RUSH: Now, from the new House bill, I've got a couple of passages from it here, the thing Pelosi announced today. I want to read it to you just to show you what we're going to be dealing with. Now, as I go through this section that I'm going to read part of, it looks like small businesses are going to lose their tax breaks for health coverage. Right now small business gets a tax break for providing health coverage. It looks like it's going to be phased out in two years. But it's hard to tell from the damn convoluted language.
"Section 45: Small Business Employee Health Coverage Credit. For purposes of section 38, in the case of a qualified small employer, the small business employee health coverage credit determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified employee health coverage expenses of such employer for such taxable year. For purposes of this section, the applicable percentage is 50 percent. In the case of an employer whose average annual employee compensation for the taxable year exceeds $20,000, the percentage specified in paragraph (1) shall be reduced by a number of percentage points which bears the same ratio to 50 as such excess bears to $20,000." Are you with me?
"Phaseout based on employer size. In the case of an employer who employs more than 10 qualified employees --" what the? What is a qualified employee? Jeez. Good Lord. "In the case of an employer who employs more than 10 qualified employees during the taxable year, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of such credit (determined without regard to this paragraph and after the application of the other provisions of this section) as -- '(A) the excess of -- '(i) the number of qualified employees employed by the employer during the taxable year, over '(ii) 10, bears to '(B) 15. '(2) Credit not allowed with respect to certain highly compensated employees. -- No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to qualified employee health coverage expenses paid or incurred with respect to any employee for any taxable year if the aggregate compensation paid by the employer to such employee during such taxable year exceeds $80,000."
How is that hope and change working out for you? Now, there's another passage, I'm not going to read nearly as much of it. There is a tax on those without insurance. Section 59(b), page 297 out of 1,990 pages, by the way, "Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Coverage. '(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-- '(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over '(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. (b) limitations -- tax limited to average premium. In general, the tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year."
What it all adds up to here is there's going to be a tax if you don't go out and get insurance, two-and-a-half percent. You want to hear some of the other taxes in this? The Americans for Tax Reform has gone through the bill and they got a comprehensive list of taxes in Pelosi's debacle. "Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee's health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted. Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)"
"Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D," we just covered that one. "Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly)." He just said it was 1.5 percent, Clyburn did, but the Americans for Tax Reform say 5.4%, an income surtax of 5.4% on individuals over 500 grand and couples over a million. "This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent -- a new effective top rate."
That's before you start paying state taxes, Social Security, and Medicare, 5.4 percent, not 1.5. Hmm. "Codification of the 'Economic Substance Doctrine' (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related."
Want me to read that to you again? Page 349, "Economic Substance Doctrine empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related." Welcome to the Soviet Union. I mean this is just -- and, you know what? The thing is, this is going to get out, people are going to hear about this, and there's going to be the same reaction to this that there was to H.R. 3200, only it's going to be worse. (interruption) What, Snerdley, what? No. You do not have to provide motive. All they have to do is say your motive wasn't any good. You're not going to get a chance to argue with them here. "Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction because the IRS deems the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business related." (interruption) What did you say, H.R.? Well, I guess you could call it that, a health care hate crime, because they're taxing you, denying a deduction because of the way you think, is what motive is. Now, it's a good question. Snerdley says, "How can they impugn your motive?" They're liberals! They're dictators. They're not small-D democrats. How can they dictate what little kids are forced to sing in school? Because they can. How can they dictate what you think? They're in the process of doing it now. They are statists. They are central planners. They are deniers of freedom and liberty. It's all through this.