Libtards like to site CBO...Why didn't they post this one?

[dario73]

No wonder people will want to work less and earn less.

For some people, CBO notes, the incentive to reduce their hours or quit their jobs will be especially strong: "People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold."

The Obamacare subsidy cliff is so steep that if you earn just $1 above the threshold, you could end up paying anywhere from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 more for insurance, depending on your age.

Take the case of a couple of 55-year-olds living in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, where the median household income is a little over $68,000.

Let's say that they earn $62,040 in 2014. They would pay $211 per month for the cheapest Obamacare plan available on healthcare.gov:


But if they earn $62,041--just one dollar more--they would pay $1,342 per month. That's an extra $13,572 per year for the same bare-bones insurance plan:

But for Americans teetering on the edge of Obamacare's subsidy cliff, the decision to work more in order to earn less isn't much of a free choice at all.

So there is no FREEDOM. You are FORCE into making the decision.

So much for that dumb democrat that equated 2.5 million working less with freedom.

[tu_holmes]

The Affordable Healthcare Act is anything but "Affordable".

The entire healthcare bill is a travesty.

[headhuntersix]

If we'd just follow the constitution in regards what Uncle Sam is responsible for we'd all be better off. Half the argument is not whether healthcare like this  is a good idea, its whether the gov can pull it off. The US military is pretty dam good...we're organized, we fight well, we have good equipment, fairly large and complex etc.....but really we win because most other countries are a clusterfuck and can't get out of the motor pool on a good day. Everything is a good idea until you expect people to execute you're plan....then its a shit show. The private sector is different as the motivations are different.

[tonymctones]

stop with the caps already

the subsidies are there for that reason and some people will choose to use them

CBO Director said today that the ACA will actually boost the demand for labor

I'm going to copy the article because I doubt you will bother to read it before you bang out another response in caps

maybe you can make it through a few second of a video

LOL Nice try but what they said is it would boost the demand for goods and services over the next few years...This is not exactly the same as boost the demand for labor.

Higher demand for labor is contingent on the business capacity to produce more/service more. An increase in demand doesnt equate to a increase in labor...

Also this is over the next few years in other word short run, not long run like the disencentive to work and people on the govt tit...

[George Whorewell]

Not only the WaPo fact checker, sorry. 

Straw is right, though: Trying to reason with most conservatives is futile.

Next time Strawman is anally penetrating you,  be sure to show him your appreciation by giving him a high five. 

[George Whorewell]

People in general, yes I agree. 

But I could see where it might be a good idea to get some people to work less so that other people could work more. 

Like giving some high-earning folks incentives to take early retirements to make room for more younger workers.

Mind you, I'm not endorsing this idea.  I'm just bringing it up to point out that it's not as clear cut as you might think at first blush.

That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair  and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!

[George Whorewell]

Can't agree to that at this time;  Personally, to feel good about that, I'd need to know much more.  

In general, I don't have much faith in most snap judgements.  

For example, that thread about research money being spent on studying something related to syphilis among Peru's gay male prostitutes.  Sure, it sounds idiotic, but weighing in on it (without using so many qualifiers/weasel words as to make an opinion near worthless) before knowing most of the facts seems even more idiotic to me.  Too easy to be wrong.

Based on the above quotation, you obviously spend your leisure time with gay prostitutes in South America. So I'm sure the study was of particular concern to you.

[Roger Bacon]

That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair  and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!

Please post more often George Whorewell!!! ROFL

[Soul Crusher]

That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair  and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!

LOL!!!!  ha ha ha ha ha

[RRKore]

Based on the above quotation, you obviously spend your leisure time with gay prostitutes in South America. So I'm sure the study was of particular concern to you.

I do not!

[tonymctones]

Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions.

This is the center of the majority of libtard ideology

[RRKore]

If we'd just follow the constitution in regards what Uncle Sam is responsible for we'd all be better off. Half the argument is not whether healthcare like this  is a good idea, its whether the gov can pull it off. The US military is pretty dam good...we're organized, we fight well, we have good equipment, fairly large and complex etc.....but really we win because most other countries are a clusterfuck and can't get out of the motor pool on a good day. Everything is a good idea until you expect people to execute you're plan....then its a shit show. The private sector is different as the motivations are different.

Follow the Constitution?  Isn't one of the major strengths of the Constitution that it can be changed? 

[RRKore]

Next time Strawman is anally penetrating you,  be sure to show him your appreciation by giving him a high five. 

Good one, Beavis.

[RRKore]

That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair  and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!

Google Paul Ryan and "Job-lock".  (You know, the thing that republicans were in favor of a couple of years ago.)

[tonymctones]

Google Paul Ryan and "Job-lock".  (You know, the thing that republicans were in favor of a couple of years ago.)

so whatever it was the reps were for years ago somehow justifies this shit sandwich?

[George Whorewell]

Google Paul Ryan and "Job-lock".  (You know, the thing that republicans were in favor of a couple of years ago.)

So, what you're saying is that you support higher unemployment?

[tonymctones]

relevant question is how the rep would have relieved them of "job lock"?

would it have been through govt subsidies?

