What's new

Tax bill passes in senate 51-49

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
The companies who are handing out bonuses have not yet received the tax benefits from the new law, which means they could have afforded these bonuses at any time and chose not to do so. It is now just a PR move made at an advantageous moment. Good for the workers who get the bonuses, though a big raise would have been what would make a difference in their lives.
 
The companies who are handing out bonuses have not yet received the tax benefits from the new law, which means they could have afforded these bonuses at any time and chose not to do so. It is now just a PR move made at an advantageous moment. Good for the workers who get the bonuses, though a big raise would have been what would make a difference in their lives.

It is absolutely a PR move. Wells Fargo and Bancorp raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour and Boing will now have a matching TSP. Still shows they could have afforded this. But the CEOs gave the tax reform the credit.
 
Wait, are some of you still debating whether this tax bill will actually increase the deficit?

Dude...

Guys...

Stop trusting what the orange clown says.

It’s really not that hard.

The CBO, the Tax Foundation, Heritage, hell even Goldman Sachs predicts these tax cuts to add $1 trillion onto the deficit by 2019.

The question isn’t whether this is redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class or whether this will add to the deficit, the question is if the GOP will swing for the fences and shred New Deal programs and safety nets to make up for the deficits?

Many repubs, knowing that they’re facing a blue tidal wave, might see that they have nothing to lose and finally fulfill their fantasies of erasing major progressive reforms. Some repubs might see an opportunity here to slash entitlements, since many of the individual tax cuts won’t expire for another decade. Make the cuts now, while you control all 3 branches.

Paul Ryan, for instance, has already said that the house will target SS and Medicare next year. Marco Rubio has hinted as much. McConnell and Trump meanwhile, have denied their desires for entitlement reform. But that won’t mean they won’t. They may see 2018 as their last year to get anything done.

So I think we are debating the wrong issue here.

* We know it’s going to add to the deficit.
* We know it won’t stimule the economy. We are already at full employment.
* Business owners have already admitted in conferences with Munchin that these tax cuts will be manifest in shareholder dividends and CEO bonuses, not job creation or salary increases.
* we know this will only lead to increased wealth inequality and political instability. But the GOP has thrived on this issue, successfully deflecting the primary cause and successfully deflected the blame onto entitlements and immigrants.

* But what we don’t know is what will be cut because of this tax cut. What do the Kochs and Mercers want to slash?

If entitlements are slashed but trump voters (the GOP core) are too stupid or brainwashed by Fox News to understand, then why won’t congresspeople support entitlement reform since they’ll be primaried for being too liberal?





Stupid post. In what way was the ACA similar to this tax bill?

The ACA was debated for over 9 months, was presented in countless town halls, included over 100 amendments proposed by republicans (but then voted against because they wanted to make obama a one term president).

Oh, ontop of that, the ACA helped the country. Sure, some of you saw premiums go up. But that was already the case prior to the ACA passing. Some people act as if premiums had never gone up. Sheesh

Comparing the ACA to this unpopular tax bill literally written in the wee hours of the night by hundreds of lobbyists (with hand written notes and amendments) was unprecedented. Oh, and literally a handful of the richest Americans are benefitting from it. It’s the complete opposite of what trump campaigned on. He claimed he’d make rich people, like himself, pay their fair share and use those revenues to rebuild America. He’s doing the opposite. He’s pulling a reverse Robin Hood. He’s robbing his constituents and flooding the swamp he promised to drain.

So I’m not seeing the parallels to the ACA at all.

1)Check your numbers. The tax bill will definitely not add a trillion to the deficit by 2019. The deficit may hit a TOTAL of trillion for 2018, but that is because we are already running a huge deficit. The tax bill is anticipated to raise the deficit by 1.5 trillion over a decade. Sounds like you have an agenda to state the bill will increase spending by a trillion by 2019. Look at the deficit added in the year the ACA was implemented (2010) was almost $2 Trillion, or check every year since 2008. Doesn't make the increase in deficit from the tax bill seem too bad. I mean, I hate the tax bill too, but let's post some accurate numbers.

2) Both the ACA and the Tax bill have a lot of flaws. Both were designed to redistribute wealth from the middle class, and I hate both for different reasons. Simply but, the ACA was implemented with the goal of a future single payer system when the ACA became unsustainable. The bill was sold as a "fix" to our healthcare system, when every politician knew it would not fix the major flaw (trying to operate a micro free market health system in our country when there is a global socialist health system). Essentially pre and post PPA, the U.S. subsidizes the medical costs for much of the world. The tax bill also contains a lot of flaws, but it does reduce taxes, and from a total percentage standpoint, it reduces taxes pretty significantly for the middle class, and attempted to clean up a lot of issues (that unfortunately had most of the cut items added back in--gotta love the corrupt political system). The tax bill was put in place with the idea to trim entitlements. This needs to be done regardless of what happens with taxes. Obviously Trump is lying when he says the bill was not done as part of this goal. It is a big part of the republican point of view. The sad fact is, everyone wants their entitlements, but we are ALREADY running huge deficits. There needs to be reductions either way. And it should start with the older generation as they have already received a lot of benefit that the current workforce is paying for and will never receive. We also need to cut out foreign aid if we don't have $$$ to spend. The tax bill will reduce a lot of tax to middle income individuals, in the near term, but hurt them in the long-term unless parts of the bill are renewed. In fact, from a percentage standpoint, it will help the middle class out of the gate the most. From a dollar perspective, it will put more $$$ back in the pockets of the rich, which is anticipated as the richest Americans (to 20%) pay 69% of federal income tax (and 45-50% (depending on how you crunch the data) of American households pay 0 income tax). So they both have in common that they had deceptive motives that hurt the middle class. Expect anything different from Congress?

