3 ms·

As someone from outside the US, I have two questions: 1) are these amounts tax deductible? 2) given the size of these amounts, OP’s statement that these are a

by voisin 4y ago

As someone from outside the US, I have two questions: 1) are these amounts tax deductible? 2) given the size of these amounts, OP’s statement that these are a big barrier to going independent would seem totally reasonable. Doesn’t this have a chilling effect on new business formation? If so, how is the US still so well known for startups? It seems significantly riskier than in other countries with better safety nets.

lowercased 4y ago
For someone self-employed, the numbers are tax-deductible. If you're employed, but still have insurance and expenses that aren't covered, those expenses need to be more than ... 7% of your adjusted income to be deductible (but only the amount over 7%). The 7% might not still be the correct number, but it's something like that. So... you have a job, but there's no employer-provided health insurance. You make $60k/year. Your adjusted income (after some deductions) might be, say, $45k. You decide to buy your own health insurance, and it costs you $500/month. That's $6k/year. 7% of $45k is $3150. So... $6000-$3150 = $2850 which would be the amount that you could avoid paying taxes on. Confusing much? > If so, how is the US still so well known for startups? Because there's metric-ass-loads* of money here looking for places to be invested, and we idolize the unicorn homeruns so much so that we have entire industries catering to their ecosystem. * Note, this is one of the few times we use the metric system in the US. 2 liters of coke/pepsi, and metric-ass-loads of <fill-in-the-blank>.
- Macha 4y ago
  Interestingly enough, the inverse of your comment is true here. "Gallons upon gallons" as a superlative, and drinks in pubs are the two uses of imperial liquid measures here
  - lowercased 4y ago
    I watch a moderate amount of UK tv, and I'm still (decades later) surprised when one UK person says to another UK person "you look a million dollars!". "You look a million pounds" doesn't sound the same. "You look a million quid!" might be better?
    - Macha 4y ago
      Pounds has the double meaning as a unit of weight and so a million pounds has a unintended double meaning, which may be part of why the dollar version gets used
alphabettsy 4y ago
1. It depends. If you itemize deductions and those combined are more than the standard deduction you can otherwise it doesn’t really make sense to. This does a decent job of explaining: https://www.investopedia.com/are-health-insurance-premiums-tax-deductible-4773286 https://www.investopedia.com/are-health-insurance-premiums-t... 2. I believe it does and I can’t answer the other question with any confidence. Insurance was a big reason my mother kept her job which covered us as a family when my dad started his own business even though she was basically working two jobs because she was also helping with the new business after work.
drcongo 4y ago
As another person from outside the US, I have one question: 1) Given the size of these amounts, why aren't you all marching on Washington with pitchforks? Your healthcare system is INSANE.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  A lot of people are on employer-paid insurance which largely hides the costs. You'll often get an "oh, I only pay $20 in premiums monthly" sort of response from them. $10k in premiums going away with taxes going up $5k is heavily portrayed as a "tax hike" when universal healthcare is discussed.
  - lowercased 4y ago
    > $10k in premiums going away with taxes going up $5k is heavily portrayed as a "tax hike" when universal healthcare is discussed. ^^^ This. This is somehow one of the most disingenuous things brought up during every discussion. I think some people do it deliberately, and others are just not thinking very clearly when considering it at all. "Death panels" was another one. We wouldn't want govt officials being able to say 'no' to some particular treatment, dooming someone to death. We're totally fine with unelected corp overlords with shareholder value as a primary concern making those sorts of treatment decisions. Of course. What could be simpler? I'm convinced probably 2/3rds of the people against 'single payer' health insurance (or some variation of universal health insurance) are simply scared in to submission by misrepresentations. What also gets overlooked is having one system could mean you get health insurance whether you are employed or not. Everyone goes through spells of unemployment. Trying to tie health care decisions to coincide with periods where you can get "good" insurance through a "good" employer is unbelievably insane, but we've had generations of people brought up like this, and many believe it's truly the 'best' way.
- tjansen 4y ago
  Is it? In Germany, a double income household can also pay about 2100 EUR per month for public health insurance (if both partners earn at least 85k). Many people have additional insurances for dental and possibly other things that are not covered.