[tonymctones]

What I find just absolutely hillarious is these same morons are the ones who will say the reps have no ideas for healthcare reform and then will try and point to their ideas as justification for the stupidity of those they support.

[RRKore]

So, what you're saying is that you support higher unemployment?

Higher unemployment?  Is that the issue? 

What I'm of favor of is having healthcare not tied to employment.  Do you understand that idea?

[George Whorewell]

Higher unemployment?  Is that the issue? 

What I'm of favor of is having healthcare not tied to employment.  Do you understand that idea?

Yes shit for brains, that is the issue. That is the only issue.

What rational, intelligent people support are policies that don't create incentives for people to remain jobless. I also hope you realize that by your own idiotic reasoning, healthcare will still be tied to employment because those who actually work will be willing to keep shitty, low wage jobs for a government healthcare subsidy

[RRKore]

Yes shit for brains, that is the issue. That is the only issue.

That's the only issue with Obamacare?  I disagree.

What rational, intelligent people support are policies that don't create incentives for people to remain jobless.

Incentives?  How about making employment required under penalty of death?  Does that make sense to you, freak?  (And considering some of the health problems that some people are dealing with, this is a valid question.)

I also hope you realize that by your own idiotic reasoning, healthcare will still be tied to employment because those who actually work will be willing to keep shitty, low wage jobs for a government healthcare subsidy.

Maybe. But they don't have to stay in THE SAME job just to avoid a discontinuation of their healthcare.  This could mean that they're more free to, say, start their own business even though their initial financial return will be low.

And, anyway, what IS all this "people need incentives to work" BS?  Are you not acquainted with the job situation in the USA?  There are plenty of people to fill jobs that will be left by those for whom healthcare was the overriding factor in whether they kept their job.

Mr. Whorehell, it's great that you write with conviction, but how about if you think a little bit first?  Thanks.

[RRKore]

No wonder people will want to work less and earn less.

For some people, CBO notes, the incentive to reduce their hours or quit their jobs will be especially strong: "People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold."

The Obamacare subsidy cliff is so steep that if you earn just $1 above the threshold, you could end up paying anywhere from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 more for insurance, depending on your age.

Take the case of a couple of 55-year-olds living in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, where the median household income is a little over $68,000.

Let's say that they earn $62,040 in 2014. They would pay $211 per month for the cheapest Obamacare plan available on healthcare.gov:


But if they earn $62,041--just one dollar more--they would pay $1,342 per month. That's an extra $13,572 per year for the same bare-bones insurance plan:

But for Americans teetering on the edge of Obamacare's subsidy cliff, the decision to work more in order to earn less isn't much of a free choice at all.

So there is no FREEDOM. You are FORCE into making the decision.

So much for that dumb democrat that equated 2.5 million working less with freedom.

Good, informative post Dario. 

Isn't this situation pretty much the way it works for single parents, though? (Not that that's an argument against your point.) I'm talking about childcare expenses potentially eating up all the extra money that might be earned by working extra hours (in jobs below a certain income level).

Seems to me that a cost/benefit analysis always needs to be done when deciding how much to work, right?

Maybe it depends on whether you're a "live to work" type or a "work to live" type? 

Personally, I would rather "work to live" and I'm sure there are many who feel the same way.  (Especially on a BB board.)

[tonymctones]

That's the only issue with Obamacare?  I disagree.

Incentives?  How about making employment required under penalty of death?  Does that make sense to you, freak?  (And considering some of the health problems that some people are dealing with, this is a valid question.)

when did it become prominent liberal thinking that you are entitled to other people taking care of you?

The incentive to work is so that you are able to take care of your needs and wants. Nobody is saying work until death their brainchild only that you shouldnt be taking from others to support yourself while you still have the ability to work.

There are and have been plenty of govt programs to support those who cannot support themselves due to disabilities so please stop with that tired ass talking point.

[tonymctones]

Good, informative post Dario.  

Isn't this situation pretty much the way it works for single parents, though? (Not that that's an argument against your point.) I'm talking about childcare expenses potentially eating up all the extra money that might be earned by working extra hours (in jobs below a certain income level).

Seems to me that a cost/benefit analysis always needs to be done when deciding how much to work, right?

Maybe it depends on whether you're a "live to work" type or a "work to live" type?  

Personally, I would rather "work to live" and I'm sure there are many who feel the same way.  (Especially on a BB board.)

work to live all you want but dont expect others to subsidize your laziness

[RRKore]

What I find just absolutely hillarious is these same morons are the ones who will say the reps have no ideas for healthcare reform and then will try and point to their ideas as justification for the stupidity of those they support.

Naw Tony, I wasn't doing that.  I just wanted to bring up the "job lock" argument and was too lazy to write much but when I google the term (intent on doing a SC-style copy pasta) I saw a Paul Ryan video where he was arguing the same point and, silly me, I thought your average conservatard might listen to him more than, say, Bernie Sanders.

BTW, ya misspelled "hilarious".    --  Which is no biggie -- I'm convinced you can spell when you want to but fer fuck's sake, doesn't your browser check the spelling automatically?  Are you using Netscape or what?