Trump/GOP Tax Plan- It's Gonna Hurt

[kickingandscreaming]

https://thenib.imgix.net/usq/099fd68a-bcd4-4c1f-af7b-87f2f752c0b6/how-trump-s-tax-plan-will-help-his-voters-1-432.jpeg

[iolaire]

Seems to red state only focused, but being in VA that removal of the state deduction would be bad for us.  I'm pro paying taxes for things that put the country ahead but not for saving Sheldon Adelson and Tom Steyer on their taxes. 

People (and corporations) with huge incomes and/or wealth will not be motivated to invest in American due to lower taxes...

[Michael Murphy]

I don’t think Republicans have the votes more so because of recent Virginia election.  The polls had race at dead heat day before with a 9 percent undecided, democrat won by 9 meaning every undecided went democrat.  To pass the house the majority has a 20 seat margine, the Republicans from NY, NJ, CA  and other High Tax states vote for this and next year they are unemployed.

[iolaire]

I don’t think Republicans have the votes more so because of recent Virginia election.  The polls had race at dead heat day before with a 9 percent undecided, democrat won by 9 meaning every undecided went democrat.  To pass the house the majority has a 20 seat margine, the Republicans from NY, NJ, CA  and other High Tax states vote for this and next year they are unemployed.

Yes my gut feeling is that this will go the way of the Affordable Care Act changes, but it still worries me.  I'm especially worried as the leaders are flat out stating that if they don't pass this the large donors will cut off the money spigot, so that clearly shows what we already know that they represent donors on a pay to play basis and don't really care about the general population.

[Bill Peckham]

It is frustrating to hear republican talking heads go unchallenged  when they complain (it's been a common talking point) that democrats that were for increasing deficit spending in 2009 have no standing to complain about increasing deficit spending now.

The idea democrats talked about in 2009 is that you use the flexibility of the federal budget and the US' unique position (for now) as the world's reserve currency to increase deficit spending in downturns (especially when you can borrow at negative interest rates). In 2017 our economy is not in a downturn. How is this confusing? Why is hard to understand that the federal government should not decrease their revenue at the top of a business cycle?

The republicans could have (still could) make their fixes to the corporate rate and then balance that revenue loss with increased taxes on the top quintile - the very people who have hoovered up the gains since the great recession and those most like to benefit from the corporate tax changes. The republicans could even decide to pay a third of FICA taxes out of general revenue giving business owners and workers a break. That would be a 5 trillion dollar (over 10 years) tax cut - The biggest in history! When the economy started growing at 4% the republicans could then run a surplus and enjoy what I would view as a period of hellish trumpian glory a few years from now (nothing like 4% growth to make the whole russia thing go away). But of course that can't happen because the top 20% of income earners need a tax cut not a tax increase THIS YEAR, no chance of thinking out a few years, when thinking out a few days is a challenge.

[Michael Murphy]

This Republican tax give away has been tried twice first during the Reagan - Bush Presidencies and during the Bush jr Presidential term in both cases the Democrats took over with Clinton and Obama. Clinton took over the Economy that was wrecked by banking failures and deficits that were running out of control.  After 8 years of Clinton we were actually running a surplus. Then Bus 2 takes over and in 8 years the economy is again in the crapper and this time the banking industry implosion makes the last bank crisis seem minor.  It took 8 years to recover but as the economy begins to grows long comes Presidunce Trump.  And the Republicans gleefully roll out the same tax plan that wrecked the economy twice in the last 40 years. God help us, if history is ant judge the economy is going in the toilet starting in 2022.

[Simon Dog]

The Trump tax reform is dead in its current form.  There are too many Republicans from income tax states who will scream bloody murder if the state income tax deduction is eliminated.

The idea democrats talked about in 2009 is that you use the flexibility of the federal budget and the US' unique position (for now) as the world's reserve currency to increase deficit spending

Sure would have been simpler is we stayed on the gold standard.

In 2017 our economy is not in a downturn. How is this confusing?

