8:37 am, July 11, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 10
       

  • no tax advantages for retirees
    pensioner
    Current feds have a $$$ advantage over retired ones because the former, but not the latter, can have insurance premiums come out of their pay, reducing their tax burden. And they have the added advantage of paying that which isn't covered by their health insurance with pre-tax $$$s too, which retirees can't do. It would be nice, and eminently fair, if retirees were allowed to pay in pre-tax $$$s, with insurance premiums and an HSA contribution coming out of their gross annuities, but ain't going to happen.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • They're all pushing Feds over the Cliff
    contrarian
    My Flexible Spending is being reduced next year (convenient timing) from $5,000 to $2,500, which will cost me over $1,000 in taxes. So much for no new taxes on the middle class. Of course, from Mike's article, some people may think this is fair (like retired people). Too many loopholes and special perks these days. Where's the fairness?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • pre tax health
    pcfriar66
    NARFE (National Active and Retired Federal Employees Assn.),has been pushing for this for years. Our last good shot at it came during the establishment of Obamacare. We have also tried to reform the GPO and WEP provisions, which water dowm, and in some cases, wipe out, any of our earned Social Security benefits, which we earned from non-government employment. As of now, NARFE has been forced to play defense, protecting what we have rightfully earned for our 30 to 40 years of service, as our benefits are being attacked as never hbefore, in the name of debt reduction. If any of these benefits go, they will never return. Any retiree, and anyone within 5 years of retirement eligibility, should become a member of this organization
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To pensioner and contrarian
    Moderate
    First, I agree that pensioners should have the pre tax payments for insurance premiums and medical expenses. I am prejudiced because I will be leaving soon. Contrarian, $1000 in taxes? That means you are in the 40% bracket. That means you must be pretty wealthy as there is no 40% tax bracket. You are definitely not in the middle class with that tax bracket. Of course, I do not know the tax bracket of your state AND whether it considers these contributions. I do not think my state does, but I am not sure. Anyway, I do not do $5000 or even close to that so the reduction does not affect me a whole lot.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Moderate's math
    contrarian
    Don't confuse marginal with average tax rates. I'm marginal 25% income plus 5% state plus fica at 7.5=37.5 x2500=937.50. And this is not at all unusual for Feds. That's a tax increase for me of almost $1,000, thanks for nothing!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • This is not Moderate's Math. It is law
    Moderate
    First, I am not confusing marginal with average. That is why I said tax bracket. That is marginal. Second, I do not have FICA taken out of my salary. Are your FICA wages the same as your federal income tax wages? If so, you are probably right. If not, then you might be wrong. Also, does your state allow a reduction of wages for medical expenses withheld? Again, check your taxable wages for state purposes and compare them to federal wages.---As far as thanks for nothing, your friends at the GOP decided not to participate in the creation of Obamacare. Perhaps if they had done so, you would have avoided this issue. Unfortunately, your friends at the GOP decided to try to propagandize us out of Obamacare. Thankfully, it did not work
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Moderate's Logic
    contrarian
    SO something that not one Republican voted for, but only Democrats did, is the Republicans fault? You must be a lawyer.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Obamacare
    Moderate
    Actually, you must be related to big brother. He is the one who said 2 + 2 = 5. If said often enough the falsehood will become fact. Your friends of the GOP decided not to participate in the shaping of Obamacare. They could have modified it to reduce the "bad" features in it. Of course, if you do not believe that everyone should have decent medical care, then there is nothing more to be said. I believe that everyone should have decent medical care and that it is not the responsibility of hospitals and doctors to subsidize what should be a government obligation.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Some day you'll admit I'm right
    contrarian
    In the meantime, my only relation to Big Brother is as a victim of The Ministry of Truth.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Contrarian
    Moderate
    Your comment is good. Your title is deceiving.-------I can only go by the information I have. My reasons for supporting Obamacare is because right now the poor go to a hospital. The hospital must treat that person. The hospital is "reimbursed" by medicaid. Reimbursed is in quotes because medicaid does not reimburse properly. If a hsopital has too many medicaid patients, it shuts down because it does not break even as revenues lag costs. There is no reason for a private institution to subsidize what should be a public issue. Another reason for Obamacare is to force those who do not have medical insurance to get it. Otherwise, if these people run up a huge medical bill and cannot pay it, the provider does not get stuck with the bill or have to go to medicaid. There are other reasons, but these are key issues.-----
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }