International pay

Professional Mariner Forum
41

[QUOTE=tengineer1;141973]People get confused about how social security is designed. It is not an investment program. We are paying into SS now so that those who are now drawing SS get paid. When we retire we will be drawing from the contributions of the current workers. The SS Trust fund is excess taxes that were collected and never paid out hence held in trust. IF the trust fund goes bankrupt it will have little bearing on SS. The trust fund helps thru some lean times but was NEVER created to fund SS. The only way SS will not pay in future years is if the economy totally tanks and no one is paying in, of course if the economy totally tanks your 401k will also be worthless too. The best way to keep social security paying the full amount is to have good paying jobs and near full employment so that there is more contributions to pay the retirees of the future. There are other things that could be done too like raising the cap on contributions. Yes, I have paid in more than I will ever get back but I did not pay it in to get it back because it was not and never has been an investment program. I also pay property taxes that support schools no one in my family attends and maintains roads I never drive on. It is what we pay for living in a civilized society.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the history lesson, but I am well aware of how this works. Supporting schools, social services, road maintenance, etc is just part of our society and is a separate issue. I have issues supporting a system that will more than likely not deliver on its promises. I never said it was an investment program. I stated I would prefer my own private investments with the money. I could easily be independently wealthy with the money, than dependent on a broken system that has been raped and pillaged by the people we have elected. Worrying now about it will not do anything. If someone is in a position they do not have to pay in to it they should consider themselves fortunate and plan for their own future independent of what the government says they will do for you.

42

[QUOTE=Capt. Lee;141981]Thanks for the history lesson, but I am well aware of how this works. Supporting schools, social services, road maintenance, etc is just part of our society and is a separate issue. I have issues supporting a system that will more than likely not deliver on its promises. I never said it was an investment program. I stated I would prefer my own private investments with the money. I could easily be independently wealthy with the money, than dependent on a broken system that has been raped and pillaged by the people we have elected. Worrying now about it will not do anything. If someone is in a position they do not have to pay in to it they should consider themselves fortunate and plan for their own future independent of what the government says they will do for you.[/QUOTE]

Sadly we do not get to pick and choose which program we wish to support in a civilized society unless we are part of the top .5% many of whom pay very little in any tax compared to me. If we could choose I would quit supporting most of the US Navy’s newbuild programs and quite a few other gifts to contractors upon which I have zero hope of any return.If I was really selfish I would quit paying into Medicaid too because I will never see a penny of it and I have paid a LOT. But I just write my congressmen about such things that bother me, as well as about the social security program’s solvency and I vote. It is about all I can do.

43

[QUOTE=tengineer1;141984]Sadly we do not get to pick and choose which program we wish to support in a civilized society unless we are part of the top .5% many of whom pay very little in any tax compared to me. If we could choose I would quit supporting most of the US Navy’s newbuild programs and quite a few other gifts to contractors upon which I have zero hope of any return.If I was really selfish I would quit paying into Medicaid too because I will never see a penny of it and I have paid a LOT. But I just write my congressmen about such things that bother me, as well as about the social security program’s solvency and I vote. It is about all I can do.[/QUOTE]

We are not talking about funding the navy, property taxes, schools, or garbage pick up. We are talking about flushing money down the toilet. The social security fund is empty. It contains no bonds or anything else of value. This has been true for the past 30 years, but the public has been misled to believe otherwise the whole time. The intent of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 was not followed. The surplus Social Security revenue from the tax hike was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable Treasury bonds to build up a reserve with which to finance the retirement of the baby boomers. But that didn’t happen. From the time the first surplus revenue arrived in 1985, until the surpluses ended in 2009, all of the Social Security surplus revenue was deposited into the general fund where it became indistinguishable from other federal tax revenue. The Social Security money helped to finance wars and other government programs. But none of it went to Social Security. The actual money was replaced with non-marketable government IOUs, called “special obligations of the Treasury.” These IOUs are not at all like the marketable Treasury bonds held by China and other U.S. creditors. They are nothing more than an accounting record of how much Social Security money was spent for other purposes.

