Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/28/2017 5:22:59 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Let me get this out of the way first: When most on the left accuse the GOP of supporting the mandate before Obamacare, they point to the HEART Act of 1993. That is not a strawman. That is fact. Had you specified Romneycare with your 90% claim, it would have been clear. My strawman was not intentional at all.


I believe you that your strawman was not intentional... But it is a strawman nevertheless. From your own words, "When most on the left"...

1. I am not on the left. I am simply not an ideologue at all.
2. Even if I were on the left, I never mentioned the HEART Act in any case. Hence the strawman.

quote:


Romney signed a bill in heavily Democratic Massachusett's, vetoing 8 sections, and the legislature immediately overruled 6 (and the other 2 eventually). The 34D-6R Senate, and the 139D-20R-1I House, passed a bill, sent it to the Governor, and then overruled all 8 of his vetoes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but elected representatives (including the Governor) are supposed to govern according to their constituents, right? Wouldn't you think it likely in a heavily Democratic State Government, there will likely be things a GOP Governor will sign that aren't traditionally GOP party planks?


You are correct. That does NOT change the fact that actual bill he signed into law was touted by him, dozens of prominent Republicans, AND the Heritage Foundation itself.

quote:


As far as Romney's actual plan....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2004/11/24/plan-for-massachusetts-health-insurance-reform/d1I1xFpnfLcQ8Ipz4nCdpJ/story.html

The mandate required people to have at least a basic level of coverage.
    quote:

    Today our laws prevent insurers from offering policies with only basic benefits. Bells, whistles, and costly options are mandated.
    Insurers tell us they can develop plans costing less than half of today's standard rate of $500 for an individual. These plans still provide primary, preventative, specialty, and catastrophic care. The cost could be lower with higher deductibles and more restrictions. New York introduced a program in which private insurers offer rates as low as $140 a month. We can have a similarly affordable program in Massachusetts: Commonwealth Care Basic.


http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-significance-massachusetts-health-reform
    quote:

    Personal Responsibility

    Finally, the element of the Massachusetts bill that has attracted the most attention and dispute is the "personal responsibility" provision, also known as the "individual mandate."

    From the outset, Governor Romney stated that requiring individuals to buy health insurance in the currently fragmented and overly expensive insurance market would be wrong and counterproductive. But he also argued that if the market could be reorganized to make coverage universally available and portable, deregulated at least enough to make it affordable for the middle class, and subsidized enough to make it affordable for the low-income, then there would be no reasonable excuse for anyone to forgo health insurance.

    Romney also pointed out that to allow people to go without health insurance when they can expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney's plan was to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: either buy insurance or pay for your own care. He proposed that those who want to go without coverage could place $10,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, which providers could claim against if the individual did not pay medical bills.

    Unfortunately, the state legislature changed that idea into a mandate: either buy coverage or pay a fine. This provision is more onerous and philosophically objectionable, but it is unlikely to prove onerous in practice. That is because the legislation includes three avenues through which Massachusetts residents can meet the individual coverage requirement by purchasing an inexpensive health plan. First, the bill allows more carriers to offer HSA products with high-deductibles. Second, it also circumvents Massachusetts' overly regulated non-group market by allowing any resident to buy coverage as an individual through the Connector, where a wide choice of plans and premiums will be available. And third, it allows insurers to offer inexpensive "mandate-light" policies to young adults between the ages of 19 and 26, those most likely to go without coverage.


Romney's plan would have prevented "free riders," but wasn't really a mandate to purchase something. "Romneycare" included a mandate because the legislature (aka not Romney) put it in. Also to note, there were different options for coverage, and not the laundry list of "everyone has to pay for almost everything in every plan" requirement under the ACA.

What is called "Romneycare" isn't exactly what Romney put forth. The "individual mandate" part of "Romneycare" wasn't part of Romney's plan, but changed by State legislators (heavily Democrat as noted earlier).


Yes Romney pushed for a lower standard of coverage, which is more affordable, and I think, a better idea overall. None of that changes my overall point about the 90%.

As for the difference in Romney's plan for buy insurance, or put money in an account for your own care. That is a semantic difference. That is still a mandate.

quote:


The biggest difference, in my mind, has to do with Constitutionality. Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority granted for the Federal Government to pay for/provide health insurance or health care for all US Citizens (health care for Veterans/Military would fall under the employer/employee category). State Governments may or may not have that authority granted. If it's not granted to the Federal Government, technically, the Federal government isn't supposed to do it, regardless of how many people want it. If you look at my arguments against universal health care, it's framed around needing a Constitutional Amendment.

According to The Federalist Papers, the Federal Government is supposed to focus on things that affect the country as a whole, not the country as a whole bunch of individuals. State Governments were to focus on things that affect their individuals.


Agreed. So your answer is...

Discontinue subsidizing the state medicaid programs, and discontinue medicare, and discontinue subsidies that support Obamacare.

And then what???

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 261
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/28/2017 6:16:35 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Let me get this out of the way first: When most on the left accuse the GOP of supporting the mandate before Obamacare, they point to the HEART Act of 1993. That is not a strawman. That is fact. Had you specified Romneycare with your 90% claim, it would have been clear. My strawman was not intentional at all.

I believe you that your strawman was not intentional... But it is a strawman nevertheless. From your own words, "When most on the left"...
1. I am not on the left. I am simply not an ideologue at all.
2. Even if I were on the left, I never mentioned the HEART Act in any case. Hence the strawman.


