Look, we’re not talking about people who, with health insurance delinked from employment, might quit working because they lack a work ethic. We’re talking about people who have been working full-time only because they need the insurance, when otherwise it really would be better for them to retire because of age, or to quit or cut back to part-time so they can stay home and raise children.
Well, the key words are “take home” which means “after taxes.” The 15% (1-0.15=0.85) is the tax rate for income between $8,926 and $36,250. 
Also, that was a maximum possible compensation package of $840 a month. Separate from income. So total income would be effectively doubled with 740+840. The $840 would be things like food stamps, rent assistance, heating oil (north east) eletric/gas assistance (everywhere else) and so forth.
That’s very polite. The claim is a gigantic pile of garbage, possibly one that’s on fire. What’s going on here, as you say, is that some people will choose to work less. It’s bad news if you like being greeted at Wal-Mart by an elderly person who wants to retire but can’t because he needs money and health insurance, but otherwise it’s not a problem. Presumably businesses will have to compete with each other to get workers to fill these additional hours, since relying on people who are desperate for health insurance coverage won’t cut it. That’s good for workers, isn’t it?
It’s not just retirees, of course. The CBO expressly said that the largest effect reducing labor force participation was that anyone receiving ACA subsidies will be deciding to what extent to trade off reduced income in order to maintain their subsidy at a particular level. It’s just the nature of a lot of forms of public assistance, where taking a job or otherwise earning too much can cost a person some or all of his or her benefits. Where or not that’s a problem is entirely open to debate, but it’s its own form of job lock and might as well be acknowledged as such, instead of obscured behind smaller effects such as early retirees or parents.
ETA too late: Certainly that effect has nothing to do with work ethic, though.
I’m not completely sure what distinction you’re drawing here, but if I understand you correctly, your claim is incorrect. From the CBO (Appendix C):
So it’s not all about fewer hours for employed people, as you seem to be saying.
Regardless, even if your claim was correct, it has no relevance to the point I raised here.
This is incorrect, and a misunderstanding of the CBO report.
The CBO is not saying - as you appear to be claiming - the certain people will be working less and will be replaced by other people working more. They are saying that there will overall be less work done period. (More below.)
It sounds like you disagree with the premise that people work in order to receive a reward, and that the greater the reward the more they would work for it. This seems to me to be so far removed from reality that I don’t know if it’s worth discussing.
You’re ignoring deductions. As a practical matter, someone earning that figure is not going to pay 15% (I’m not sure if they pay anything at all, actually).
As noted above, this is incorrect, and reflects ignorance of both this particular CBO report, and the nature of CBO reports in general.
Deductions that give you a refund at tax time each year is not the same as withholding. 15% is the basic W-4 withholding of 1. If you make enough to afford six cups of dirt and water once a month to mix in it, you get it all back (and then some!) but that is a lump sum payment once a year and not what you take home.
Few people file with no withholding.
That’s not how things work. You give in your information to payroll, including the number of family members, and they reflect this in how much they deduct from your paycheck throughout the year. If based on your income and family size you have no tax, they won’t deduct any.
That’s actually how things work. You have to fill out your own W-4. If you don’t fill out your own W-4, the company is required to withhold like you are single. Cite.
Now, some people do fill out a W4 properly, but it’s fairly common for people to fill out a W4 without setting an exemption status.
So, even if they get the exemption status and don’t pay basic tax, the take home goes from 740 to 870. Now, why is that extra $130 really that important to the discussion?
I don’t know how common it is, and it doesn’t make sense to base a discussion of tax policy on the assumption that people are not going to fill out W-4 forms, especially if you just post numbers and don’t mention that this is your assumption.
In addition, even someone who is filed as a single gets a standard deduction and does not pay anything close to 15% of their income (at that income level).
Don’t look at me - it was your post. You posted some numbers that didn’t seem to make sense, so I asked about them. Turned out they were erroneous. Carry on.
http://www.canhamrogers.com/HDEB.htm
All of this talk about work and economics but our economists and educators can’t suggest mandatory accounting in the schools.
What would happen if people refused to buy lots of junk that depreciates rapidly? What would that do to the jobs manufacturing the junk?
Computers everywhere and we can’t have kids learning how to do accounting on them. Better to read Shakespeare. It’s not as old.
psik
It wasn’t basing a tax policy discussion on the assumption that people aren’t going to fill out the W4, it was assuming that the tax rate for their particular tier of taxes was being paid by withholding, which isn’t an unwarranted assumption. Even if I selected the wrong tier, they would still pay 10% with married filing jointly.