Some members of Congress spoke out against the misuse of the Social Security money more than 20 years ago. One Senator was so outraged by the misuse of the Social Security money that he introduced legislation that would repeal the 1983 payroll tax hike and return the system to “pay-as-you go.” his position was that, if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the jar should be emptied so there would be no Social Security surplus. One senator felt compelled to warn future generations about the bogus “securities” in the trust fund. During a senate speech on October 13, 1989, he warned that, “in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate bank notes.” “Congresses under both Republican and Democrat control, both Republican and Democrat presidents, have stolen money from social security and spent it. The money’s gone. It’s been used for another purpose.”

Some individuals and organizations continue to claim that the Social Security trust fund does hold enough real assets to pay full benefits for another 20 years. But they are wrong. The Social Security Trustees, including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of Social Security are the ultimate authority on the financial status of Social Security. In the Summary of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report the following definitive statement is made.

“Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”

If anyone still had doubts about whether or not the trust fund holds real money, the President inadvertently set the record straight during an interview with CBS News on July 12, 2011. It was during the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling. President Obama was asked if he could assure the American people that Social Security checks would go out on August 3 as scheduled, even if the debt ceiling dispute was not settled. President Obama said, “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

If Social Security had its own bank account with surplus money, why couldn’t the Social Security payments have been paid with that money? Why would Social Security payments be dependent on an increase in the debt ceiling? The answer is that, since 2010, the Social Security tax revenue has been insufficient to pay full benefits. The government had to borrow $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011 in order to pay full Social Security benefits. And the amount of money that will have to be borrowed in the future to supplement the inadequate Social Security tax revenue will increase at an increasing annual rate.

There is no money, or assets of any kind, in the trust fund. The only thing it has is those worthless IOUs that cannot be used to pay benefits or anything else. Every member of Congress and the President have known this basic truth for years. Yet, the vast majority of the American people are still convinced that the money is there. It is a basic fact that all of the surplus Social Security money was spent on other things, as it came in, over the past 30 years. The president and members of Congress know all about the spending of Social Security money for non-Social Security purposes, but the American people know almost nothing about it. The public has both a right and a need to know about the looting of Social Security and the empty trust fund. And they need to know it before any action is taken with regard to changes in benefits. But most politicians do not want the government to have to repay the $2.7 trillion of looted Social Security money. That is why so many are calling for cuts in Social Security benefits.

There has been a deliberate effort by the government, the AARP, and some other senior organizations, to lead the public to believe that the Social Security surpluses were saved and invested as planned, and that the trust fund now hold enough assets to pay full benefits for more than 20 years, without any government action. But that is a lie. And don’t expect to get much information on the trust fund from the official website of the Social Security Administration. This site is designed to confuse people about the true status of the trust fund. If you can navigate deeply enough into the official site to even find mention of the trust fund you will find a lot of double talk.

The Social Security surpluses were supposed to be saved and invested in “regular Treasury securities.” With this statement, the Social Security Administration is admitting that currently there are no regular securities in the trust fund. The only thing it holds is “special obligation securities,” which cannot be held by anyone but the trust funds. These are simple IOUs that are not marketable, and they have no value.

The government has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the public for the past 30 years. The President and the Congress know that their efforts to hide the looting from the public have been successful. Most Americans have been “programmed” to believe something that is not true. This big lie must be made public. If it is made public, I think it will become a national scandal that might make Watergate pale by comparison.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/09/21/government-should-level-public-about-social/