There was no claim that you are on the left. The overwhelming majority of people who point out that the GOP was 'for' the mandate before Obamacare are left-leaning (which also does not mean I'm saying you're left-leaning, in case you're getting that idea). Thus, the "when most on the left" claim doesn't necessarily include you, and still stands as a reason why I automatically went to the HEART Act of 1993.

quote:

quote:

Romney signed a bill in heavily Democratic Massachusett's, vetoing 8 sections, and the legislature immediately overruled 6 (and the other 2 eventually). The 34D-6R Senate, and the 139D-20R-1I House, passed a bill, sent it to the Governor, and then overruled all 8 of his vetoes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but elected representatives (including the Governor) are supposed to govern according to their constituents, right? Wouldn't you think it likely in a heavily Democratic State Government, there will likely be things a GOP Governor will sign that aren't traditionally GOP party planks?

You are correct. That does NOT change the fact that actual bill he signed into law was touted by him, dozens of prominent Republicans, AND the Heritage Foundation itself.


What "dozens of prominent Republicans" touted MassHealth? I posted a link from Heritage that touted the passage of MassHealth as an overall good thing, but it also brought up things that it felt onerous (including the individual mandate).

quote:

quote:

As far as Romney's actual plan....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2004/11/24/plan-for-massachusetts-health-insurance-reform/d1I1xFpnfLcQ8Ipz4nCdpJ/story.html
The mandate required people to have at least a basic level of coverage.
    quote:

    Today our laws prevent insurers from offering policies with only basic benefits. Bells, whistles, and costly options are mandated.
    Insurers tell us they can develop plans costing less than half of today's standard rate of $500 for an individual. These plans still provide primary, preventative, specialty, and catastrophic care. The cost could be lower with higher deductibles and more restrictions. New York introduced a program in which private insurers offer rates as low as $140 a month. We can have a similarly affordable program in Massachusetts: Commonwealth Care Basic.

http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-significance-massachusetts-health-reform
    quote:

    Personal Responsibility
    Finally, the element of the Massachusetts bill that has attracted the most attention and dispute is the "personal responsibility" provision, also known as the "individual mandate."
    From the outset, Governor Romney stated that requiring individuals to buy health insurance in the currently fragmented and overly expensive insurance market would be wrong and counterproductive. But he also argued that if the market could be reorganized to make coverage universally available and portable, deregulated at least enough to make it affordable for the middle class, and subsidized enough to make it affordable for the low-income, then there would be no reasonable excuse for anyone to forgo health insurance.
    Romney also pointed out that to allow people to go without health insurance when they can expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney's plan was to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: either buy insurance or pay for your own care. He proposed that those who want to go without coverage could place $10,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, which providers could claim against if the individual did not pay medical bills.
    Unfortunately, the state legislature changed that idea into a mandate: either buy coverage or pay a fine. This provision is more onerous and philosophically objectionable, but it is unlikely to prove onerous in practice. That is because the legislation includes three avenues through which Massachusetts residents can meet the individual coverage requirement by purchasing an inexpensive health plan. First, the bill allows more carriers to offer HSA products with high-deductibles. Second, it also circumvents Massachusetts' overly regulated non-group market by allowing any resident to buy coverage as an individual through the Connector, where a wide choice of plans and premiums will be available. And third, it allows insurers to offer inexpensive "mandate-light" policies to young adults between the ages of 19 and 26, those most likely to go without coverage.

Romney's plan would have prevented "free riders," but wasn't really a mandate to purchase something. "Romneycare" included a mandate because the legislature (aka not Romney) put it in. Also to note, there were different options for coverage, and not the laundry list of "everyone has to pay for almost everything in every plan" requirement under the ACA.
What is called "Romneycare" isn't exactly what Romney put forth. The "individual mandate" part of "Romneycare" wasn't part of Romney's plan, but changed by State legislators (heavily Democrat as noted earlier).

Yes Romney pushed for a lower standard of coverage, which is more affordable, and I think, a better idea overall. None of that changes my overall point about the 90%.
As for the difference in Romney's plan for buy insurance, or put money in an account for your own care. That is a semantic difference. That is still a mandate.


I disagree with your 90% claim. It might seem like semantics, but Romney's vision was to prevent free riders either by people having insurance or being able to pay their own way. Obviously, if you want to prevent free riders, you either force people to buy insurance, or you make them prove they can pay, which is what the accounts/bonds do (Ohio does this for auto insurance; no need to buy it if you prove you can pay your claims on your own (3 ways you can prove it)). There really is no other way to go about it, unless you allow care providers to turn people away if they can't pay. Romney's plan also took the money set aside to pay providers for care given to those who can't pay and turned it into subsidies to help people pay premiums.

The differences probably strike you as subtle, but they aren't.

quote:

quote:

The biggest difference, in my mind, has to do with Constitutionality. Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority granted for the Federal Government to pay for/provide health insurance or health care for all US Citizens (health care for Veterans/Military would fall under the employer/employee category). State Governments may or may not have that authority granted. If it's not granted to the Federal Government, technically, the Federal government isn't supposed to do it, regardless of how many people want it. If you look at my arguments against universal health care, it's framed around needing a Constitutional Amendment.
According to The Federalist Papers, the Federal Government is supposed to focus on things that affect the country as a whole, not the country as a whole bunch of individuals. State Governments were to focus on things that affect their individuals.

