Poor Lil Waxman

it's a nice try to say that $1,000,000,000 as a percent of market cap is not alot.
No in terms of AT&T's total market cap it's not alot. It's still a billion dollar hit.
 
It was corporate welfare. Feel free to defend it if you want. And again, the subsidies aren't going away, merely the tax deductibility of the subsidy.

I am not defending it you moronic hack. I am stating that Waxman is a fucking moron for whining about this when they were TOLD it would happen.

I don't see the issue with addressing the effects of the law on businesses. What is the problem? Rich Lowry told you is was a vendetta so now you're upset about it?

ahh yes, the standard bullshit from our resident party hack. When in doubt, pretend someone is 'following orders of the author'. Pretend at all times that this story hasn't been on CNBC, in the Journal or any other major news outlet. Pretend that it must be because of this one author that the topic was brought up.

Google 'dumbass' and there is dung's photo.... though admittedly it is hard to tell its him with his head buried so far up the collective Dem's ass.
 
It doesn't make it 35% more expensive, it eliminates a fairly modest subsidy in the form of a tax deduction on a subsidy. The subsidy is still there and the tax deductibility of the benefits provided to retirees is still there.

AT&T.... a fairly modest $1 BILLION

Deere... a fairly modest $150 million

Cat... a fairly modest $100 million

Just three companies and already just a 'fairly modest' 1.25 BILLION DOLLARS.

I wonder.... will there be more?
 
Is it ever not a dog and pony show when people have to go in front of Congress? Nothing a politician likes better than to try and embarrass a CEO with some type of gotcha or one liner that will play well back home on the evening news. Talk about transparency. For the most part a complete waste of everyone's time.

True... it always turns into that as the politicians ramble for 4.5 of their five minutes and then cut off the response because they are 'out of time'.
 
I am not defending it you moronic hack. I am stating that Waxman is a fucking moron for whining about this when they were TOLD it would happen.

Where is Waxman whining about anything? He is holding a hearing. The only people whining are you, Rich Lowry and the Wall Street Journal editorial board and you are whining because a little bit of corporate welfare has been done away with.

ahh yes, the standard bullshit from our resident party hack. When in doubt, pretend someone is 'following orders of the author'. Pretend at all times that this story hasn't been on CNBC, in the Journal or any other major news outlet. Pretend that it must be because of this one author that the topic was brought up.

Google 'dumbass' and there is dung's photo.... though admittedly it is hard to tell its him with his head buried so far up the collective Dem's ass.

Ah yes, the standard response from our resident hack-caller-outer. Call me a hack instead of responding to a simple question. The question remains: what's wrong with holding a hearing about the effects of the law?
 
AT&T.... a fairly modest $1 BILLION

Deere... a fairly modest $150 million

Cat... a fairly modest $100 million

Just three companies and already just a 'fairly modest' 1.25 BILLION DOLLARS.

I wonder.... will there be more?


I've already explained why those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt and posted a link discussing it. From the link:

AT&T, Caterpillar, and Deere are among the companies that are reporting large first-quarter accounting charges because of the repeal of a tax deduction by the new health-care law. But the charges will have little effect on company valuations or cash flow, analysts say.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act strips companies of a 28% tax deduction related to retiree drug benefits. The deduction is actually the tax-free treatment of a government subsidy that companies receive for providing retiree drug benefits equivalent to Medicare Part D, says tax expert Robert Willens, who heads a consultancy in New York. Since the deduction can't be claimed until the benefits are paid out, companies make the adjustment by writing down the deferred tax asset balances related to the subsidy, notes Willens.

Under the new law, the subsidy is no longer tax-free and must be included in a company's taxable-income calculation. The law eliminates the "double dipping" possibilities that were part of the tax code since 2003, says Willens. Under the original Medicare prescription-drug law, companies received deductions for making payments into retiree drug plans, as well as getting tax-free treatment for the subsidies they received for paying into the plans.

Last week AT&T announced it plans to take a $1 billion noncash charge related to the new law in the first quarter. Also announcing first-quarter charges were Caterpillar ($100 million), Deere ($150 million), and AK Steel ($31 million). Steelcase and DTE Energy also said they would be subject to similar accounting charges, although they have not yet specified the amounts.

A study of S&P 500 companies by Credit Suisse shows that the new law will cause companies to reduce their deferred tax assets by an aggregate $4.5 billion, with 45 of the companies possibly seeing a charge that is more than 10% of their consensus first-quarter earnings estimates. However, investors should not "overreact" to the potential earnings hit, cautions Credit Suisse's David Zion, because the charge will have very little effect on company valuations.

Indeed, the "eye-popping" numbers being reported are not a good indication of the costs being incurred in the first quarter, notes study co-author Christopher Cornett. That's because a quirk in the accounting rules requires companies to recognize the present value today of future cash costs going out as far as the drug benefits are offered. "So that's a big number," says Cornett. (Accounting rules mandate such current-period true-ups when tax-code changes require accounting adjustments to items that are already on the balance sheet, he explains. In most cases, an ongoing future cost would be recognized every quarter, year after year.)

Rather than looking at the first-quarter charge relative to quarterly earnings, Credit Suisse recommends that investors look at the charge relative to the company as a whole, using market capitalization. Zion says that the ratio of earnings charge to market capitalization is a "pretty good proxy" for how much company value should drop as a result of the tax change. Only 8 of the 500 companies studied will register a decrease in that ratio greater than 0.5%, according to Credit Suisse.

The Credit Suisse report also points out that corporate cash flows from operations won't suffer much from the loss of the tax deduction, either. Between 2013 and 2019, it's likely that 20 companies will pay more than $5 million per year, on average, of additional taxes as a result of the new law. However, the tax hit amounts to less than 1% of the trailing five-year average cash flow from operations for each of the companies. "In fact, we estimate that there aren't any companies in the S&P 500, where the annual tax hit is more than 1% of trailing cash flow from operations," says the Credit Suisse report.


Fairly modest sounds about right to me.


http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14486293/c_14487253?f=home_todayinfinance
 
Where is Waxman whining about anything? He is holding a hearing. The only people whining are you, Rich Lowry and the Wall Street Journal editorial board and you are whining because a little bit of corporate welfare has been done away with.

Again, you fucking hack.... I am not whining about this going away. Yes, Waxman is whining and stamping his little feet and that is why he is holding a hearing on a topic they already had spelled out for them. But again, do go on with yet another of your lame ass attempts to try and minimize this. It is what apologists like you do. No matter what, apologize for your masters and pretend it is just the fringe that are reporting this.


Ah yes, the standard response from our resident hack-caller-outer. Call me a hack instead of responding to a simple question. The question remains: what's wrong with holding a hearing about the effects of the law?

Well you ignorant fucking hack.... when you ask questions that have ALREADY been answered, it is kind of fucking stupid to ask them again and pretend they haven't been answered. In that sense, you are EXACTLY like your master Waxman. CEO's are paid to run their companies. They are not paid to be at the beck and call of fucking morons in DC who want to hold hearings on topics to which they ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS.

Do you comprehend it now hack?

Do you understand that Waxman already knew these charges would HAVE to take place as soon as the bill passed?

Do you understand now hack that Waxman is simply grandstanding? Trying to act as though he is surprised that this is occurring?

Fucking moron.
 
Again, you fucking hack.... I am not whining about this going away. Yes, Waxman is whining and stamping his little feet and that is why he is holding a hearing on a topic they already had spelled out for them. But again, do go on with yet another of your lame ass attempts to try and minimize this. It is what apologists like you do. No matter what, apologize for your masters and pretend it is just the fringe that are reporting this.

Well you ignorant fucking hack.... when you ask questions that have ALREADY been answered, it is kind of fucking stupid to ask them again and pretend they haven't been answered. In that sense, you are EXACTLY like your master Waxman. CEO's are paid to run their companies. They are not paid to be at the beck and call of fucking morons in DC who want to hold hearings on topics to which they ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS.

Do you comprehend it now hack?

Do you understand that Waxman already knew these charges would HAVE to take place as soon as the bill passed?

Do you understand now hack that Waxman is simply grandstanding? Trying to act as though he is surprised that this is occurring?

Fucking moron.


No, its not just the fringe reporting the underlying story. It's just the fringe that are all in a tizzy and whining about the fact that there will be a congressional hearing about it. I don't see what the big deal is for some CEOs to attend a hearing on a matter that is apparently important to their businesses. Grow up.
 
