“Quirk” in ObamaCare Means Working Less is Rewarded
There are so many things wrong with ObamaCare that it’s hard to know where to start. One of the latest is something CNBC is calling a “quirk” that
. . . could ultimately mean thousands of dollars less for you under a quirk in the new health-care law going into effect this fall. This could prompt some people to cut back on their hours to avoid losing money.
“Working more can actually leave you worse off,” the price-comparison site ValuePenguin.com notes in a new analysis.
“It’s sort of an absurd scenario,” said Jonathan Wu, ValuePenguin.com’s co-founder. “It’s something for people to be aware of.”
In that scenario, an individual or family whose annual income surpasses maximums set by the federal government—if only by $1—will totally lose subsidies available to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
The loss of those subsidies in some cases will mean that people potentially would have been better off financially if they had worked less during the year, Wu said. And they then would have to work significantly more to make up for the lost subsidy.
That’s right, this “quirk” that many of us would argue is designed to be an economy-destroying feature of the ObamaCare Tax monstrosity rewards people with tax-payer-funded subsidies for doing less work. It not only destroys the economy, but also destroys one of the things that distinguishes Americans, that contributes to that other “notion” that Obama disparages: American exceptionalism.
We already know that Obama and his radical cronies don’t approve of entrepreneurship–we all remember “you didn’t build that“, so it’s not a big surprise that an incentive is built into ObamaCare to work less / get more from government. The “government,” of course, means the taxpayer–who, let’s face it, will be paying significantly less in income taxes with both the 30-hour work week and the incentive to work less, earn less. That’s a recipe for less revenue, not more, so of course, we can expect a great many more taxes on everything else to make up for the loss . . . and to hide the fact that Obama raises taxes, particularly on the middle classes, constantly, but under the radar.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Isn’t that the Obama/Democrat/liberal philosophy?
For all I know they always reward the lazy while punishing the hard working and successful citizen.
Working less has always been rewarded in Barry’s own life. He was a self-admitted pothead and slacker at Occidental, yet that didn’t keep him from being able to transfer into Ivy League Columbia University. And despite not graduating from college with honors, Barry still managed to get admitted to Harvard Law School, where he was titular president of the Law Review, without ever writing any law review articles (and without ever doing much of any other kind of work, according to the other editors). Then Obama sat in the Illinois state legislature for years, while Emil Jones handed him legislation to put his name on. Meanwhile, Barry was handed a job teaching law at the University of Chicago, and was even offered a place on the tenure track, despite never having published even a single scholarly article on any legal topic. Being lazy, Barry of course turned down the offer, probably because it would have required him to do some actual work. Much easier to become a U.S. Senator, and then U.S. President, and let others do the work for him.
Who can blame Barry for thinking that working less is a good thing? After all, it’s worked out swell for him!
He’s even admitted to being “lazy.” But if anyone else calls him lazy, that’s a racist dog-whistle.
“Barry, You Didn’t Win That!”
Of course working less should be rewarded, just like illegality should be rewarded. All of the virtues that were fundamental to our once-great country must be drummed out of our culture, per the “progressives.” It is happening, and there are very few leaders who articulate real opposition to this movement. I count Ted Cruz as one of those few.
Obamacare seems to be about 90% “quirks”, doesn’t it?
Reading the law wasn’t necessary for it to pass.
And, some pretty crafty lawyers built this monstrosity just they way they wanted. And, the “sold” off their skills to some employers who bought “knowledge” at hefty prices.
If you tried to fathom what you were reading while you actually looked at the law, you’d have to report it contains maximum gibberish.
Of course, it doesn’t provide health care! It’s the government’s way, though, to get people even more disgusted with private insurance carriers. And, without delivering any health benefits at all, it puts to work a cadre of “employables” … who are saddled, already, with college debt.
It’s like the TSA in terms of all the Federal government posts that opens up. And, it certainly makes going into medicine something bright people may choose not to do? Heck, they can earn more becoming computer programmers.
The examples in the linked to article are wrong because the additional income needed to pay for he insurance without the subsidy will be taxed for federal income tax, payroll taxes and state income tax purposes. Thus the family that lost the $5,363 tax credit because they earned that one dollar over the $78,120 limit won’t be made whole if they earn $83,483. The amount needed could be more like $87,000.
I’m not real well with math but something did look wrong to me too, thanks for posting what it was.
The boss: “We really like your work, so we’re giving you a pay cut this year, to help you out.”
“Next year, we’ll cut your hours, to help us out.”
Sorry, but the sad fact is that most who have earnings very near the threshold that would make a substantive difference in their net income will never understand that reality; it’s not that they don’t care, but rather that they don’t know that they should care. And – in some cases – the fact that their employer is reducing their hours might actually (and unknowingly by them) help them in the end…
“Working less is rewarded” describes everything Obamaville.
The rewards will be even greater if a little obfuscation, cheating and outright lying are tossed into the mix…
I’ve already heard from a knowledgeable source that the SEIU has schooled its people on keeping welfare benefits in addition to part time work since the feds are raising the amount you can earn and still get welfare. They’re the ones who want the under 30 hour jobs; they’ll also be eligible for free health care.
The unions already have it figured out. Wonder who’s been telling them the ins and outs on Obamacare when most employers can’t even figure it out yet.
Has there ever been a Democrat policy that didn’t have a similar “quirk”?
At what point do people begin to realize that such things can only be described as “features”. Its in every program, by design, therefore they WANT people to work less, earn less, and be more dependent on government.
They’re the ones who want the under 30 hour jobs; they’ll also be eligible for free health care
Free government-run health care isn’t free. Not only in the monetary sense, but also the quality sense. Abandoning patients to rot over weekends is practically official policy at UK’s NHS. Canada rations care by putting huge delays in the system, hoping you’ll be dead or too sick by the time you get your MRI or other procedure done.
[…] many so-called ‘quirks‘ and […]