Agreed. So your answer is...
Discontinue subsidizing the state medicaid programs, and discontinue medicare, and discontinue subsidies that support Obamacare.
And then what???


1. Let the States and the citizens of the States decide what is the best way to cover people.
2. Pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing the Federal Government to create an agency like the NHS and run healthcare; providers would be employees of the "NHS" and would have wages set by the agency (would be significant wage reductions in most cases).
3. Pass legislation making it illegal for the same company to own both the care provider and care payer (much like the Mercy Health System and ProMedica in the Toledo area being the two largest owners of medical care providers (only 1 hospital exists in the area that isn't owned by either) and are part of a group that includes the two largest insurance providers in the area.
4. Break up the AMA's monopoly on accrediting doctors, and work on adding other types of acceptable health/medical interventions.
5. Force care providers to post "price lists" so people can choose.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 262
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/28/2017 7:43:31 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

What "dozens of prominent Republicans" touted MassHealth? I posted a link from Heritage that touted the passage of MassHealth as an overall good thing, but it also brought up things that it felt onerous (including the individual mandate).



1. You posted the exact same link I posted from Heritage.
2. I also posted a link listing 25 Republicans who touted the Individual Mandate (yes, not Romneycare specifically, but the mandate is a cornerstone of that legislation)

quote:


I disagree with your 90% claim. It might seem like semantics, but Romney's vision was to prevent free riders either by people having insurance or being able to pay their own way. Obviously, if you want to prevent free riders, you either force people to buy insurance, or you make them prove they can pay, which is what the accounts/bonds do (Ohio does this for auto insurance; no need to buy it if you prove you can pay your claims on your own (3 ways you can prove it)). There really is no other way to go about it, unless you allow care providers to turn people away if they can't pay. Romney's plan also took the money set aside to pay providers for care given to those who can't pay and turned it into subsidies to help people pay premiums.

The differences probably strike you as subtle, but they aren't.


That's spinning. The whole purpose of ANY mandate is to prevent free riders. Romney was no different. I happen to like his way better. They do the exact same thing in California with Auto insurance. It is still a mandate.

That reminds me. I still need to find that video of Chuck Grassley saying how sensible the individual mandate is, and that it is just like Auto Insurance.

quote:


1. Let the States and the citizens of the States decide what is the best way to cover people.
2. Pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing the Federal Government to create an agency like the NHS and run healthcare; providers would be employees of the "NHS" and would have wages set by the agency (would be significant wage reductions in most cases).
3. Pass legislation making it illegal for the same company to own both the care provider and care payer (much like the Mercy Health System and ProMedica in the Toledo area being the two largest owners of medical care providers (only 1 hospital exists in the area that isn't owned by either) and are part of a group that includes the two largest insurance providers in the area.
4. Break up the AMA's monopoly on accrediting doctors, and work on adding other types of acceptable health/medical interventions.
5. Force care providers to post "price lists" so people can choose.





All 5 of those are EXCELLENT ideas (and so UNLibertarian!!!!!) They would actually solve about 30% of the cost of healthcare.

Psst... I promise I won't tell the hard core Libertarian Desi....

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 263
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/28/2017 8:15:39 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What "dozens of prominent Republicans" touted MassHealth? I posted a link from Heritage that touted the passage of MassHealth as an overall good thing, but it also brought up things that it felt onerous (including the individual mandate).

1. You posted the exact same link I posted from Heritage.
2. I also posted a link listing 25 Republicans who touted the Individual Mandate (yes, not Romneycare specifically, but the mandate is a cornerstone of that legislation)


The individual mandate is a cornerstone of MassHealth, but not really what was in the plan that Romney put out. Yuge difference. You're going to need to choose one thing or another, here. Those 25 Republicans (and only a handful actually had any explanation, so there wasn't really much supporting evidence presented in the article proving the others). My guess is that they all came out in favor of the individual mandate in the early 90's (you know, like around the time of the HEART Act of 1993 ), but not necessarily after MassHealth, aka Romneycare, passed. The individual mandate in Romneycare isn't the one Romney wanted, but was added in by the majority Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature. Claiming that mandate was touted by Republicans might not be correct.

quote:

quote:

I disagree with your 90% claim. It might seem like semantics, but Romney's vision was to prevent free riders either by people having insurance or being able to pay their own way. Obviously, if you want to prevent free riders, you either force people to buy insurance, or you make them prove they can pay, which is what the accounts/bonds do (Ohio does this for auto insurance; no need to buy it if you prove you can pay your claims on your own (3 ways you can prove it)). There really is no other way to go about it, unless you allow care providers to turn people away if they can't pay. Romney's plan also took the money set aside to pay providers for care given to those who can't pay and turned it into subsidies to help people pay premiums.
The differences probably strike you as subtle, but they aren't.

That's spinning. The whole purpose of ANY mandate is to prevent free riders. Romney was no different. I happen to like his way better. They do the exact same thing in California with Auto insurance. It is still a mandate.
That reminds me. I still need to find that video of Chuck Grassley saying how sensible the individual mandate is, and that it is just like Auto Insurance.


So, preventing free riders is an individual mandate now? The mandate that passed and what Romney proposed are very different.

