Congressional Budget Office Predicts Obamacare will Tax Low Wage Workers

[Viktor]

CBO: Obamacare Is A Tax On Work, May Cut Full-Time Workforce By 2.5 Million - Forbes

 

[tyroneweaver]

obamacare discourages work

as if we don't have enuf of that problem in America already

 

[blackhawk]

A lost of people knew this a long time ago and said so but most chose not to listen maybe they will now but I doubt it.

 

[longknife]

Dana Milbank, Published: February 4

I watched a lengthy report on CNN this morning that emphasized who badly this report made the GOP look. Why is this so different? It has the links and details exactly the opposite things CNN did. It's nice to compare both.

For years, the White House has trotted out the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to show that Obamacare would cut health-care costs and reduce deficits:

“CBO Confirms Families Will Save Money Under Health Reform.” @ CBO Confirms Families Will Save Money Under Health Reform | The White House

“CBO Update Shows Lower Costs for the New Health Care Law.” @ CBO Update Shows Lower Costs for the New Health Care Law | The White House

“CBO Confirms: The Health Care Law Reduces the Deficit.” @ CBO Confirms: The Health Care Law Reduces the Deficit | The White House

Live by the sword, die by the sword, the Bible tells us. In Washington, it’s slightly different: Live by the CBO, die by the CBO.

The congressional number-crunchers, perhaps the capital’s closest thing to a neutral referee, came out with a new report Tuesday, and it wasn’t pretty for Obamacare. The CBO predicted the law would have a “substantially larger” impact on the labor market than it had previously expected: The law would reduce the workforce in 2021 by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers, well more than the 800,000 originally anticipated. This will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.

And the piece contains White Efforts to spin the report. But, check it out for yourself @ Dana Milbank: Obamacare?s scorekeepers deliver a game-changer - The Washington Post thanks to Drudge

 

[francoHFW]

There are 20 ways this report makes ACA look good, 20 reasons it makes it look bad- thing is, the hater dupes NEVER hear the good things on the Pub Propaganda Machine... not journalism at all...makes them MORE IGNORANT- AND BAD CITIZENS... A DISGRACE...

 

[boedicca]

Obama has transformed the American Dream into the Nightmare of Not Working At All.

 

[HenryBHough]

Every tax encourages or discourages some activity or other.

In this case what it has discouraged is work.

Why work and pay for your Obamacare when NOT working and letting government provide Medicaid for you will result in you having more discretionary income each payday?

And....it IS a tax. Supreme Court said so in doing the legal gymnastics necessary to keep it from being cast aside.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No matter how many threads you people start on this, it's not going to magically become true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every tax encourages or discourages some activity or other.

In this case what it has discouraged is work.

Why work and pay for your Obamacare when NOT working and letting government provide Medicaid for you will result in you having more discretionary income each payday?

And....it IS a tax. Supreme Court said so in doing the legal gymnastics necessary to keep it from being cast aside.

How much work do you turn down because of the income tax?

 

[The T]

It already does...they just don't know it yet...

 

[HenryBHough]

Every tax encourages or discourages some activity or other.

In this case what it has discouraged is work.

Why work and pay for your Obamacare when NOT working and letting government provide Medicaid for you will result in you having more discretionary income each payday?

And....it IS a tax. Supreme Court said so in doing the legal gymnastics necessary to keep it from being cast aside.

How much work do you turn down because of the income tax?

Closed down one startup business when it became apparent that the tax burden arising out of hiring one employee would turn it into a losing proposition. True, though, that it wasn't just income tax. It never had huge potential - projections said the available work could justify up to three employees though the result would have been no marginal that just depositing the required seed money in a bank at today's lousy interest rates would generate a better return. That was before Obamatax implications which honestly wouldn't have made much difference as it was far below the (present) 50-employee threshold.