earlier post more carefully:
"Presumedly the value judgement which serves a the basis in either case is debated during the creation of the
applicable legislation; it can still be debated among reasonable citizens. DonDiego can see the benefits, but he wouldn't mind a simpler tax system which would eliminate even the capital expenditure tax breaks."

See, DonDiego can see the benefits of capital expense tax breaks; pjstroh cannot.
DonDiego supposes pjstroh can see the benefits in loaning Solyndra money; DonDiego did not.

DonDiego sees danger whenever the Government picks winners and losers. In each case it is possible to debate the benefits; in each case someone thought it was a good idea, and in each case the person who receives the benefit wants to keep it.
If pjstroh would agree to eliminating all Government subsidies, loans, tax breaks, etc. . . and, in fact, any transfer of money to anyone to influence behavior or redistribute wealth as opposed to purchase goods/services for legitimate Government use, DonDiego would agree to it. In fact he'd even agree to continuation of a simplified efficient welfare program to assist the truly needy who cannot help themselves.
Even though he can see benefit in some "loopholes" he'd prefer everyone's were done away with. Otherwise, f'rinstance, pjstroh might get a break that DonDiego doesn't.

And imagine the savings in not supporting the gigantic lobbying industry in Washington, D.C.

[n.b. There would be consequences.
F'rinstance, let's say the mortgage interest deduction were eliminated. This would effectively raise one's mortgage payment. Since most purchasers buy a home on which they can afford to make the payments, the price of homes would necessarily drop. This would cause some folks, e.g. realtors, pain. But the other way to look at it is that the higher prices now are caused by the mortgage deduction and home prices would just achieve their honest market value if it were eliminated.]

Poor old DonDiego would much prefer that the Government do less altogether and let everyone keep more of their own money.
He has little hope.