You're welcome for the reminder, I guess?

quote:

quote:

1. Let the States and the citizens of the States decide what is the best way to cover people.
2. Pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing the Federal Government to create an agency like the NHS and run healthcare; providers would be employees of the "NHS" and would have wages set by the agency (would be significant wage reductions in most cases).
3. Pass legislation making it illegal for the same company to own both the care provider and care payer (much like the Mercy Health System and ProMedica in the Toledo area being the two largest owners of medical care providers (only 1 hospital exists in the area that isn't owned by either) and are part of a group that includes the two largest insurance providers in the area.
4. Break up the AMA's monopoly on accrediting doctors, and work on adding other types of acceptable health/medical interventions.
5. Force care providers to post "price lists" so people can choose.


All 5 of those are EXCELLENT ideas (and so UNLibertarian!!!!!) They would actually solve about 30% of the cost of healthcare.
Psst... I promise I won't tell the hard core Libertarian Desi....


The only one that might be unLibertarian is #2, but I'm perfectly okay with that. I all for limited government. And most people on here either don't understand that phrase, or they purposely misconstrue it for partisan points, but if it's in the Constitution, it's not outside the bounds of a limited government. Thus, with a Constitutional Amendment, it's not outside the bounds of a limited government under a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution.

Libertarians don't want NO government. They don't want NO regulation in the Market. Those are just strawmen that people who either don't have a clue about libertarianism or are trying to denigrate libertarianism erect.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 264
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/28/2017 9:38:22 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


The individual mandate is a cornerstone of MassHealth, but not really what was in the plan that Romney put out. Yuge difference.


I have to disagree with you there. It is a distinction with NO difference.

quote:


You're going to need to choose one thing or another, here. Those 25 Republicans (and only a handful actually had any explanation, so there wasn't really much supporting evidence presented in the article proving the others). My guess is that they all came out in favor of the individual mandate in the early 90's (you know, like around the time of the HEART Act of 1993 ), but not necessarily after MassHealth, aka Romneycare, passed. The individual mandate in Romneycare isn't the one Romney wanted, but was added in by the majority Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature. Claiming that mandate was touted by Republicans might not be correct.


That would be a bad guess.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/26/gingrich-in-2006-romneycare-is-exciting-and-has-tremendous-potential/#28efa9b92865

And BTW: your attempt to give them a pass, by linking them to the Heart Act doesn't cut it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twIN07guc_k
I LOVE this link. The clip of Doocy interviewing Jim DeMint is hilarious. DeMint says Romneycare should be the model for the entire country.

Here is one of Chuck Grassley (Not the one I was looking for) making the exact same argument Obama did for the ACA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luEKDNns27w

Republicans were gung-ho for ROMNEYCARE Individual Mandate ALL the way until Obama proposed it.


quote:


So, preventing free riders is an individual mandate now? The mandate that passed and what Romney proposed are very different.

You're welcome for the reminder, I guess?


No. They are not very different at all. It's not that preventing free riders is an individual mandate. It's that the whole PURPOSE of an individual mandate is to prevent free riders. Are you saying that having the option to put up money in an account makes it not a mandate? And what if you don't have enough money to put up? And you still don't buy insurance? You pay more in TAXES!!!!!

http://www.mass.gov/dor/businesses/help-and-resources/legal-library/tirs/tirs-by-years/2017-releases/tir-17-1.html


No difference. You have to see that.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 265
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/28/2017 10:37:08 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're going to need to choose one thing or another, here. Those 25 Republicans (and only a handful actually had any explanation, so there wasn't really much supporting evidence presented in the article proving the others). My guess is that they all came out in favor of the individual mandate in the early 90's (you know, like around the time of the HEART Act of 1993 ), but not necessarily after MassHealth, aka Romneycare, passed. The individual mandate in Romneycare isn't the one Romney wanted, but was added in by the majority Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature. Claiming that mandate was touted by Republicans might not be correct.

That would be a bad guess.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/26/gingrich-in-2006-romneycare-is-exciting-and-has-tremendous-potential/#28efa9b92865
And BTW: your attempt to give them a pass, by linking them to the Heart Act doesn't cut it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twIN07guc_k
I LOVE this link. The clip of Doocy interviewing Jim DeMint is hilarious. DeMint says Romneycare should be the model for the entire country.
Here is one of Chuck Grassley (Not the one I was looking for) making the exact same argument Obama did for the ACA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luEKDNns27w
Republicans were gung-ho for ROMNEYCARE Individual Mandate ALL the way until Obama proposed it.


Your earlier link didn't post dates, unless you looked into the links in that link. Santorum, Bush41, Quayle, and Gingrich were all cited from the early 90's. The last 20 lawmakers were - and you're going to love this - the sponsor or co-sponsors to the HEART Act of 1993 (). So, all the "25 Republicans that were for the mandate" link all were cited from the early 90's (including the HEART Act of 1993). Unless you can show that those people (obviously, Gingrich and Grassley are shown in the videos/links you just posted) were still in favor of the mandate right before the Democrats unveiled their bill, it's entirely possible they had a change of heart and no longer supported the idea.

Yup, Gingrich was in support of Romneycare and the mandate within.

From the first video:
    Steve Doocy: "He was able to - without raising taxes - make sure that everybody in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wound up with health insurance. Real briefly, can you explain how he did that and whether or not that would be something he'd take coast to coast?"

