Print

Welcome, Guest

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jayhawk]

Headline: Sewer bills to go down nearly 20% thanks to no-interest loan money and improved collection rates.

Wow. Never saw that one coming. Who could have imagined such good news for a change?

[Lifetime]

 
 
Well let me take some of the wind out of the sail...
 
As of 31 Dec.... anyone who gets hospitalization will be having to pay income tax on it... Be sure to thank Dahlkemper for her yes vote on HR3590 ( Altmire voted no)
 
On page 25  of 29 :

TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A:  REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as
modified by  sec. 10901)
Sec.9002.  "requires employers to  include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate  cost of applicable employer sponsored group health  coverage that is excludable from the employees gross  income."
 
 
So now that $120 may not look like much anymore.... put in one hand and take it out down the road.
 
You will never get out of this life alive....... and it appears with money in the bank.....


 
 

Headline: Sewer bills to go down nearly 20% thanks to no-interest loan money and improved collection rates.

Wow. Never saw that one coming. Who could have imagined such good news for a change?

[Jayhawk]

As of 31 Dec.... anyone who gets hospitalization will be having to pay income tax on it... Be sure to thank Dahlkemper for her yes vote on HR3590 ( Altmire voted no)

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with sewer bills anyway, but there is no tax on health insurance just because it is listed on a W-2, just as W-2s include things like pension contributions.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

Q:  Does the new health care law require workers to pay income tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance?

A: No. The value will appear on employees’ W-2 forms for information purposes, but will not be considered taxable income.

[Lifetime]

Then be that as it may.... My W-2 has had the total of my taxable income sans the medical and has for years.... now I question that this had to be put in the bill at all IF this was a present practice...redundant at best ... but wonder why they emphasize a present practice if what you say is true. I copy pasted that wording from the bill itself. I am also waiting an explaination from 2 Congressional Reps.  When I get it, I will post ...
 
And my reasoning for my method of posting was just to say, never be too happy with handouts, because you will need them to cover another bill/tax/fee down the road. I would encourage those who can to put the $10/month in an account rather than "celebrate" getting your own money BACK. We have grown disatuned to what we pay out and why and we forget the 50% that have a free ride in much of this.
 
 
And Fact Check? Not always as accurate and some think. Kinda like the CBO giving a different figure evry time an eye blinks... Hmmmmm
 
 

As of 31 Dec.... anyone who gets hospitalization will be having to pay income tax on it... Be sure to thank Dahlkemper for her yes vote on HR3590 ( Altmire voted no)

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with sewer bills anyway, but there is no tax on health insurance just because it is listed on a W-2, just as W-2s include things like pension contributions.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

Q:  Does the new health care law require workers to pay income tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance?

A: No. The value will appear on employees’ W-2 forms for information purposes, but will not be considered taxable income.

[Jayhawk]

Nobody was celebrating the sewer-bill cut as a govt. handout. It's merely a rare case where the authority's costs went down and they are passing the savings back to the customers, returning the people's money to them -- which is exactly was conservatives and libertarians say gov't SHOULD do.

As for the W-2 thing, here's another debunking from snopes, which has never been questioned for accuracy that i know of:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/hr3590.asp

2011 W-2 Tax Forms and HR3590
Claim:   Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.

FALSE
Origins:   This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone.

The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.

In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), H.R. 3590 imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). Although "the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group  health coverage" will be reported on employees' W-2 forms, the excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance...

[Lifetime]

I go to factcheck, snopes, truth or fiction, The CBO and even ask.com. They do not always agree. I will wait to see what 2 Congresspersons say as they were on both ends of the vote..... Not saying that I trust politicians either. At worst.... we will see when the next W-2 comes and we start to lay down the figures to paper.
 
My whole premise in this topic..... Where they deem to give us back money, they come back to take it back and more shortly after. Think about the Medicare Merry Go Round.... give you a raise in SS and raise MC.... Hmmmmm... just ask anyone who draws both.
 
LOL remember that $10 after they get done having rough sex with us over the price of a gallon of gasoline.... vasiline not included.
 
 

[precisionpest]

KO-Shin, i think that would be on a policy that builds cash-value, ie: whole life policies. term life policies dont build value so therefore, should be no tax. end hi-jack

[Jayhawk]

Where they deem to give us back money, they come back to take it back and more shortly after.

You're muddying the waters by mixing federal boondoggles in with a stand-alone, local entity and event.

it's not like the sewer authority borrowed money to give you a tax rebate like the feds, or like they are politicians doing this to curry favor. It's an independent entity with a hired/appointed administrator and they are simply cutting rates because it's possible and because it's the right thing to do. They have nothing to gain and probably could have quietly banked the money.

If penn power or national fuel or the county commissioners should turn around and take more of your money, it has nothing to do with what the sewer authority is doing. Nothing.

Can't anyone simply accept those facts for what they are and be happy about it? Geez, and people claim the media are the ones who have to find something negative in every story. That trait seems to have infected the general populace, too.

[Spicoli]

Speaking of sewer bills, when this new plant is paid off will the rates revert back to what they used to be?  And if not, where does all of that extra money go?

[NightmarePatrol]

Well the beauty is that once this is paid for it will probably be time for a new one. Planned obsolescence working at the government level.

[Lifetime]

The Sewer Facility was jammed on us by a FED authotity and Income Tax is FED.... Different kid..... but same Famn Damnly. Any Tax or Governmental Fee GIVEN to us....was OURS in the first place. Unless you are in a program financed by others..... you are getting a portion of YOUR money back or less of YOUR money taken. The Government and programs they push are NEVER financed with THEIR money. The Government has no money of its own.

[JimV]

Well, I for one am willing to take good news where I can get it, in the short term.  At the very least, this shows that the sewer department is now being run effectively and efficiently--something that was NEVER the case under mayoral control.

[Jayhawk]

Well, I for one am willing to take good news where I can get it, in the short term.

Yessss. Finally, someone else willing to see a positive as a positive and, as you say, as a reflection that something is being run well in the city. For a change.

[JimV]

Well, I for one am willing to take good news where I can get it, in the short term.

Yessss. Finally, someone else willing to see a positive as a positive and, as you say, as a reflection that something is being run well in the city. For a change.

It ain't just you and me.  Hell, even the Herald praised the sewer authority in its "Our View"...somebody call Ripley's!

[Lifetime]

"Mayoral Control"?? Did the MAYOR actually have the final word in this mess? And... what did Lavorini bring to the table on this decision??? I must have missed something in this process. I thought the Board was the "Governing Authority"... so now I am to believe they had no decision power? day one?
 

Well, I for one am willing to take good news where I can get it, in the short term.  At the very least, this shows that the sewer department is now being run effectively and efficiently--something that was NEVER the case under mayoral control.