CBO-Obamacare Will Reduce Jobs by 2 Million by 2017

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Feb 4, 2014 16:09:30 GMT -5 comom1 said:

Georgia, it's unlikely that reducing a minimum wage worker's hours by 6/wk would drastically change any of that.  Even at 30 hours they would most likely be eligible for a substantial subsidy. 

True, but the EITC, among other things, goes up when a worker's wages go down.  Many of the people involved already get substantial refundable credits, but they will doubtlessly increase to one extent or another. 

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2014 16:03:51 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Feb 4, 2014 15:23:51 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

And... not that I'm saying this a good thing for taxpayers, but it's reality at this point...their refundable tax credits will go up based on their reduced income.  

Right so they get more money from the government.  We are encouraging businesses to give them less money so they get more from the goverment?

How is that any different than prior to the ACA?

[comom1]

The answer to that is to change the EITC.  Of course, that still has nothing to do with the ACA causing the loss of 2 million jobs.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Feb 4, 2014 16:13:11 GMT -5 @gin1984 said:

Feb 4, 2014 16:03:51 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Right so they get more money from the government.  We are encouraging businesses to give them less money so they get more from the goverment?

How is that any different than prior to the ACA?

It's simply an exacerbation of a situation that already exists.  How much of an exacerbation will have yet to be seen. 

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Feb 4, 2014 16:13:25 GMT -5 comom1 said:

The answer to that is to change the EITC.  Of course, that still has nothing to do with the ACA causing the loss of 2 million jobs.

I'd love to see that, as well as other refundable credits!  But I honestly can't imagine a scenario where anyone will have the guts/leverage/clout to get it done.  There was just an article coming out of the CBO report saying that even the slightly less-horrible deficit numbers for a few years is making legislators feel like they can walk away from tax reform, much to their relief. 


money.cnn.com/2014/02/04/news/economy/budget-outlook-deficits-cbo/
From lawmakers' perspective, however, the projected drop in deficits for the next few years relieves pressure on them to address entitlement and tax reform.

Indeed, there is little appetite left in Washington for the so-called grand bargain.

"We predict today's good news on red ink will make it virtually certain that no entitlement reform will occur until after the 2016 election," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist for the Potomac Research Group.

[phil5185]

Georgia, it's unlikely that reducing a minimum wage worker's hours by 6/wk would drastically change any of that. Even at 30 hours they would most likely be eligible for a substantial subsidy.

It's the middle-level workers who will likely have bigger headaches.

For every min wage worker that gets a $1500/y subsidy there is a middle-level worker whose taxes went up $1500/yr to pay for it.  Or, if not, obamacare will cause the deficit to increase by a trillion?

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

That's a bit simplistic, though.  It's like saying that for every one retiree getting $12,000 annually in SS, one worker must pay $12,000 annually.  The truth is that this cost is spread among a larger pool of workers than retirees.  At least for now!   How the cost of the insurance subsidy costs play out will depend on many things, among them the ratio of subsidized plans vs taxpayers. 

[comom1]

Plus, remember that many of those folks were going without insurance, which meant they used the ER for everything.  That was costing us a bundle.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2014 17:09:19 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

That's a bit simplistic, though.  It's like saying that for every one retiree getting $12,000 annually in SS, one worker must pay $12,000 annually.  The truth is that this cost is spread among a larger pool of workers than retirees.  At least for now!   How the cost of the insurance subsidy costs play out will depend on many things, among them the ratio of subsidized plans vs taxpayers. 

Social Security is an annuity with an insurance aspect for disability, while Obamacare is pure insurance.  Your analogy as substandard.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

What does what type of coverage cost it is have to do with how the expense is pooled among available taxpayers? 

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2014 9:20:29 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

What does what type of coverage cost it is have to do with how the expense is pooled among available taxpayers? 

I'm not here to debate substandard analogies.