    DeMint: "Well that's something I think we should do for the whole country."

Now who's erecting a strawman? What part of Doocy's question had anything to do with the individual mandate? Romney was able to make sure everyone was covered and didn't raise taxes doing it. DeMint thinks making sure everyone in the US is covered. Neither Doocy nor DeMint mentioned an individual mandate, did they? And, DeMint could easily be thinking each State should pass legislation ensuring their citizens are covered, which, would mean he is opposed to Obamacare.

From the second video, it's obvious Grassley supports an individual mandate. There is no argument there.

quote:

quote:


So, preventing free riders is an individual mandate now? The mandate that passed and what Romney proposed are very different.
You're welcome for the reminder, I guess?

No. They are not very different at all. It's not that preventing free riders is an individual mandate. It's that the whole PURPOSE of an individual mandate is to prevent free riders. Are you saying that having the option to put up money in an account makes it not a mandate? And what if you don't have enough money to put up? And you still don't buy insurance? You pay more in TAXES!!!!!
http://www.mass.gov/dor/businesses/help-and-resources/legal-library/tirs/tirs-by-years/2017-releases/tir-17-1.html
No difference. You have to see that.


There is a difference.
    Romney: You buy insurance or you pay your own way.
    MassHealth: You buy insurance or you pay a tax penalty.

If someone rolls the dice and doesn't buy insurance, and then doesn't have to use health insurance, what are they out? Under MassHealth, they are out tax dollars. Under Romney's version, they are out whatever they could have used that set-aside money could have done. What happens if they don't buy it and end up having to use insurance? Under Romney, they would have to pay their way. Under MassHealth, they would only have whatever those with insurance would have paid and tax penalties.

This is going to be yet another area we are going to have to agree to disagree, I'm thinking.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 266
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/29/2017 5:54:43 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 9572
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1. I am not on the left. I am simply not an ideologue at all.




_____________________________

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; howler minds howl about people.

M

A

G

A

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 267
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/30/2017 6:29:28 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

There is a difference.
    Romney: You buy insurance or you pay your own way.
    MassHealth: You buy insurance or you pay a tax penalty.

If someone rolls the dice and doesn't buy insurance, and then doesn't have to use health insurance, what are they out? Under MassHealth, they are out tax dollars. Under Romney's version, they are out whatever they could have used that set-aside money could have done. What happens if they don't buy it and end up having to use insurance? Under Romney, they would have to pay their way. Under MassHealth, they would only have whatever those with insurance would have paid and tax penalties.

This is going to be yet another area we are going to have to agree to disagree, I'm thinking.



2 points:

1. How does that make it NOT a mandate? Is the Auto Insurance mandate in California, not a mandate, because you have the option of depositing money in an account to be self-insured? (Or the similar program in Ohio that you described)???

2. What happens in California if you:
A. Don't buy Auto Insurance AND
B. Don't "Pay your own way"?????????????

You pay a PENALTY! The same in Romneycare, I would assume, (please cite evidence to the contrary) before and after the negotiations between Romney and the state legislature.


As I said, No difference.


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 268
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/30/2017 7:21:40 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is a difference.
    Romney: You buy insurance or you pay your own way.
    MassHealth: You buy insurance or you pay a tax penalty.

If someone rolls the dice and doesn't buy insurance, and then doesn't have to use health insurance, what are they out? Under MassHealth, they are out tax dollars. Under Romney's version, they are out whatever they could have used that set-aside money could have done. What happens if they don't buy it and end up having to use insurance? Under Romney, they would have to pay their way. Under MassHealth, they would only have whatever those with insurance would have paid and tax penalties.
This is going to be yet another area we are going to have to agree to disagree, I'm thinking.

2 points:
1. How does that make it NOT a mandate? Is the Auto Insurance mandate in California, not a mandate, because you have the option of depositing money in an account to be self-insured? (Or the similar program in Ohio that you described)???
2. What happens in California if you:
A. Don't buy Auto Insurance AND
B. Don't "Pay your own way"?????????????
You pay a PENALTY! The same in Romneycare, I would assume, (please cite evidence to the contrary) before and after the negotiations between Romney and the state legislature.
As I said, No difference.


First of all, don't ask me about California Motor Vehicle Laws. I don't bring those laws up. I'll answer your question as if you asked it about Ohio....

If you don't buy a vehicle insurance policy and don't have bonds in the correct amount, you pay a penalty. I don't think you get coverage, though, if you're in an accident and have neither insurance nor bonds. If you do not have insurance and do not have bonds, you do not get a Driver's License in Ohio. You lose the privilege of legally driving an automobile on Ohio's public roads.

There are exceptions to the MassHealth mandate, allowing people to not purchase insurance coverage and still have covered care. I don't know if there were similar exceptions in Romney's plan allowing for some to neither buy insurance coverage nor provide proof of ability to self-cover, yet still get covered care. The MassHealth exemptions are based on ability to buy insurance (and I would assume if there were any exemptions in Romney's plan they would also be based on the ability to buy insurance). As far as Ohio Motor Vehicle Laws go, though, there are no exceptions.

This is going to be yet another area we are going to have to agree to disagree.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 269
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 6:09:01 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
FR
Can someone where the money is coming from for these Tax cuts? I know I am in the UK but I am interested in this situation.


The assumption is being made that lower taxes will result in increased economic activity, which will increase Federal tax revenues, thereby paying for the cuts, plus some.