This is technically true, but misleading. Take home is taxed at 15% with no other deductions at that income level. They get it back at tax time, but during the year, they operate on the 15% withheld tax.
It turned out they were exactly what I stated them to be, actually. You can argue that their tax rate may be less based on their with holdings, but that gets too individual. It’s easier to assume that their tax bracket is paid and given back to them at the yearly filing, as that’s what’s common in low income areas. They don’t go to great lengths to create a proper W4 in many cases.
No, actually it is true but inconvenient for Obamacare devotees.
Actually since people will be working less, they will be earning less and therefore paying less in taxes and spending less.
Well, it will increase the cost of hiring and therefore the cost of labor. Which is great if the demand for your services is inelastic. But if the demand for your services is inelastic, you are probably paying more in taxes than you receive in benefits already, and Obamacare will just make that worse.
Regards,
Shodan
Case in point: my stepmother. She is an attorney in her 50s. My dad is in his 70s and is retired and gets Medicare (and a pension, and Railroad Retirement/Social Security). I doubt my stepmother would like to work until she is eligible for Medicare at 65; her health is not fabulous (she has lupus and a bunch of other issues). She’s been on short-term disabililty before, but isn’t permanently disabled. Between Dad’s pension and Social Security and other money they have saved, she probably doesn’t need to work until 65 (at which point my dad would be almost 80). But she absolutely needs medical insurance, but until now would have been totally uninsurable on the private market.
There must be others like her out there who would like to retire and don’t need help with basic living expenses, but continue working solely for the medical coverage. I’d love to see the numbers if anyone knows where I can find them.
The assertion that the CBO report is “showing the ACA leading to millions of fewer jobs” is false. It could charitably be seen as a remark made which regurgitates something purported to be a fact by some other, unknown entity, because it surely didn’t come about as a result of a direct reading of the CBO report.
So you have a cite that shows that progressive tax rates are part of “all the numerous attempts to eliminate income inequality”, as you claim? Because that doesn’t comport with my understanding of progressive tax rates.
Did any of this have anything to do with the title you chose for the thread? Was this whole thing just a long-winded way to promulgate right-wing talking points about both people with money and people without it? 
I assume that you, like several other people who have posted to this thread, get most or all of your information from left-wing sources, most of which have been so busy falling over themselves to deny that the ACA could possibly have any negative impact on anything that they obscure the facts, leaving their readership hyped-up but misinformed.
Fortunately, I’ve posted a link to the actual CBO report in this thread, along with several quotes taken directly from that report. If you would like to educate yourself, it’s available.
Healthy people are good for the country because the people are the country.
OK, maybe that idea is a bit too radical for you to take in all at once, I’ll just back off and give you time to absorb that.
A careful examination of the OP’s original post and subsequent responses indicates to me that this is just another iteration of “the poor are that way because they’re lazy and/or worthless” right-wing trope, albeit with a more extensive vocabulary than we usually see in such diatribes.
So the logic is, we kill the ACA because it jest encourages them shif’less freeloaders. Maw, git my shotgun!
I seriously doubt that we’ll see a spike in unemployment as those trillions of people who are only holding jobs for the medical benefits are seduced into the abyss of idleness by the siren song of Obamacare, thus becoming yet another burden on the back of the hardworking, God-fearing American taxpayer blah blah blah.
This may sound heretical to the right-wingers, but the vast majority of people work because they want to. People want to be productive. If a person has a medical condition that costs money to treat, that doesn’t mean that he’ll quit his job if we offer him free medical care.
As soon as you attempt to conflate “see my point of view” with “educate yourself,” you lose all credibility. I also am amused at how you dismiss all sources that disagree with you as “left-wing” while yourself presenting an extremely partisan report. (I refer to the report itself and the conclusions it implies, not the agency that produced it.)
Of course the ACA will have negative consequences for some people. As has virtually every law passed in the history of this country. That is not ipso facto reason to repeal it. In fact, the “job-destroying” nonsense bandied about by the right is total hooey. The ACA will be a huge boon for business, because a healthier public is more productive AND consumes more. It will also reduce the spread and mortality of pandemics. Remember, rich people, the servants might cough on the silverware, so you’re not immune when the great undeserving 47% get sick.
Really?
Excuse me while I trust the head of the CBO’s interpretation over yours.
What, you mean what basically accounts to pondering on the Laffer Curve?