Jump to content

chasfh

America And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad GOP Tax Plan

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Melody said:

All of it is tied up in an appropriations bill, so a separate discussion from the tax bill. As I understand it, the GOP wants to raise part of funds by charging upper income retirees a bit more for Medicare which seems to me fair but Democrats are saying it will cause them to leave Medicare and make it more expensive for those who remain. Not convinced personally that they would find a better deal elsewhere.  At the same time, Medicare and CHIP might out to be kept separate.   Also wanting to divert some funding from the ACA which the Dems are going to dig their heels in about. Then there are unrelated issues to fight over such as the so called dreamers that are attached to the appropriations bill. I expect drama but I think it will eventually get funded, though certainly Trump hasn't set it as a priority.  

Texas is ready to mail out insurance cancellation letters just before xmas and Colorado has already sent letters to families advising them to look into private insurance.  CHIP needs help immediately.  

And what Congress is proposing is a joke. Cut other health benefits to poor Americans is not the solution.  

I got a good idea, tax the rich more.  Easily pays for CHIP.  Oh shoot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T&P_Fan said:

Texas is ready to mail out insurance cancellation letters just before xmas and Colorado has already sent letters to families advising them to look into private insurance.  CHIP needs help immediately.  

And what Congress is proposing is a joke. Cut other health benefits to poor Americans is not the solution.  

I got a good idea, tax the rich more.  Easily pays for CHIP.  Oh shoot...

Iirc the tobacco tax was supposed to pay for CHIP.   Which was a really short sighted idea for funding and I said so at the time. 

Nevertheless, I do agree that the tax bill should have first addressed the deficit, then accounted for things they need to pay for.  And this should have been done by standing firm on limiting deductions further, esp on the highest income tiers perhaps also a small percentage taken from the proposed cuts in the top tiers.    

Honestly, though, I don't see benefits being cut in the appropriations proposal, unless you count being a deadbeat as a right.  As it stands, they don't even have to establish need just quit making payments.  

It should also be noted that the holdup in appropriations is over the Dreamers, not CHIP  funding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tiger337 said:

The LOL part of the Paul Ryan tweet (which may not have been him) is that he is saying a single mother making 30K can now put her $700 tax cut into savings. A single mother making 30K is not likely going to be putting her money into savings or using it to get a better job.  She most likely needs that money to provide a reasonable life for her children and herself.  There were other things wrong with that statement, but that was the thing that struck me first.

I don't know if the new tax structure is "unfair" to poor people on its own.  Paying less taxes is nice in a vacuum.  Where they are going to get hit is the likely cuts in social programs made to offset the big tax cuts for the wealthy.  

 

Anyone who has read Paul Ryan's budget/tax/financial writings over the years would know he is nothing but a math challenged BS artist. Same as the rest of the swindlers we call our representatives.

Maybe they ain't so much math challenged, but simply swindlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, screwball said:

Anyone who has read Paul Ryan's budget/tax/financial writings over the years would know he is nothing but a math challenged BS artist. Same as the rest of the swindlers we call our representatives.

Maybe they ain't so much math challenged, but simply swindlers.

Unfortunately, most of those opposing these policies seem to be math challenged as well.    And none of them have fairness or the long term benefit of society as their primary concern.  It's about getting reelected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T&P_Fan said:

Texas is ready to mail out insurance cancellation letters just before xmas and Colorado has already sent letters to families advising them to look into private insurance.  CHIP needs help immediately.  

And what Congress is proposing is a joke. Cut other health benefits to poor Americans is not the solution.  

I got a good idea, tax the rich more.  Easily pays for CHIP.  Oh shoot...

We tried that with the net investment income tax. The rich did pay more. Alot more. And health care costs still became unsustainable and the grand government takeover of health care is on life support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

We tried that with the net investment income tax. The rich did pay more. Alot more. And health care costs still became unsustainable and the grand government takeover of health care is on life support. 

As loathe as I am to agree with Stan, I have to acknowledge that he is right in that government money diverted to anything, from healthcare to education, has tended to make it more expensive especially for those in the middle between able to afford anything and those who don't have to pay for anything. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Melody said:

As loathe as I am to agree with Stan, I have to acknowledge that he is right in that government money diverted to anything, from healthcare to education, has tended to make it more expensive especially for those in the middle between able to afford anything and those who don't have to pay for anything. 

 

Common ground is always nice. 

Note also that there is an additional .9% on wages over a certain amount for higher income earners. Another 1%, basically, off their take home pay...In addition to the 3.8% on all passive income, dividends, capital gains, etc. for those higher income folks.

Part of the reason this tax didn't move the needle is that there are only so many "high income" people you can tax. And while 3.8% doesn't sound like a lot, it definitely adds up if you are already paying in excess of 45-50% federal/state taxes already. How much can you actually take from these people- 100%? That won't even fix our problems. 

I personally believe at some point payroll taxes (FICA, Medicare) are going to have to go up on everyone across the income spectrum. We've proven that higher income taxes on the rich alone won't do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Melody said:

As loathe as I am to agree with Stan, I have to acknowledge that he is right in that government money diverted to anything, from healthcare to education, has tended to make it more expensive especially for those in the middle between able to afford anything and those who don't have to pay for anything. 