Those on the right believe the assumption to be true.

Those on the left believe the assumption to be false.

If the same version of the bill is passed by both chambers of Congress and President Trump signs it, we'll have the opportunity to see which political side was correct.

Regardless of which side is deemed correct, I predict the other side will have justification as to why their belief was incorrect, blaming the other side for it.





Those who can point to actual models of this (Remember the Bush tax cuts? How about Sam Brownback's Kansas?) know the assumption to be false. Then there is the constant misconception on the right about Reagan (not realizing he created an Obama-style stimulus).

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 270
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 7:29:15 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
FR
Can someone where the money is coming from for these Tax cuts? I know I am in the UK but I am interested in this situation.

The assumption is being made that lower taxes will result in increased economic activity, which will increase Federal tax revenues, thereby paying for the cuts, plus some.
Those on the right believe the assumption to be true.
Those on the left believe the assumption to be false.
If the same version of the bill is passed by both chambers of Congress and President Trump signs it, we'll have the opportunity to see which political side was correct.
Regardless of which side is deemed correct, I predict the other side will have justification as to why their belief was incorrect, blaming the other side for it.

Those who can point to actual models of this (Remember the Bush tax cuts? How about Sam Brownback's Kansas?) know the assumption to be false. Then there is the constant misconception on the right about Reagan (not realizing he created an Obama-style stimulus).


No, they can rationalize their bias. They rationalize the actual increases in Federal Revenues post-cuts by pointing out that they are flat or falling as a %GDP. Well, when GDP rises and revenues also rise, the %GDP will tend to be more flat. If GDP rises more than revenues, %GDP will drop. In their opinion, there is no way there is any connection between the tax cuts and the resulting increase in GDP. MrRodgers will point out - correctly - that revenues and GDP were both rising just fine under the Clinton tax plans. That he ignores the explosion of "The Internet" into business is easy to point out. Since the internet's use for business purposes was just starting to explode during Clinton's Presidency is simple to point out, and had nothing to do with Clinton's tax policies. In the same breath, he'll knock Bush's tax policies and point to the drop in GDP and receipts in the first couple years, ascribing the drops completely to the Bush tax policies. He ignores the drop in GDP/receipts from a recession caused by the Tech Bubble Burst and th downturn immediately after 9/11. Federal Receipts were much greater in Bush's 2nd term in office than during Clinton's years. Bush Tax Revenue years (2002-2009) were all in the top 11 historically, including the Top 6. Clinton 1999 was 10th, 2000 was 7th, and 2001 was 8th. Bush 2003 was 11th highest all-time. Bush 2004 and 2002 were 8th and 9th all-time, respectively.

Data was taken from here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2012-TAB/content-detail.html

The OMB.GOV site has changed and I no longer see links to look at historical tables. Damnit. The link above only shows historical tables to 2010, and not beyond. 2010 tax revenues were 4th all-time. According to the estimates, 2012 and beyond would have made new records every year (and I do believe that was what happened in reality, not just as estimates), even though the majority of the Bush tax cuts were extended (and eventually made permanent) in 2010.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 271
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 7:33:54 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
FR
Can someone where the money is coming from for these Tax cuts? I know I am in the UK but I am interested in this situation.

The assumption is being made that lower taxes will result in increased economic activity, which will increase Federal tax revenues, thereby paying for the cuts, plus some.
Those on the right believe the assumption to be true.
Those on the left believe the assumption to be false.
If the same version of the bill is passed by both chambers of Congress and President Trump signs it, we'll have the opportunity to see which political side was correct.
Regardless of which side is deemed correct, I predict the other side will have justification as to why their belief was incorrect, blaming the other side for it.

Those who can point to actual models of this (Remember the Bush tax cuts? How about Sam Brownback's Kansas?) know the assumption to be false. Then there is the constant misconception on the right about Reagan (not realizing he created an Obama-style stimulus).


No, they can rationalize their bias. They rationalize the actual increases in Federal Revenues post-cuts by pointing out that they are flat or falling as a %GDP. Well, when GDP rises and revenues also rise, the %GDP will tend to be more flat. If GDP rises more than revenues, %GDP will drop. In their opinion, there is no way there is any connection between the tax cuts and the resulting increase in GDP. MrRodgers will point out - correctly - that revenues and GDP were both rising just fine under the Clinton tax plans. That he ignores the explosion of "The Internet" into business is easy to point out. Since the internet's use for business purposes was just starting to explode during Clinton's Presidency is simple to point out, and had nothing to do with Clinton's tax policies. In the same breath, he'll knock Bush's tax policies and point to the drop in GDP and receipts in the first couple years, ascribing the drops completely to the Bush tax policies. He ignores the drop in GDP/receipts from a recession caused by the Tech Bubble Burst and th downturn immediately after 9/11. Federal Receipts were much greater in Bush's 2nd term in office than during Clinton's years. Bush Tax Revenue years (2002-2009) were all in the top 11 historically, including the Top 6. Clinton 1999 was 10th, 2000 was 7th, and 2001 was 8th. Bush 2003 was 11th highest all-time. Bush 2004 and 2002 were 8th and 9th all-time, respectively.