by voisin 4y ago

lowercased 4y ago

For someone self-employed, the numbers are tax-deductible. If you're employed, but still have insurance and expenses that aren't covered, those expenses need to be more than ... 7% of your adjusted income to be deductible (but only the amount over 7%). The 7% might not still be the correct number, but it's something like that. So... you have a job, but there's no employer-provided health insurance. You make $60k/year. Your adjusted income (after some deductions) might be, say, $45k. You decide to buy your own health insurance, and it costs you $500/month. That's $6k/year. 7% of $45k is $3150. So... $6000-$3150 = $2850 which would be the amount that you could avoid paying taxes on. Confusing much? > If so, how is the US still so well known for startups? Because there's metric-ass-loads* of money here looking for places to be invested, and we idolize the unicorn homeruns so much so that we have entire industries catering to their ecosystem. * Note, this is one of the few times we use the metric system in the US. 2 liters of coke/pepsi, and metric-ass-loads of <fill-in-the-blank>.

Macha 4y ago
Interestingly enough, the inverse of your comment is true here. "Gallons upon gallons" as a superlative, and drinks in pubs are the two uses of imperial liquid measures here
- lowercased 4y ago
  I watch a moderate amount of UK tv, and I'm still (decades later) surprised when one UK person says to another UK person "you look a million dollars!". "You look a million pounds" doesn't sound the same. "You look a million quid!" might be better?
  - Macha 4y ago
    Pounds has the double meaning as a unit of weight and so a million pounds has a unintended double meaning, which may be part of why the dollar version gets used

alphabettsy 4y ago

1. It depends. If you itemize deductions and those combined are more than the standard deduction you can otherwise it doesn’t really make sense to. This does a decent job of explaining: https://www.investopedia.com/are-health-insurance-premiums-tax-deductible-4773286 https://www.investopedia.com/are-health-insurance-premiums-t... 2. I believe it does and I can’t answer the other question with any confidence. Insurance was a big reason my mother kept her job which covered us as a family when my dad started his own business even though she was basically working two jobs because she was also helping with the new business after work.

drcongo 4y ago

As another person from outside the US, I have one question: 1) Given the size of these amounts, why aren't you all marching on Washington with pitchforks? Your healthcare system is INSANE.

ceejayoz 4y ago
A lot of people are on employer-paid insurance which largely hides the costs. You'll often get an "oh, I only pay $20 in premiums monthly" sort of response from them. $10k in premiums going away with taxes going up $5k is heavily portrayed as a "tax hike" when universal healthcare is discussed.
- lowercased 4y ago
  > $10k in premiums going away with taxes going up $5k is heavily portrayed as a "tax hike" when universal healthcare is discussed. ^^^ This. This is somehow one of the most disingenuous things brought up during every discussion. I think some people do it deliberately, and others are just not thinking very clearly when considering it at all. "Death panels" was another one. We wouldn't want govt officials being able to say 'no' to some particular treatment, dooming someone to death. We're totally fine with unelected corp overlords with shareholder value as a primary concern making those sorts of treatment decisions. Of course. What could be simpler? I'm convinced probably 2/3rds of the people against 'single payer' health insurance (or some variation of universal health insurance) are simply scared in to submission by misrepresentations. What also gets overlooked is having one system could mean you get health insurance whether you are employed or not. Everyone goes through spells of unemployment. Trying to tie health care decisions to coincide with periods where you can get "good" insurance through a "good" employer is unbelievably insane, but we've had generations of people brought up like this, and many believe it's truly the 'best' way.
tjansen 4y ago
Is it? In Germany, a double income household can also pay about 2100 EUR per month for public health insurance (if both partners earn at least 85k). Many people have additional insurances for dental and possibly other things that are not covered.