3) You really believe the ACA didn't cause a significant increase to premiums? Per Forbes:
The data allow us to break down the pre- and post-ACA changes by age, individual vs. family, and plan type. Overall, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) premiums actually decreased 4.6% in the four years before the ACA reforms came into effect (that is, from 2009 to 2013), but increased 46.4% in the first four years under the ACA. Point-of-Service (POS) premiums decreased 14.9% before the ACA, and increased a whopping 66.2% afterwards. Premiums for the more common Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans increased 15% in the four years before the ACA, and 66.2% afterwards.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...are-act-that-increased-premiums/#4a825e4911d2

The ACA allowed anyone with a pre-existing illness to get insurance coverage for any time in the future. So essentially, it takes everyone in a cost sharing pool, and increases there costs because other people that haven't been contributing to the cost sharing pool can join with no limitation. And then congress was flummoxed as to why young healthy people were not signing up (they knew full well what the numbers would look like out of the gate). Why pay for homeowners insurance every month when you can get coverage for your house after it burns down?

The other thing the ACA did, is it requires employers with over 50 FT employees to provide those employees with good affordable coverage, but no requirements for affordable coverage for spouses or children. In effect, this has caused employers to provide low premium insurance to employees only, and very high cost insurance to add spouse or families. The fact that we have so many two parent working families in this country attenuates what the actual overall increase in premiums. So what, in effect has the ACA done???? It has hurt the middle class by increasing premiums while subsidizing insurance for the poor. The rich from a percentage standpoint had little effect from the ACA. Both bills hurt the middle class.


TLDR:

1) The tax bill will not come close to increasing the debt by a trillion by 2019
2) The ACA DID increases premiums
3) The ACA and Tax bill will hurt the middle class (unless steps are taken to renew provisions of the tax bill)
4) I hate the ACA
5) I hate the tax bill
6) I hate Gargamel
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other thing the ACA did, is it requires employers with over 50 FT employees to provide those employees with good affordable coverage, but no requirements for affordable coverage for spouses or children. In effect, this has caused employers to provide low premium insurance to employees only, and very high cost insurance to add spouse or families. The fact that we have so many two parent working families in this country attenuates what the actual overall increase in premiums. So what, in effect has the ACA done???? It has hurt the middle class by increasing premiums while subsidizing insurance for the poor. The rich from a percentage standpoint had little effect from the ACA. Both bills hurt the middle class.

There was an initial spike in premiums when the ACA went into effect mostly because of the increased benefit requirements - your above example being one of them. Obama knew that was going to happen and wasn't as forthcoming about it with the American public as he should have been; which resulted in a nice "gotcha moment" - shame on him.

But since then, the rate of growth in premiums have gone down every year and we are now at a historical LOW.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/

And, oh yeah, millions of Americans now have health insurance that didn't have it before. I'd call that a fair trade off.
 
There was an initial spike in premiums when the ACA went into effect mostly because of the increased benefit requirements - your above example being one of them. Obama knew that was going to happen and wasn't as forthcoming about it with the American public as he should have been; which resulted in a nice "gotcha moment" - shame on him.

But since then, the rate of growth in premiums have gone down every year and we are now at a historical LOW.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/

And, oh yeah, millions of Americans now have health insurance that didn't have it before. I'd call that a fair trade off.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...are-act-that-increased-premiums/#4e59740911d2

Again, as posted above, the data is flawed as it ONLY looks at increases in employer premiums, (AKA, the single premium per enrolled employee for employer based health insurance). Not the cost to employees, the amount of coverage, the deductible or out of pocket max. The ACA fundamentally changed the way most employers offer insurance to employees. The ACA requires employers with >50 FT employees to offer adequate and affordable coverage. In order to meet this test, employers can look at the employees W2 for a safe harbor to determine if their premium is affordable based on the ACA parameters. To avoid this costly and time consuming process, insurers are setting up plans where the cost to the EMPLOYEE for EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage costs are stable. However, if you want to cover your spouse or children, that is where the high costs come in to play.

The Forbes data shows through 2017, as does my pocketbook.:

"The data allow us to break down the pre- and post-ACA changes by age, individual vs. family, and plan type. Overall, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) premiums actually decreased 4.6% in the four years before the ACA reforms came into effect (that is, from 2009 to 2013), but increased 46.4% in the first four years under the ACA. Point-of-Service (POS) premiums decreased 14.9% before the ACA, and increased a whopping 66.2% afterwards. Premiums for the more common Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans increased 15% in the four years before the ACA, and 66.2% afterwards."