Data was taken from here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2012-TAB/content-detail.html

The OMB.GOV site has changed and I no longer see links to look at historical tables. Damnit. The link above only shows historical tables to 2010, and not beyond. 2010 tax revenues were 4th all-time. According to the estimates, 2012 and beyond would have made new records every year (and I do believe that was what happened in reality, not just as estimates), even though the majority of the Bush tax cuts were extended (and eventually made permanent) in 2010.





ok... But none of this contradicts my point.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 272
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 8:26:26 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
ok... But none of this contradicts my point.


Right, because you said tax revenues rise as a result of tax cuts.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 273
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 8:36:40 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
ok... But none of this contradicts my point.


Right, because you said tax revenues rise as a result of tax cuts.



I did????

I said:
Those who can point to actual models of this (Remember the Bush tax cuts? How about Sam Brownback's Kansas?) know the assumption to be false. Then there is the constant misconception on the right about Reagan (not realizing he created an Obama-style stimulus).

So I said that people who have watched these tax cuts in action know the assumption to be false.

What assumption are we talking about?

quote:


The assumption is being made that lower taxes will result in increased economic activity, which will increase Federal tax revenues, thereby paying for the cuts, plus some.


I said this assumption is known to be false.

So, how exactly am I saying that tax revenues rise as a result of tax cuts?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 274
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 1:44:38 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
ok... But none of this contradicts my point.

Right, because you said tax revenues rise as a result of tax cuts.

I did????


You missed the importance of the eye-rolling emoji:


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 275
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 12/31/2017 1:47:08 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
ok... But none of this contradicts my point.

Right, because you said tax revenues rise as a result of tax cuts.

I did????


You missed the importance of the eye-rolling emoji:



Yep :)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 276
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 1/6/2018 7:53:47 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
oh no comrades, more townhall!

"Run Away, Claire: McCaskill Refuses To Comment On Local Bank Doling Out Bonuses Thanks To Trump’s Tax Bill"

quote:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is one of the most vulnerable Democrats heading into the 2018 elections. Her state went heavily for Trump, who won it 57/38 over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. It’s possible she could have been voted out in 2012, but was saved when her Republican opponent, Rep. Todd Akin, made the infamous “legitimate rape” gaffe that torched his senate candidacy. Now, as we enter 2018, McCaskill might have to answer for another blunder: voting against the GOP’s tax bill.

Since President Trump signed the bill into law on December 22, over 100 companies have done exactly what Democrats thought they wouldn’t do: give bonuses to workers, increase U.S. investments, and boost donations to charitable causes. They’re eating crow—lots of it. They’re backtracking. They’re moving goal posts because it’s very possible that a) this bill gets more popular; and b) the Democrats will have to explain why they voted against economic growth, a tax cut for the middle class, and the American worker. The wind that they have to their backs could easily dissipate. We are 10 months away from Election Day. In Missouri, the tax bill benefits have hit close to home, with a Springfield-based bank announcing that they would be giving $1,000 and $500 bonuses to full-time and part-time workers respectively thanks to the new bill. The bank cited how the GOP’s tax reform will create a better economic environment. McCaskill was asked for comment, but decided to deploy countermeasures and head into the bunker (via Springfield News-Leader)"

quote:

Springfield-based banking company plans to give one-time bonuses to more than 1,200 employees following the federal tax overhaul recently approved by Republicans in Washington, D.C.

Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., says it will pay $1,000 in cash to all full-time employees and $500 to part-time workers who were employed by the bank on Dec. 31.

In a news release, Great Southern specifically cited the federal tax reform legislation that Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law in December.

"The recently passed tax reform package should have positive implications for the U. S. economy, which we expect will benefit the banking industry, including Great Southern," said Joseph W. Turner, president and CEO, in a statement. "We are pleased to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the tax reform legislation by rewarding our associates with this special bonus. Our associates work hard every day to build winning relationships with our customers and communities and this bonus underscores our appreciation for their commitment to Great Southern."...

A spokeswoman for McCaskill said the Missouri Democrat would not comment on Great Southern's bonuses and referred the News-Leader to a November statement she made.

"What I said to President Trump when we sat down together is still true today—I’m eager to support real, bipartisan tax reform," McCaskill said, in part. "I’d jump at the chance to support a plan to deliver relief to Missouri’s working families, simplify the tax code, close loopholes exploited by the rich, and lower the corporate tax rate. Unfortunately, this tax plan doesn’t live up the commitment I got from President Trump, when he told me he wouldn’t support tax reform that benefited the very rich at the expense of the little guy."


Claire, this bill is going to help the little guy. It already is with this news from Great Southern.

quote:

Left-leaning tax policy center finds that 80.4% of Americans would see a tax cut in 2018. The average decrease would be $2,140. Only 4.8% would see a tax increase.https://t.co/2UVcvrom6d pic.twitter.com/52F9uDx90Z
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) December 19, 2017



but the deficit!!

www.townhalltaxcutsfortherich!.com



(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 277
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 1/6/2018 10:48:30 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 9572
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

Another example of President Trump being right, and the left proving that THEY are the idiots

Obama Mocks Trump Over Creating US Jobs - YouTube

"They're not coming back. It's not gonna happen."

_____________________________

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; howler minds howl about people.

M

A

G

A

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 278
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 1/6/2018 11:43:21 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 1424
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh no comrades, more townhall!