44

[QUOTE=Capt. Lee;142000]We are not talking about funding the navy, property taxes, schools, or garbage pick up. We are talking about flushing money down the toilet. The social security fund is empty. It contains no bonds or anything else of value. This has been true for the past 30 years, but the public has been misled to believe otherwise the whole time. The intent of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 was not followed. The surplus Social Security revenue from the tax hike was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable Treasury bonds to build up a reserve with which to finance the retirement of the baby boomers. But that didn’t happen. From the time the first surplus revenue arrived in 1985, until the surpluses ended in 2009, all of the Social Security surplus revenue was deposited into the general fund where it became indistinguishable from other federal tax revenue. The Social Security money helped to finance wars and other government programs. But none of it went to Social Security. The actual money was replaced with non-marketable government IOUs, called “special obligations of the Treasury.” These IOUs are not at all like the marketable Treasury bonds held by China and other U.S. creditors. They are nothing more than an accounting record of how much Social Security money was spent for other purposes.

Some members of Congress spoke out against the misuse of the Social Security money more than 20 years ago. One Senator was so outraged by the misuse of the Social Security money that he introduced legislation that would repeal the 1983 payroll tax hike and return the system to “pay-as-you go.” his position was that, if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the jar should be emptied so there would be no Social Security surplus. One senator felt compelled to warn future generations about the bogus “securities” in the trust fund. During a senate speech on October 13, 1989, he warned that, “in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate bank notes.” “Congresses under both Republican and Democrat control, both Republican and Democrat presidents, have stolen money from social security and spent it. The money’s gone. It’s been used for another purpose.”

Some individuals and organizations continue to claim that the Social Security trust fund does hold enough real assets to pay full benefits for another 20 years. But they are wrong. The Social Security Trustees, including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of Social Security are the ultimate authority on the financial status of Social Security. In the Summary of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report the following definitive statement is made.

“Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”

If anyone still had doubts about whether or not the trust fund holds real money, the President inadvertently set the record straight during an interview with CBS News on July 12, 2011. It was during the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling. President Obama was asked if he could assure the American people that Social Security checks would go out on August 3 as scheduled, even if the debt ceiling dispute was not settled. President Obama said, “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

If Social Security had its own bank account with surplus money, why couldn’t the Social Security payments have been paid with that money? Why would Social Security payments be dependent on an increase in the debt ceiling? The answer is that, since 2010, the Social Security tax revenue has been insufficient to pay full benefits. The government had to borrow $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011 in order to pay full Social Security benefits. And the amount of money that will have to be borrowed in the future to supplement the inadequate Social Security tax revenue will increase at an increasing annual rate.

There is no money, or assets of any kind, in the trust fund. The only thing it has is those worthless IOUs that cannot be used to pay benefits or anything else. Every member of Congress and the President have known this basic truth for years. Yet, the vast majority of the American people are still convinced that the money is there. It is a basic fact that all of the surplus Social Security money was spent on other things, as it came in, over the past 30 years. The president and members of Congress know all about the spending of Social Security money for non-Social Security purposes, but the American people know almost nothing about it. The public has both a right and a need to know about the looting of Social Security and the empty trust fund. And they need to know it before any action is taken with regard to changes in benefits. But most politicians do not want the government to have to repay the $2.7 trillion of looted Social Security money. That is why so many are calling for cuts in Social Security benefits.

There has been a deliberate effort by the government, the AARP, and some other senior organizations, to lead the public to believe that the Social Security surpluses were saved and invested as planned, and that the trust fund now hold enough assets to pay full benefits for more than 20 years, without any government action. But that is a lie. And don’t expect to get much information on the trust fund from the official website of the Social Security Administration. This site is designed to confuse people about the true status of the trust fund. If you can navigate deeply enough into the official site to even find mention of the trust fund you will find a lot of double talk.

The Social Security surpluses were supposed to be saved and invested in “regular Treasury securities.” With this statement, the Social Security Administration is admitting that currently there are no regular securities in the trust fund. The only thing it holds is “special obligation securities,” which cannot be held by anyone but the trust funds. These are simple IOUs that are not marketable, and they have no value.

