Friday, April 2, 2010

Verizon Takes a $970 Million Hit From HealthCare Bill

It is not as bad as AT&T but just under $1 billion hit ($970 million) Verizon is taking from the Health Care law is nothing to scoff at.

"Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, became the latest company to record a cost related to the U.S. health-care overhaul, saying it will incur a $970 million expense.

The one-time, non-cash cost will be taken in the first quarter, New York-based Verizon said late yesterday in a regulatory filing.


  1. I'm not sure if you are aware, but because "fiscal responsibility" is presumeably something important to you.

    The alarming report that AT&T was going to have to reduce its long-term profit estimates by about $1 billion because of the new law — or, as John Boehner, put it, the newly enacted “job-killing tax increases.” The AT&T charge was for accounting purposes,

    It turned out that the $1 billion goes back to the famous 2003 Medicare prescription drug entitlement passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and paid for through their innovative pretend-it’s-not-there financing system.

    In order to keep businesses from ending their drug coverage and dumping their retirees on the federal system, Congress provided a 28 percent reimbursement for the benefits. And, the companies got to deduct the entire cost of the drug plans from their taxes. Including the government subsidy.

    So the job-killing tax increase in the new law involves no longer allowing big corporations to take a tax deduction for spending money we gave them. I don't know why you would be against that unless you thought that the purpose of the government should be to do whatever powerful interests want, so there now you know.

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I am aware of where the number comes from, and believe it is the same for Verizon. Adding the equivalent of a billion dollar tax increase (or reduction decrease) is not good for the economy; especially right now.

  3. no whats not good for the economy is cuts in state budgets for education, and then letting verizon and at&t use a loophole to get out of paying taxes for spending money that we are giving them.

    You are not against entitlements, you are for them for insititutions that have no use for them, so that a very narrow slice of the population can be richer. Why you personally feel the need to advocate for these interests is insane, this isn't even a principled opposition to taxes, its just you arguing in favor of tax loopholes to benefit-again- not you or anyone you know, unless you know the boards of these companies.

    you should be a lobbyist

  4. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I argue for for lower taxes which are better for everyone. You are arguing in support of a massive tax increase at what may be the worst possible time in decades.

  5. you have no coherent conception of public policy as far as I can tell. You can't at once argue that lower taxes are always better then scare monger about the deficit and the spending of social programs which people want- which opposed to the trillions in defense, they don't.

    Taxes and stimulus are not mutually exclusive, one really just tends to be another form of the other because in the real world there is trade-offs. This is just stimulus to people that won't do anything with it.

    You are not arguing for lower taxes here anyway you are arguing for a tax loophole, a form of legal corruption. Right now tax decreases are are a net good thing, not the most optimal form of stimulus, but in the current situation are positive. This isn't that and its just dishonest of you to suggest that as a result of the health care bill these poor poor corprotions are taking a "hit". its just bullshit, its our money.

  6. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - "You can't at once argue that lower taxes are always better then scare monger about the deficit and the spending of social programs which people want- which opposed to the trillions in defense, they don't." -> why not; lowering taxes can increase revenue, and cutting spending is what needs to be done tax cuts or not.

    I am not arguing for loopholes, I am arguing for lower taxes.

  7. it depends what you are talking about when you say "lowering taxes". During reagan government revenue increased because the tax burden number one was shifted on a larger part of the population, and number two the economy was growing- although wealth only went to the top 1 percent richest while everyone elses wealth declined.

    here you are arguing for a loophole, and calling it a tax decrease, its bullshit. its your money I don't understand why you would let some abstract ideological principle you hold about "lowering taxes" get in the way of what's just bad business for you. I mean, do you work for verizon or at&t? I don't think so, you won't benefit from them fleecing us.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow