Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Definitely fake news. Happy TG everyone. Took the day off yesterday.

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/935275909631893504

[Phil Titola]

LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor. 

[chum1]

Also Corker

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/935296916610519042

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/arappeport/status/935297003562651648

[sys]

johnson's just rough ridin' around, corker prolly isn't. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Neither of these are a "hell no." They want a bigger cut for pass thrus, and they'll get it. Simple as that. Things actually look quite promising so far.

The bigger concerns are Collins, who is the most liberal Republican, and McCain who might say no to anything just to eff Trump over.

[sys]

Neither of these are a "hell no." They want a bigger cut for pass thrus, and they'll get it. Simple as that. Things actually look quite promising so far.

The bigger concerns are Collins, who is the most liberal Republican, and McCain who might say no to anything just to eff Trump over.

do you ever get anything right?  even by accident?

[cfbandyman]

Estate tax is attempted social engineering to resist an aristocracy.

Not like we're that far off from it. Just need a few more cuts here and there and then it's ball game until everyone gets voted out or heads roll

[catastrophe]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile.

[catastrophe]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

The distinction doesn’t matter in this context. Republicans are hoping millions of fewer people are insured (almost certainly the healthy ones) which inevitably will lead to the entire system collapsing until Congress has its oh crap moment and bails it out for even more money. You might argue they secretly hope these folks actually do get insurance, in which case it’s just a lame workaround for the sake of adding more to the deficit. I don’t see either of those as a positive.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

The distinction doesn’t matter in this context. Republicans are hoping millions of fewer people are insured (almost certainly the healthy ones) which inevitably will lead to the entire system collapsing until Congress has its oh crap moment and bails it out for even more money. You might argue they secretly hope these folks actually do get insurance, in which case it’s just a lame workaround for the sake of adding more to the deficit. I don’t see either of those as a positive.

Seems like a pretty good way to end up with single payer. Maybe that is what the republicans are shooting for.

[Phil Titola]

LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile.

Who knew you'd "woot" more taxes.  I think it's great you are willing to help out those less fortunate by taxing yourself more... Proud of you!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile.

Who knew you'd "woot" more taxes.  I think it's great you are willing to help out those less fortunate by taxing yourself more... Proud of you!

This is gonna save me thousands.

[8manpick]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

Isn't the actual (simplified) argument that:
1. Millions of healthy people (actually) "choose" not to buy health insurance without the mandate
2. Insurance companies have to raise rates on remaining (less healthy) customers to cover increased cost per customer
3. Older / less healthy people who are hit with highest rate increases can no longer afford insurance and "choose" (but not really) not to buy insurance.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

The distinction doesn’t matter in this context. Republicans are not hoping millions of fewer people are insured (almost certainly the healthy ones) which inevitably will lead to the entire system collapsing until Congress has its oh crap moment and bails it out for even more money. You might argue they secretly hope these folks actually do get insurance, in which case it’s just a lame workaround for the sake of adding more to the deficit. I don’t see either of those as a positive.

Yeah, it's more the latter. They're relying upon the CBO's own dubious predictions to "save" money by eliminating a tax they already hate. Seems fair to me. Republicans are not hoping for people to uninsure - they're ultimately hoping people will buy their own, cheaper policies in a free market. Gotta clear away a few more Obamacare hurdles first, but that's the end game. In the meantime, they can allow the vast majority of taxpayers to keep a bit more of their money.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

Isn't the actual (simplified) argument that:
1. Millions of healthy people (actually) "choose" not to buy health insurance without the mandate
2. Insurance companies have to raise rates on remaining (less healthy) customers to cover increased cost per customer
3. Older / less healthy people who are hit with highest rate increases can no longer afford insurance and "choose" (but not really) not to buy insurance.

I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.

[Phil Titola]

LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile.

Who knew you'd "woot" more taxes.  I think it's great you are willing to help out those less fortunate by taxing yourself more... Proud of you!

This is gonna save me thousands.

Pretty sure when you don't even know what "this" is.

Blind loyalty will be rewarded though I'm sure.

[bucket]

Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

Isn't the actual (simplified) argument that:
1. Millions of healthy people (actually) "choose" not to buy health insurance without the mandate
2. Insurance companies have to raise rates on remaining (less healthy) customers to cover increased cost per customer
3. Older / less healthy people who are hit with highest rate increases can no longer afford insurance and "choose" (but not really) not to buy insurance.

I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

Premiums were rising before Obamacare....

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

Premiums were rising before Obamacare....

www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/amp/

It turns out that across the board, for all ages and family sizes, for HMO, PPO, and POS plans, premium increases averaged about 60 percent from 2013, the last year before ACA reforms took effect, to 2017. In same length of time preceding that, all groups experienced premium increases of less than 10 percent, and most age groups actually experienced premium decreases, on average.

And keep in mind, it's not as if we had a wonderful free market for health insurance prior to Ocare.

[cfbandyman]

I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.

Republicans didn't repeal and replace because it was their baby and they were pissed the democrats did it. How hard is it to understand why they were/are so rough ridin' pissed off. They really don't have anything to replace it with because it was their goddamn plan all along.

[chum1]

I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

Premiums were rising before Obamacare....

www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/amp/

It turns out that across the board, for all ages and family sizes, for HMO, PPO, and POS plans, premium increases averaged about 60 percent from 2013, the last year before ACA reforms took effect, to 2017. In same length of time preceding that, all groups experienced premium increases of less than 10 percent, and most age groups actually experienced premium decreases, on average.

And keep in mind, it's not as if we had a wonderful free market for health insurance prior to Ocare.

OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO DUMB