The government has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the public for the past 30 years. The President and the Congress know that their efforts to hide the looting from the public have been successful. Most Americans have been “programmed” to believe something that is not true. This big lie must be made public. If it is made public, I think it will become a national scandal that might make Watergate pale by comparison.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/09/21/government-should-level-public-about-social/[/QUOTE]
I’ll try to condense it a little…There is no lock-box S/S fund.

45

[QUOTE=injunear;142001]I’ll try to condense it a little…There is no lock-box S/S fund.[/QUOTE]

No and there is no lock box that guarantees the USA will pay any of its debts. But if the economy is so bad that the USA defaults you can bet your 401k will be useless also. We could fund SS with little problem if everyone would pay their fair share with no income limit. But people don’t even like to pay their taxes and use every even dubious trick to get out of it while bitching about paying S/S. Here is an example of that. I was working in another country and employed a few USA citizens , I deducted their USA taxes, FICA etc. In the country I was operating in I also was required to pay income tax on their behalf. At the end of the year these guys wanted a letter stating how much tax they had paid to that country so they could deduct it from their USA taxes. According to what my tax attorney said they had no right to claim this as a deduction since the regulation clearly states “taxes YOU paid” may be eligible for a credit. But these clowns said, “You have to give me the letter, everyone else does.” I told them I would gladly give them a letter stating they paid tax in country X as soon as they did so. The attorney recently sent a inquiry to the IRS regarding people claiming foreign taxes paid by their employer yet claimed by the employee who paid nothing and inquiring about the legality. It should be interesting, How you claim a credit or deduction in kind for something you never paid?

46

[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;141964]From your examples above (and my experience) your first full day in France is likely to be June 11th, not June 12th. Most flights from the US to Europe enter Canadian air space even those from Florida. The same for Asian destinations depending what city you depart. This effectively ends the time in the US not long after you take off. I agree the day you arrive and depart the States counts towards the 30 days allowed (since it is a midnight to midnight clock) but no other days are lost…if your smart.[/QUOTE]

All the examples above came from the official IRS Website (http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Inter...come-Exclusion) & not my personal example.Just to let you know…

47

[QUOTE=tengineer1;142004]No and there is no lock box that guarantees the USA will pay any of its debts. But if the economy is so bad that the USA defaults you can bet your 401k will be useless also. We could fund SS with little problem if everyone would pay their fair share with no income limit. But people don’t even like to pay their taxes and use every even dubious trick to get out of it while bitching about paying S/S. Here is an example of that. I was working in another country and employed a few USA citizens , I deducted their USA taxes, FICA etc. In the country I was operating in I also was required to pay income tax on their behalf. At the end of the year these guys wanted a letter stating how much tax they had paid to that country so they could deduct it from their USA taxes. According to what my tax attorney said they had no right to claim this as a deduction since the regulation clearly states “taxes YOU paid” may be eligible for a credit. But these clowns said, “You have to give me the letter, everyone else does.” I told them I would gladly give them a letter stating they paid tax in country X as soon as they did so. The attorney recently sent a inquiry to the IRS regarding people claiming foreign taxes paid by their employer yet claimed by the employee who paid nothing and inquiring about the legality. It should be interesting, How you claim a credit or deduction in kind for something you never paid?[/QUOTE]

You really have a hard time staying focused. Foreign taxes and social security are separate issues. Their are clear double tax agreements that are perfectly legal. This has been going on for years and their are enough foreign workers in the US that are having the same taxes paid on their behalf to the US to offset any US citizens working in other countries. I do not have the hard figures, but I would think the IRS is probably coming out better than you think, but that is pure speculation.