"Run Away, Claire: McCaskill Refuses To Comment On Local Bank Doling Out Bonuses Thanks To Trump’s Tax Bill"

quote:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is one of the most vulnerable Democrats heading into the 2018 elections. Her state went heavily for Trump, who won it 57/38 over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. It’s possible she could have been voted out in 2012, but was saved when her Republican opponent, Rep. Todd Akin, made the infamous “legitimate rape” gaffe that torched his senate candidacy. Now, as we enter 2018, McCaskill might have to answer for another blunder: voting against the GOP’s tax bill.

Since President Trump signed the bill into law on December 22, over 100 companies have done exactly what Democrats thought they wouldn’t do: give bonuses to workers, increase U.S. investments, and boost donations to charitable causes. They’re eating crow—lots of it. They’re backtracking. They’re moving goal posts because it’s very possible that a) this bill gets more popular; and b) the Democrats will have to explain why they voted against economic growth, a tax cut for the middle class, and the American worker. The wind that they have to their backs could easily dissipate. We are 10 months away from Election Day. In Missouri, the tax bill benefits have hit close to home, with a Springfield-based bank announcing that they would be giving $1,000 and $500 bonuses to full-time and part-time workers respectively thanks to the new bill. The bank cited how the GOP’s tax reform will create a better economic environment. McCaskill was asked for comment, but decided to deploy countermeasures and head into the bunker (via Springfield News-Leader)"

quote:

Springfield-based banking company plans to give one-time bonuses to more than 1,200 employees following the federal tax overhaul recently approved by Republicans in Washington, D.C.

Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., says it will pay $1,000 in cash to all full-time employees and $500 to part-time workers who were employed by the bank on Dec. 31.

In a news release, Great Southern specifically cited the federal tax reform legislation that Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law in December.

"The recently passed tax reform package should have positive implications for the U. S. economy, which we expect will benefit the banking industry, including Great Southern," said Joseph W. Turner, president and CEO, in a statement. "We are pleased to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the tax reform legislation by rewarding our associates with this special bonus. Our associates work hard every day to build winning relationships with our customers and communities and this bonus underscores our appreciation for their commitment to Great Southern."...

A spokeswoman for McCaskill said the Missouri Democrat would not comment on Great Southern's bonuses and referred the News-Leader to a November statement she made.

"What I said to President Trump when we sat down together is still true today—I’m eager to support real, bipartisan tax reform," McCaskill said, in part. "I’d jump at the chance to support a plan to deliver relief to Missouri’s working families, simplify the tax code, close loopholes exploited by the rich, and lower the corporate tax rate. Unfortunately, this tax plan doesn’t live up the commitment I got from President Trump, when he told me he wouldn’t support tax reform that benefited the very rich at the expense of the little guy."


Claire, this bill is going to help the little guy. It already is with this news from Great Southern.

quote:

Left-leaning tax policy center finds that 80.4% of Americans would see a tax cut in 2018. The average decrease would be $2,140. Only 4.8% would see a tax increase.https://t.co/2UVcvrom6d pic.twitter.com/52F9uDx90Z
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) December 19, 2017



but the deficit!!

www.townhalltaxcutsfortherich!.com






Claire McCaskill is very vulnerable over this. I have tremendous respect for her, for maintaining her position on this and told her so, personally. This is a tax increase for me, as it takes away my exemptions, and I suspect it is a tax increase for millions of other middle class Americans as well.

It just so happens that while I was at a Health Conference in Kansas City this year, I was in the concierge lounge at the hotel, and in walked Claire McCaskill. She and the young man she was with, sat down on the couch near the big screen TV. Not five minutes later, a right wing PAC funded ad came on, saying that she opposes tax cuts for Missourians, and wants to see the economy fail. It showed this horrible intentionally grainy black and white image of her. I watched her expression, when she saw that. I do not know her, and had never met her before. I was sitting on the couch across from her, and said "I'm sorry you had to see that." She smiled and said "It comes with the territory." I told her I supported her integrity in opposing this tax increase for me and likely many other middle class Americans. She smiled and said "Thank you very much."

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 279
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 1/7/2018 10:51:03 AM   
sloguy02246


Posts: 534
Joined: 11/5/2011
Status: offline
FR -

While this discussion has generally centered on the overall impact of the new tax bill, has anyone noticed the individual provisions in the current law that are being changed, such as:

1. ALIMONY
Paying alimony to an ex-spouse? For 2017 you can now deduct those payments from your gross income, while your ex-spouse must declare the payments as income.
But not any more under the new bill. In 2018 your payments are no longer deductible and the ex doesn't have to declare them as taxable income. You not only must make the payments, but also absorb the taxes as well. Sweet deal for the ex, huh?

2. MOVING EXPENSES
In 2017, certain moving expenses incurred when changing jobs are deductible from income.
But not any more under the new bill. Starting in 2018, no moving expenses are deductible - unless you are in the military and are being reassigned.

3. STATE/LOCAL INCOME TAXES and PROPERTY TAXES
In 2017, all your current state and/or local income taxes and your property taxes are fully deductible.
But not any more under the new bill. Beginning in 2018, the total of all your state/local income taxes plus your property taxes are now capped at $10,000/year.
What? Your income and property taxes are over $10,000 a year? You are SOL.

Lots of other changes as well, like the residency requirement for the one-time $250,000 exclusion when selling your home.
Maybe some of these "other" changes will nullify the "tax cuts" everyone thinks they will be getting.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 280
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2022
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.105