Good thing I am not a stock picker.  I was certain the market would tank immediately if Trump won.   But then, I was also certain that Hillary was going to win, so maybe two wrongs cancel each other out.

[Rerun]

The medical exemption is "nothing" anyway.  They say a $5,000 write off... oh yeah??  It means that you can START writing off after the first $5,000.  I did it one year and had $5,100 and I got to write off $100. BFD.

[Simon Dog]

Currently, you can only deduct expenses in excess of 10% of adjusted gross income.   In other words, Rerun is right about it being "nothing" for most people.

You get more of a deduction (actually, a credit) for installing solar panels on your roof.

[kickingandscreaming]

It's not JUST that this tax bill will give a giant handout to the very people who don't need it ((the 1-2%) and that it will be robbing you in order to do that.  It's not just that.  Tax decreases have consequences.  In additions to furthering the already-crippling income/wealth inequality so rampant in this country.  But it will also contribute bigly to the spiralling debt (something the GOP pretends to care about (when it suits their ends)

The richest 1 percent  would receive a 31 percent share of the tax cuts in 2018 – and by 2027, the richest 1 percent would receive a 48 percent share, leaving the remaining 99 percent to share roughly half the tax benefits.

But as I said, tax cuts have consequences.  Reduced revenues being the obvious loss.  Thence reduced spending on important federal programs and services.  For example: the tax break for the 1% in 2018 will be collectively $72 Billion.  That could pay for a LOT of stuff, e.g. enough to cover individual health insurance premiums for more than 12.6 million adults, for example.  Any many other very popular programs.

So as I said, tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy deprive ALL the rest of us and moves the USA ever closer to being a banana republic.

[MooseMom]

I know you all will probably laugh at me for this, but when it comes to this bill, I am going to put my faith in the American people and particularly in those people who voted for Trump.

Why?  Because this is the very thing that Trump voters voted AGAINST, ie, the wealthy getting wealthier off the backs of "ordinary Americans".  Trump voters are "anti-establishment", yet it is the Congressional establishment that may very well vote for and pass this hideous bill.

The "establishment" is Paul Ryan.  The "establishment" is Mitch McConnell.

If this bill passes both the Senate and the House and ends up on Trump's desk, it will be up to Trump to show his supporters that he meant what he said, and he will refuse to sign it because it is yet another brick in the wall of economic inequality that is getting bigger and taller.

Trump supporters MUST make him realize that passing this bill is NOT the "win" that he so desperately wants, rather, it is just another swim in the swamp.

I have read all too many posts on IHD after recent tragedies that praise the brave actions of our soldiers and our first responders.  These are the people who are going to get screwed.  These are the people whose salaries are paid by our taxes.  These are the "middle class Americans" who have REAL jobs. 

CEOs are NOT going to use higher profits to invest in their workers.  They've SAID they will not. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-gary-cohn-bill-2017-11

"The Swamp" is the lobbyists and big money donors who want this bill to go through.  Even Senator Susan Collins has said that her donors "are basically saying, 'Get it done or don't ever call me again.'"

This is EXACTLY what Candidate Trump/Nominee Trump PROMISED he would not let happen to the American middle class.

So, to all of you who voted for and support President Trump, what do you think he will do?  Will he remember his promises to you, or will he let the swamp grow even larger?

I'd like to see this new bill tackle issues like the present-day legality of stashing money away to avoid taxation as outlined in, say, the Paradise Papers.  There's just no reason for the ultra rich to have to stash away money to avoid taxes that could pay for roads and schools and better wages for our brave first responders.  Why is this even legal?  Why doesn't this bill address things like THAT?

[Bill Peckham]

A Trump veto would be an another astonishing twist in an already astonishing process but I don't think he has an incentive to do it,  this won't directly affect his electoral prospects whether it passes or not. Either way it is going to make it likely that the House flips. Either way he will spend 2019 and 2020 fighting the good fight against an increasingly frustrated democrat House. By 2020 whatever the outcome of this tax bill the election will be all about stopping Nancy Pelosi which is where he wants to be. Given it doesn't matter politically I will guess that he would prefer to have the bill go into law because ... he likes money ... a lot.