When I was younger, I really didn’t think too much about this. My grandmother and grandfather drew off social security for many years. The monthly check was very small, but it was all they had on top of a small pension that the cement plant my grandfather worked for paid. I always felt like me paying was helping to support this system and indirectly helping them. Now my father is receiving the same. The issue for me is the mishandling of this money and the SS adminstration putting this information out about the till is empty and by such and such year we will only be able to pay 70% of benefits. Like it is our problem that this happened and we need to do something about it. “IF” the money paid into to this system had not been used for other programs, we would be in much better shape and the confidence of the US citizens in the system would be much better. As it stand, I have absolutely no confidence in the system and over the years I have developed a hatred for the system because of the way it has been handled. I hope you are right, but I think it is naive to think that people that do not even participate in the system or benefit from it, will get it right. I really don’t think they care and it has gotten so out of control that no one person can tackle this on their own for many reasons. Some of which could negatively affect their own careers. I know this is a little bit of a rant, but there are solutions.

48

[QUOTE=Capt. Lee;142016]You really have a hard time staying focused. Foreign taxes and social security are separate issues. Their are clear double tax agreements that are perfectly legal. This has been going on for years and their are enough foreign workers in the US that are having the same taxes paid on their behalf to the US to offset any US citizens working in other countries. I do not have the hard figures, but I would think the IRS is probably coming out better than you think, but that is pure speculation…[/QUOTE]

No I don’t have hard time staying focused. I am fortunate that I can focus on more than one thing at the time. As far as double taxation this is well known as is the foreign income tax credit or deduction. If I paid income tax in another country with a treaty with the USA I could take credit for the tax I paid. However, these guys did not pay income tax in another country, my company paid the tax and did not deduct it from the employees pay. The employee did not pay anything so how can the employee claim a credit for something they did not pay? This is the question I asked my attorney because I did not want to get caught up in an IRS issue. My attorney is still researching this. The first IRS person he spoke to said the tax paid by the employer for the employee could conceivably be considered income for the employee and taxable but needed to look further. [I hope they don’t] We covered ourselves and worded the letter for these guys in a manner that made it clear that the employee did not pay any tax but the company did on their behalf. Some of their tax people would not try for the credit some did. IF there is ever a definitive ruling on this I will post what is found. We are well aware that many people have been taking this deduction for years and gotten by with it but that doesn’t mean some bright IRS person won’t challenge this in the future. Hopefully there is a ruling buried somewhere in the bureaucracy this attorney can find. If anyone finds such a ruling please share. Thus far the only thing for sure is the IRS says an individual may deduct tax paid to a foreign government that THEY, the employee paid. We can find nothing that says an individual may take credit for tax paid by the employer unless of course this tax was deducted from the employees pay.

50

[QUOTE=tengineer1;142023]No I don’t have hard time staying focused. I am fortunate that I can focus on more than one thing at the time. As far as double taxation this is well known as is the foreign income tax credit or deduction. If I paid income tax in another country with a treaty with the USA I could take credit for the tax I paid. However, these guys did not pay income tax in another country, my company paid the tax and did not deduct it from the employees pay. The employee did not pay anything so how can the employee claim a credit for something they did not pay? This is the question I asked my attorney because I did not want to get caught up in an IRS issue. My attorney is still researching this. The first IRS person he spoke to said the tax paid by the employer for the employee could conceivably be considered income for the employee and taxable but needed to look further. [I hope they don’t] We covered ourselves and worded the letter for these guys in a manner that made it clear that the employee did not pay any tax but the company did on their behalf. Some of their tax people would not try for the credit some did. IF there is ever a definitive ruling on this I will post what is found. We are well aware that many people have been taking this deduction for years and gotten by with it but that doesn’t mean some bright IRS person won’t challenge this in the future. Hopefully there is a ruling buried somewhere in the bureaucracy this attorney can find. If anyone finds such a ruling please share. Thus far the only thing for sure is the IRS says an individual may deduct tax paid to a foreign government that THEY, the employee paid. We can find nothing that says an individual may take credit for tax paid by the employer unless of course this tax was deducted from the employees pay.[/QUOTE]

Perfectly legal as long as they add the foreign tax the company paid into your overall earnings on your W2.