Only a hack would say with a straight face 1 billion is a modest hit.
Secondly, and more importantly won't less people be getting the retiree drug plan if it cost the company 28% more post Obama care?
 
Only a hack would say with a straight face 1 billion is a modest hit.
Secondly, and more importantly won't less people be getting the retiree drug plan if it cost the company 28% more post Obama care?


First, it isn't just me saying it, it is a whole lot of market analysts.

Second, as I explained to you previously (and you ignored) it isn't 28% (or 35%) more expensive.
 
why doesn't waxman call the CBO to testify...yes, its irony statement

anyone defending this is dungheap hack. why isn't waxman calling others to the hill? why is it the CEO's can't simply submit a report like the CBO?

intimidation is why
 
I don't get how you don't get if it's not deductible that it cost more.
Second, nearly all the analyst I hear are bashing Obamacare. Granted most are repubs in the over $250,000 income group.

I like it only as a factor in allowing democrats balls to drop. I think it was based on false outrage to begin with. Wealth redistribution cloacked in the false outrage of those who don't have insurance but DON'T WANT IT.
 
I've already explained why those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt and posted a link discussing it. From the link:




Fairly modest sounds about right to me.


http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14486293/c_14487253?f=home_todayinfinance


That is because you are a fucking moron.

That is money that goes away from the corporations (you know... those things that actually HIRE people and FIRE people). That point is not that it is going to destroy their earnings you moron. The point is that they are likely going to dump their retirees onto Medicare Part D. Because it will no longer be a benefit to them to continue carrying them.

But please... do go on posting articles which you clearly do not comprehend and pretending that they somehow make your point. Do continue on pretending that the downside of the moronic health care fiasco your beloved masters just passed is 'no big deal'.
 
That is because you are a fucking moron.

That is money that goes away from the corporations (you know... those things that actually HIRE people and FIRE people). That point is not that it is going to destroy their earnings you moron. The point is that they are likely going to dump their retirees onto Medicare Part D. Because it will no longer be a benefit to them to continue carrying them.

Wait a minute, aren't you the guy that kept on insisting on "decoupling" health insurance from the employer-employee relationship? What happened to that guy? Oh, right. That's no longer a positive outcome when you can use it to bash Democrats. I get it.

Some companies may no longer agree to provide retiree drug benefits, others may keep it despite the loss of this modest tax subsidy as a competitive advantage.

But please... do go on posting articles which you clearly do not comprehend and pretending that they somehow make your point. Do continue on pretending that the downside of the moronic health care fiasco your beloved masters just passed is 'no big deal'.

The article does indeed support my point. Doing away with this corporate welfare tax subsidy is not that big a deal. It appear to be a huge deal because companies have to account for the present value of all future costs associated with the loss of the subsidy. Based on the overall capitalization of these companies, this is a very modest hit.

Regardless of whether this elimination of corporate welfare was part of the Affordable Care Act, it is good policy. Franky, I thought someone who, like you, has oftentimes voiced your opposition to employer provided health insurance and federal policies subsidizing employer provided health insurance, would agree. I suppose that in the end you're just a hack opportunist.
 
Some companies may no longer agree to provide retiree drug benefits, others may keep it despite the loss of this modest tax subsidy as a competitive advantage.

if it turns out to be millions, I want to hear from you how it's not affecting people making under $250,000. lol's
 
Some companies may no longer agree to provide retiree drug benefits, others may keep it despite the loss of this modest tax subsidy as a competitive advantage.

if it turns out to be millions, I want to hear from you how it's not affecting people making under $250,000. lol's


Topper: If you want to make the claim that the elimination of the tax deductibility of the federal subsidy for corporations offering retiree drug benefits is an instance of Obama breaking his tax promise, more power to you. Good luck with that.
 
No, its not just the fringe reporting the underlying story. It's just the fringe that are all in a tizzy and whining about the fact that there will be a congressional hearing about it. I don't see what the big deal is for some CEOs to attend a hearing on a matter that is apparently important to their businesses. Grow up.

Listen you dolt.... the fact that Waxman is calling them to testify on something they ALREADY FUCKING TOLD HIM.... THAT is the childish and moronic act. They are going to go there and say... we FUCKING TOLD YOU MORON. And then Waxman and the other idiots in Congress will act all 'outraged'.

IT IS A FUCKING SHOW. What is it that you think is going to come out of this hearing?
 
Back
Top