Again, the fact check you listed is ONLY looking at increases in employer premiums. As I stated above, the ACA allows an employer to only provide affordable coverage for employee only, and can charge spouse or family any about without worrying about compliance issues or penalties. I'd love to hear other JF members with family coverage to see how much their premiums have increased from year to year, if their deductibles have gone up, increase to out of pocket max, increase of $ or % for office visit, etc. If I should have only seen a overall 2 to 3% increase per year, somehow my company, and those of my clients must have bad luck.

So the exchange has seen HUGE increases in premiums and employer premiums have seen little increase. MANY consumers, including myself, are only insuring themselves (employee) and their family through the exchange. At my firm, my employer pays 100% of my premium, but to add my wife and one child I am looking well over $1400 a month for a non-HDHP option. So my wife and daughter are on the exchange, where I pay $600/mo for them 2018, with a $2000 higher deductible, an increase from the $470/mo premium from 2017. I went back through my firms employee and benefits guides from year to year, and family coverage pre-ACA was nearly $1000 cheaper per month.

Looking at employer only premium increases is a flawed approach to determine the rising costs of insurance. And when you have 20M more insured, you would expect the costs to go down. Even when a good chunk of those premiums are coming from tax dollars as subsidies. Yet the hospitals are making more money as they don't have to write as much off as they did before, yet they haven't passed on any benefit to consumers.

Edit: The biggest problem with healthcare is we subsidize other countries, most of which cap the costs of drugs and durable medical equipment. We don't so we end up paying out of our *** to allow the medical companies to make a profit. I'd love nothing more than for us to go to a single payer system with caps on drugs and durable medical equipment, essentially matching what many European countries already do. Other countries will be in for a surprise when drug companies will no longer supply drugs at the capped prices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And most of us will wait a year or more for our wages/salaries catch up. Yeah inflation!

Rich people get more money that they get to spend at today's prices, cause inflation, and then drag their feet increasing the pay of their workforce. Woo-hoo

Deficit spending is a transfer of wealth. In this case(most cases) from the working poor to the wealthy. Whoever gets the "new dollar" first gets a little bit of every one else's dollar.

You could have just said TVM. But yeah, there is a reason targeted inflation rate is a democratic principle that many are too lazy or ideologically opposed to to understand.
 
lol at democrats now that the world knows the truth about this tax bill, they now say it should have been permanent. no **** sherlock if only 9 of you voted it would have been permanent!
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gov-cuomo-state-will-sue-to-block-federal-tax-overhaul/ar-BBHNI49

lol!!!!!!! maybe some liberal judicial activist judge will overturn the tax law. lets just have judges all over the country make laws.

did you guys know their are a lot more conservative judges now!


rememebr when 0bummer care was passed you had to vote for it to read it. now the reps used the same strategy on the democrats on the tax bill and they cry.

imagine the next democrat president. getting whooped by conservative judges! the liberal tears will be EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
The thing that scares me and other colleagues of mine who I typically discuss economics with, is that this happens at perhaps the worst time. Why?

#1 Our economy is already booming right now. There's no need for a tax cut to stimulate growth while enlarging the deficit. In fact, we should be doing the opposite. We should be raising taxes and revenue and paying down the debt.

#2 By increasing the debt right now it significantly hinders our government's ability to react to the next economic crisis. Which, by the way, is overdue, since historically 8 years of strong economic growth is followed by a slowdown or bust. We are overdue.

#3 No one is talking about this, but the retail industry is changing, big time. During a strong economy many of the largest retail stores are either going under or making cuts. As more money goes to online stores, what will those working in brick and mortar stores do?

#4 Trump promised to invest in infrastructure, military, and the wall. So far he's successfully worked to increase defense spending. Infrastructure and walls? Not gonna happen without increasing the deficit EVEN MORE with this tax cut.

Truly, what scares me the most is point 2. We are exacerbating wealth inequality and missing an opportunity to invest in our country RIGHT NOW as our economy is relatively strong. When we see a slowdown, many who could have been better trained and prepared are going to suffer and our government's ability to mediate through stimulus spending will be hindered.

But that's what happens when you elect an *** clown as president. We are getting the type of leadership we deserve.

Watch what happens to Hillary now that the fix is not in for her. Knowing you would vote for that witch says a lot.
 
Watch what happens to Hillary now that the fix is not in for her. Knowing you would vote for that witch says a lot.
Funny. Yeah, let's see if they can finally substantiate anything serious against her. What you got in mind, her child sex slave ring? Her hauling off all of our uranium and delivering it directly to the Kremlin? Her erasing emails where she talks about all the people she has killed and those she plans to kill.

You guys have created such an amazing fantasy of an evil human. I'm certainly not saying she hasn't engaged in shady deals, possibly even criminal deals, but I think the reality is very far from this insane fantasy of someone being evil just for the sake of evil.
 
Back
Top