51

[QUOTE=PDCMATE;142035]Perfectly legal as long as they add the foreign tax the company paid into your overall earnings on your W2.[/QUOTE]

Most of the people I know that have used this as a deduction tell me the foreign tax paid is not on their W2, rather they get a letter stating this tax paid to country X was paid on their behalf. I think this is where the IRS individual we talked to said that since the tax was paid for the employee and not out of his pocket it probably could not be claimed as a tax credit since the employee had no dual taxation and further more the tax paid by the employer on the employees behalf could possibly be considered as compensation and taxable. But this IRS person was not sure and referred to a superior who has not gotten back with us yet. Frankly we are not going to push the issue with the IRS as long as it does not impact the company’s reporting requirements as it may open a can of worms for some folks. We were assured the letter we provided was sufficient in that it was not implied that the employee paid any foreign tax.

52

[QUOTE=tengineer1;142041]Most of the people I know that have used this as a deduction tell me the foreign tax paid is not on their W2, rather they get a letter stating this tax paid to country X was paid on their behalf. I think this is where the IRS individual we talked to said that since the tax was paid for the employee and not out of his pocket it probably could not be claimed as a tax credit since the employee had no dual taxation and further more the tax paid by the employer on the employees behalf could possibly be considered as compensation and taxable. But this IRS person was not sure and referred to a superior who has not gotten back with us yet. Frankly we are not going to push the issue with the IRS as long as it does not impact the company’s reporting requirements as it may open a can of worms for some folks. We were assured the letter we provided was sufficient in that it was not implied that the employee paid any foreign tax.[/QUOTE]

Like I said before, it needs to be added into the total compensation on the W2, this amount would then be taxed as a whole, changing the tax deductions already paid. Its 100% legal as long as this money is accounted for in your income. If it is not, than you should not claim it.

53

[QUOTE=PDCMATE;142050]Like I said before, it needs to be added into the total compensation on the W2, this amount would then be taxed as a whole, changing the tax deductions already paid. Its 100% legal as long as this money is accounted for in your income. If it is not, than you should not claim it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. That is the exact same thing the tax attorney told me. But if these other guys want to risk claiming when it is not on their W2? Well, that is between them and the IRS. He said unless they can find a ruling that he is not aware of and the IRS person he talked to is not aware of these guys are taking a big risk and if some astute IRS person catches it they could be in some difficulties and it would prompt a system wide investigation of others making the same claim.

54

So if your company paid the tax on your behalf that is called a benefit. My company also pays my healthcare but I don’t pay the doctor again because my company paid it.

55

[QUOTE=Number360;142118]So if your company paid the tax on your behalf that is called a benefit. My company also pays my healthcare but I don’t pay the doctor again because my company paid it.[/QUOTE]

I would be careful even mentioning Heath Care. I am waiting for them to hit us (which has already been talked about) with taxes on the Health Benefits that we use.

56

[QUOTE=Tugs;142121]I would be careful even mentioning Heath Care. I am waiting for them to hit us (which has already been talked about) with taxes on the Health Benefits that we use.[/QUOTE]
The tax on so called Cadillac plans will begin in 2018. It will be a 40% tax on benefit provided over $27000/yr for a family. That is $2250/month! Not many employers provide health insurance that they pay that much for a month except for their executives who can afford to pay tax on the amount over $27000. They expect this will be adjusted upwards by 2018. I had a plan like that for a period of time which was 100% paid by the employer. It is an entire other world. I could go to pretty much any doctor and no pre-approval needed for any tests.Medical evacuation coverage from anywhere in the world was included. Out of pocket max was $500/yr. I would pay a tax to get a plan like that again paid for by my employer.