The  question is how will Congress avoid this trap?

[MooseMom]

Congress can't avoid this trap.  They've set it, and now they're going to get caught in it.  But I suppose a lot depends upon how Fox News reports on what is in the bill , because if Trump supporters voted for him on economic issues (like income inequality and the idea of being economically left behind by the rich elites), then this bill will be a big disappointment to them, but they won't realize it unless and until Fox News explains exactly how "real Americans" are going to be hit.

Midterms are less than a year away...

[iolaire]

Even AARP is warning about it:
http://blog.aarp.org/2017/11/29/senate-bill-millions-of-older-americans-could-see-higher-tax-bills/

The bottom line is that even today’s 65+ as well as those who turn 65 by 2027 who benefit initially may end up paying higher and ever increasing taxes soon thereafter. Further, as the result of growing deficits, they may receive reduced value from Medicare or other programs that are central to older Americans’ wellbeing.

[Simon Dog]

I just got whacked with a serious surcharge on my Medicare premium.  It seems that they set the 2018 premium based on your 1040 income from 2016.  Since I had a good year, I get a punitive surcharge which is substantially more than the actual monthly Medicare premium.

[iolaire]

I just got whacked with a serious surcharge on my Medicare premium.  It seems that they set the 2018 premium based on your 1040 income from 2016.  Since I had a good year, I get a punitive surcharge which is substantially more than the actual monthly Medicare premium.

I have the honor of paying the full surcharge and it's nothing to laugh about.

[Simon Dog]

A problem with the surcharge is people with private insurance (I will be getting if via my wife's employer shortly) are forced to pay for that as well as Medicare, and in the case of surcharged people, we're talking $400+ per month on top of the premiums we would be paying if we were afflicted with a different disease.

[iolaire]

A problem with the surcharge is people with private insurance (I will be getting if via my wife's employer shortly) are forced to pay for that as well as Medicare, and in the case of surcharged people, we're talking $400+ per month on top of the premiums we would be paying if we were afflicted with a different disease.

Yes I made the mistake of signing up for Medicare right when a was able to.  I should have waited just before I had to have it.  But the good side effect of that is any dialysis copayments disappeared well on my primary employers insurance probably because they did not want to bill at a rate where Medicare would pickup the co-payments at. But I still think I ended up paying much more than was needed.

[Cowdog]

I pay the Medicare surcharge. My premiums here at work(my secondary payer) continue to go up. Since my insurance at work changed their policy last year as a secondary payer they won't pay any of the 20% not paid by Medicare until I meet their out of pocket maximum of $6500. For 2018 my deductible goes to $1500 from the $500 in previous years.
There are over 200 patients at my center, I was told by the financial lady that I'm the only one sending checks to Fresenius.

[iolaire]

@Cowdog that's rough, my secondary corporate Aetna pays at an in network rate of 80% until I pay may in network max of $1,500 copay, then it should move to 100%.  My total out of pocket max is $3,500 up from $3,000 last year.  To get to the max out of pocket I need to max out pharmacy benefits or have out of network charges.

One thing I don't like about the insurance programs is its really my employer's plan managed by Aetna, so you can not assume that Aetna is similar between employers.  My employer is generally generous, plus we have a large workforce of right out of college younger folks who help keep premiums down.

One interesting thing is each year I compare the cost of the higher priced good plan, and the lower cost plan with the assumption that I'll hit the max out of pocket - last year I'd save about $200 on the lower cost plan where this year the higher cost plan saves $271.   I went with the lower cost plan hoping that I might not hit the max out of pocket.

[Simon Dog]

My total out of pocket max is $3,500 up from $3,000 last year.

Plus the Medicare premium and Medicare earner's penalty for another few $K per year.