 

But this is peculiarity of the US government, not government in general. In other developed nations, government involvement - particularly in healthcare - has reduced cost - esp compared to the US. The problem is not that a government is involved, it's that a government captured by private interests is involved. It is just a counterproductive narrative to say it's government in general that is the problem. It deflects us from the need to face the fact that it is OUR government in particular that is broken and unable to work in the public interest. This in particular is why the scoundrels are so busy wrapping themselves in the flag/nationism/national anthem etc. To break free from the continuing drumbeat of "America is always best" is to immediately be faced with the fact that it mostly no longer is. About the only thing we are doing better at than the rest of the world is being able to break stuff and kill people - and ain't we proud to be best at that?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

But this is peculiarity of the US government, not government in general. In other developed nations, government involvement - particularly in healthcare - has reduced cost - esp compared to the US. The problem is not that a government is involved, it's that a government captured by private interests is involved. It is just a counterproductive narrative to say it's government in general that is the problem. It deflects us from the need to face the fact that it is OUR government in particular that is broken and unable to work in the public interest. This in particular is why the scoundrels are so busy wrapping themselves in the flag/nationism/national anthem etc. To break free from the continuing drumbeat of "America is always best" is to immediately be faced with the fact that it mostly no longer is.

I was hangin in there, but you lost me at the end. The last sentence sounds like an obama apology tour. 

Why do people want to come to the united states for health care when the **** really hits the fan? We have great quality. It's expensive, but it's good. I'd rather be on that end of the continuum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Melody said:

Unfortunately, most of those opposing these policies seem to be math challenged as well.    And none of them have fairness or the long term benefit of society as their primary concern.  It's about getting reelected.

And taking care of their donors.  Whores, the whole lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stanpapi said:

We tried that with the net investment income tax. The rich did pay more. Alot more. And health care costs still became unsustainable and the grand government takeover of health care is on life support. 

This is simply bull****

First of all, we are talking about health insurance, not health care (doctors, technology, infrastructure, etc.). Private carriers, left to their own, will only offer coverage to a) those that can afford it and b) those that aren't high risk. Society is best served if all citizens have access to health care, I don't think even Stan can argue with that. There was no "grand government takeover of healthcare". Health care and health insurance are still private sector based. 

There is a simple rule of insurance, the larger the pool, the more you spread the risk. All Obamacare did was enlarge the pool, by including those that weren't previously covered, and adding the mandate. Those things didn't affect the cost of healthcare, but did create some volatility in the markets. This volatility can be managed. The basic concepts, if you want to provide access to healthcare to all citizens, to include everyone, have the government supplement the markets for those that can't afford it, and ensure everyone participates with the mandate to spread the risk, are sound.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

But this is peculiarity of the US government, not government in general. In other developed nations, government involvement - particularly in healthcare - has reduced cost - esp compared to the US. The problem is not that a government is involved, it's that a government captured by private interests is involved. It is just a counterproductive narrative to say it's government in general that is the problem. It deflects us from the need to face the fact that it is OUR government in particular that is broken and unable to work in the public interest. This in particular is why the scoundrels are so busy wrapping themselves in the flag/nationism/national anthem etc. To break free from the continuing drumbeat of "America is always best" is to immediately be faced with the fact that it mostly no longer is. About the only thing we are doing better at than the rest of the world is being able to break stuff and kill people - and ain't we proud to be best at that?

Why would I have been referring to any government except ours?  I don't give a fig what other countries do with their tax money, except to the extent that I can observe what they have done that had a result I don't want for myself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, screwball said:

And taking care of their donors.  Whores, the whole lot of them.

So wouldn't it follow that we should want to give them fewer rather than more areas of our lives to manipulate?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stanpapi said:

We tried that with the net investment income tax. The rich did pay more. Alot more. And health care costs still became unsustainable and the grand government takeover of health care is on life support. 

Nice repeating a lie of the year.

Insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors all remain private entities.   Still. 

 Lies lies lies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Melody said:

So wouldn't it follow that we should want to give them fewer rather than more areas of our lives to manipulate?  

No, it follows that we should vote them out and get good reps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Melody said:

Why would I have been referring to any government except ours?  I don't give a fig what other countries do with their tax money, except to the extent that I can observe what they have done that had a result I don't want for myself. 

 

You can't do that.  US is diverse, so no lessons can be gained from other nations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CVS merging with Aetna.  Now UHC buying up medical practices.  Ugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Melody said:

Why would I have been referring to any government except ours?  I don't give a fig what other countries do with their tax money, except to the extent that I can observe what they have done that had a result I don't want for myself. 

There is zero possibility that a foreign government did something with their tax dollars that you would want for yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

There is zero possibility that a foreign government did something with their tax dollars that you would want for yourself?

Of course the possibility exists. But so far, not seeing much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

We will end up with single payer in the form of a private sector monopoly.

It sure appears to be heading that direction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×