58

[QUOTE=tengineer1;142051]Thanks. That is the exact same thing the tax attorney told me. But if these other guys want to risk claiming when it is not on their W2? Well, that is between them and the IRS. He said unless they can find a ruling that he is not aware of and the IRS person he talked to is not aware of these guys are taking a big risk and if some astute IRS person catches it they could be in some difficulties and it would prompt a system wide investigation of others making the same claim.[/QUOTE]

Claiming the foreign tax credit for foreign tax you didn’t pay + not reporting as income the money that was used to pay the tax on your behalf = big issues.
But hey, go for it, you don’t really need that house.
It ain’t that complicated.

59

[QUOTE=+A465B;142127]Claiming the foreign tax credit for foreign tax you didn’t pay + not reporting as income the money that was used to pay the tax on your behalf = big issues.
But hey, go for it, you don’t really need that house.
It ain’t that complicated.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there is something unknown that is allowing these people to do this with a mere letter stating a tax was paid for them. I know in Mexico the tax for foreigners working there is very high and it is also a decent amount in some other countries I have worked in. If they can legally claim a tax paid by their employer which is not shown on the W2 good for them but thus far the silence is deafening. I hope they can find something because I will be very happy to file an amended return and get back some money for tax my employer paid for me in the past.

60

[QUOTE=lm1883;142123]$2250 a month is pretty typical for a family plan without a deductible. The problem is premiums keep rising as the ACA is implemented. $2250 a month in 2018 will not give you the same level of coverage that it does in 2014. Many unions and companies are worried that they will ultimately taxed on the benefits they provide the rank and file because the plans they offer will be seen as too luxurious as per the ACA. I believe the cut off for subsidization will be around 65k a year (family), so you can imagine what kind of discussion will be had when family budget takes on an extra $500 to $1200 monthly expenditure (not counting a $5500 deductible). Not for it or against it, but it is what it is.[/QUOTE]

The way it is now the excise tax will be 40% of the amount paid by the employer over $27500/yr. So if your employer pays $30000/yr you would owe 40% of $2500 or $1000. My insurance company tells me they expect this $27500 to be adjusted upwards before 2018. With a large employer $27500/yr buys an excellent policy with no employee contribution. I would not mind paying $1000 a year out of pocket for a plan like that. I would consider myself lucky.

61

So you think we should offer more money in the form of taxes so the same government, which has already taken the SS retirement trust of 2.3T and pissed it away, can continue to be funded. If that trust had 5T in it then instead of 2.3T missing 5T would be missing. What we should be doing is holding our elected officials, past and present, responsible both civically and criminally. The same way CEOs could be held responsible if they steal employees pensions or 401k’s. We should be talking about forcing the government to use are tax money responsibly with the threat of action if they do not. We should not be talking about reducing the deficit we should be talking about reducing the debt. Officials that steal or use public funds for personal gain should live out their days penny less and behind bars. You only have to arrest, fine into debt, and imprison a couple and the rest will probably shit themselves and straighten up quick.

62

[QUOTE=Number360;142153]So you think we should offer more money in the form of taxes so the same government, which has already taken the SS retirement trust of 2.3T and pissed it away, can continue to be funded. If that trust had 5T in it then instead of 2.3T missing 5T would be missing. What we should be doing is holding our elected officials, past and present, responsible both civically and criminally. The same way CEOs could be held responsible if they steal employees pensions or 401k’s. We should be talking about forcing the government to use are tax money responsibly with the threat of action if they do not. We should not be talking about reducing the deficit we should be talking about reducing the debt. Officials that steal or use public funds for personal gain should live out their days penny less and behind bars. You only have to arrest, fine into debt, and imprison a couple and the rest will probably shit themselves and straighten up quick.[/QUOTE]

True. Start with the money guys from Goldman Sachs, AIG, BOA, HSBC, the Koch brothers, the hedge fund guys that own the politicians which represent them not us. Trillions stolen from pensions, 401ks and working folks by these guys but the politicians bailed them out with OUR money because they were “too big to fail”. BS, if they can bring down an economy, buy politicians, have privatized gains but socialized losses insured by people that work for a living they are “too big to exist”. End of rant…