tequila4kapp said:

---

CRBear said:

---

If you want to have an honest conversation, then let's have one. All these Republicans and the Tea Party movement that supposedly were anti-deficit have to admit that they're liars. They don't care about deficits. They just don't like spending. They're fine running a deficit.

---

I agree with the quoted section above, it's part of the reason I'm no longer affiliated with a political party. IMO one of the good things about our crazy president is his antics are exposing the swamp things for what they are and maybe more of us are paying attention to it.

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

I know of a lot of tools in the accounting field that will help you out at an hourly rate

Was one of the goals of tax "reform" to simplify things? I'm going to have to hire an accountant as a result of this tax act.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Anyone who's not in the top 2% of wage earners that thinks this is a good tax plan is a fool. Especially, if you live in CA, NJ, CT, or NY. Full disclosure: I will temporarily reap a tax benefit due to what dajo has been saying.

---

I think I agreed with this in an earlier post. But, down the line I intend to make up for any increased taxes I pay by increasing my investment income even more.

What surprises me is all the libs who don't relish paying a bit more in taxes, but are strategizing to keep it in their own pockets. Thought that was their end goal. Mo' taxes baby. 'Scuse me, in Dem language more investment. Haha

---

That's wonderful for those of us that can have investment income.

---

And if you do not have investment income what does that say of you? C'mon, weak argument. You live in NYC on wages alone, with no investment income?

---

Read what I wrote more carefully. My investments are fine. How is this tax plan a benefit to the lower and middle class?

---

To start take a look at sycasey's chart from CNN in the next post. I tapped in all income levels with a joint return, two children, California and at every level there is a significant savings through 2026. Obviously those savings are less for 0-$20000, but then they pay near zero taxes anyway so it is hard to save on zero. The winners seem to do well across the board. The one that surprised me most was $250000-$500000 with the most percentage gains. I would not have guessed that.

So, if you invest the savings in taxes through 2026 you should more than make up for any increases at that time. This is also a projection on growth. It may be high, it may be low. I would suggest low, but regardless projections from a non conservative source.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Man, I'm living the dream fully erect.
.

---

This thread just took a very disturbing turn.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

---

It's not offensive to me if I also expect to need those benefits when I'm older. I'm not dumb enough to think I'll be young and healthy forever.

Honestly, every argument I see from a conservative about health care makes me think they don't understand how insurance works.

I'd also point out that not all older people are wealthy. Now, if Republicans had ideas about offering more subsidies or coverage for poor people, I'd be happy to listen. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

---

IMO, Obamacare was dying w/o changes and is now on a death spiral with the elimination of federal subsidies via Trump's change to regulations and the elimination of the insurance mandate enforcement mechanism with the surcharge for those not acquiring policies. Insurance companies will simply not write Obamacare policies or raise rates astronomically. Either way, I expect a huge outcry.

From the perspective a more conservative poster (at least on this board), I'm hoping this gets Congress to scape Obmacare and either extend Medicare down to lower ages or go single payer, with the view that those that want more extended coverage can purchase supplemental private insurance. The need is for an insurance provider like Medicare with market power to knock costs down and control medical costs. I would also like to see an extension of this market power to meds as well. It is not a perfect solution, but it is an approach used essentially in every other developed county to some degree, and can work better than what we currently have. Taking the burden of medical insurance (and administration of same) from the employer also means economic growth. Now this has philosophical issues for people on both side of the poetical equation, but the health insurance problem is not going away.

wifeisafurd said:

---

IMO, Obamacare was dying w/o changes and is now on a death spiral with the elimination of federal subsidies via Trump's change to regulations and the elimination of the insurance mandate enforcement mechanism with the surcharge for those not acquiring policies. Insurance companies will simply not write Obamacare policies or raise rates astronomically. Either way, I expect a huge outcry.

From the perspective a more conservative poster (at least on this board), I'm hoping this gets Congress to scape Obmacare and either extend Medicare down to lower ages or go single payer, with the view that those that want more extended coverage can purchase supplemental private insurance. The need is for an insurance provider like Medicare with market power to knock costs down and control medical costs. I would also like to see an extension of this market power to meds as well. It is not a perfect solution, but it is an approach used essentially in every other developed county to some degree, and can work better than what we currently have. Taking the burden of medical insurance (and administration of same) from the employer also means economic growth. Now this has philosophical issues for people on both side of the poetical equation, but the health insurance problem is not going away.

---

I don't think Obamacare was "dying," but there were some places where the markets needed to be stabilized and where red states needed to get over themselves and take the Medicaid expansion that had been offered with the original Obamacare package.

That said, with the sabotage by Trump and the Republican Congress, I agree. It's going to create a huge outcry that will inevitably lead to government expansion, either by extending Medicare or introducing some kind of other single-payer or heavily-regulated system. There are no actual free-market solutions that will provide health coverage to everyone who wants it.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

Thanks for the link. I get a similar result. The negative impact is negligible and 2026 is too far out there to worry about it.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

Thanks for the link. I get a similar result. The negative impact is negligible and 2026 is too far out there to worry about it.

---

By 2026 there could be full Democratic control of government again, so who knows what happens then.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

IMO, Obamacare was dying w/o changes and is now on a death spiral with the elimination of federal subsidies via Trump's change to regulations and the elimination of the insurance mandate enforcement mechanism with the surcharge for those not acquiring policies. Insurance companies will simply not write Obamacare policies or raise rates astronomically. Either way, I expect a huge outcry.

From the perspective a more conservative poster (at least on this board), I'm hoping this gets Congress to scape Obmacare and either extend Medicare down to lower ages or go single payer, with the view that those that want more extended coverage can purchase supplemental private insurance. The need is for an insurance provider like Medicare with market power to knock costs down and control medical costs. I would also like to see an extension of this market power to meds as well. It is not a perfect solution, but it is an approach used essentially in every other developed county to some degree, and can work better than what we currently have. Taking the burden of medical insurance (and administration of same) from the employer also means economic growth. Now this has philosophical issues for people on both side of the poetical equation, but the health insurance problem is not going away.

---

I don't think Obamacare was "dying," but there were some places where the markets needed to be stabilized and where red states needed to get over themselves and take the Medicaid expansion that had been offered with the original Obamacare package.

That said, with the sabotage by Trump and the Republican Congress, I agree. It's going to create a huge outcry that will inevitably lead to government expansion, either by extending Medicare or introducing some kind of other single-payer or heavily-regulated system. There are no actual free-market solutions that will provide health coverage to everyone who wants it.

---

Everyone has health coverage right now. Just like everyone had it before.

O/Care didn't provide health coverage to everyone who wants it either.

There is exactly 1 system that will provide health insurance to everyone. Time will tell if Dems can push that through.

sycasey said:

"...unless you are comfortable letting the poor literally die from treatable illnesses and injuries."

Yes - this appears to be the Republican health plan. "We've got ours; the rest of you can pound sand or push up flowers - we don't care!'

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

---

It's not offensive to me if I also expect to need those benefits when I'm older. I'm not dumb enough to think I'll be young and healthy forever.

Honestly, every argument I see from a conservative about health care makes me think they don't understand how insurance works.

I'd also point out that not all older people are wealthy. Now, if Republicans had ideas about offering more subsidies or coverage for poor people, I'd be happy to listen. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

Thanks for the link. I get a similar result. The negative impact is negligible and 2026 is too far out there to worry about it.

---

By 2026 there could be full Democratic control of government again, so who knows what happens then.

---

One thing we know for sure, regardless of who is in control of the branches of government, there will be lots of pressure to pass something to avoid a tax increase. It happens every time - like when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and Obama and the dems extended them because they didn't want to be accused of "raising" taxes.

BearGoggles said:

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

---

Most people who disagree with me on this issue are making arguments that appear stupid to me, yes.

As to the rest of your post, I actually wouldn't have a huge issue if Republicans proposed things like tweaking the 3:1 premium rule or allowing more limited plans at the low end, depending on what their specific replacement ideas were. Those would at least be reasonable policy positions. Instead, all of their proposals since taking over the federal government have been -- I'll say it again -- stupid. Repealing the individual mandate and doing nothing else. Cutting Medicaid and replacing it with nothing else. Seriously, this is the best they've got?

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

Thanks for the link. I get a similar result. The negative impact is negligible and 2026 is too far out there to worry about it.

---

By 2026 there could be full Democratic control of government again, so who knows what happens then.

---

One thing we know for sure, regardless of who is in control of the branches of government, there will be lots of pressure to pass something to avoid a tax increase. It happens every time - like when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and Obama and the dems extended them because they didn't want to be accused of "raising" taxes.

---

Obama and the Dems did NOT extend the tax cuts at the top end

Sebastabear said:

---

Which is why the most objectionable part of this "plan" (at least from the viewpoint of a fiscal conservative)is that it explodes the deficit and all the arguments that it doesn't are disingenuous. If you admit the personal tax cuts are de facto permanent regardless of the accounting gimmick being used to get this through the Senate with 50 votes then you have to admit that the cost is way more than "only" $1 trillion. I think borrowing from our kids and grandkids to pay ourselves is morally objectionable regardless of who is in control.

---

I completely agree with this but I am not a fiscal conservative. To me, in my life experience, a conservative is somebody who blows up the deficit.

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

Thanks for the link. I get a similar result. The negative impact is negligible and 2026 is too far out there to worry about it.

---

By 2026 there could be full Democratic control of government again, so who knows what happens then.

---

One thing we know for sure, regardless of who is in control of the branches of government, there will be lots of pressure to pass something to avoid a tax increase. It happens every time - like when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and Obama and the dems extended them because they didn't want to be accused of "raising" taxes.

---

Obama and the Dems did NOT extend the tax cuts at the top end

---

Yeah, I'm not sure Democrats will be all that reluctant to raise taxes on the wealthy. On the middle class, yes.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

IMO, Obamacare was dying w/o changes and is now on a death spiral with the elimination of federal subsidies via Trump's change to regulations and the elimination of the insurance mandate enforcement mechanism with the surcharge for those not acquiring policies. Insurance companies will simply not write Obamacare policies or raise rates astronomically. Either way, I expect a huge outcry.

From the perspective a more conservative poster (at least on this board), I'm hoping this gets Congress to scape Obmacare and either extend Medicare down to lower ages or go single payer, with the view that those that want more extended coverage can purchase supplemental private insurance. The need is for an insurance provider like Medicare with market power to knock costs down and control medical costs. I would also like to see an extension of this market power to meds as well. It is not a perfect solution, but it is an approach used essentially in every other developed county to some degree, and can work better than what we currently have. Taking the burden of medical insurance (and administration of same) from the employer also means economic growth. Now this has philosophical issues for people on both side of the poetical equation, but the health insurance problem is not going away.

---

I don't think Obamacare was "dying," but there were some places where the markets needed to be stabilized and where red states needed to get over themselves and take the Medicaid expansion that had been offered with the original Obamacare package.

That said, with the sabotage by Trump and the Republican Congress, I agree. It's going to create a huge outcry that will inevitably lead to government expansion, either by extending Medicare or introducing some kind of other single-payer or heavily-regulated system. There are no actual free-market solutions that will provide health coverage to everyone who wants it.

---

Everyone has health coverage right now. Just like everyone had it before.

O/Care didn't provide health coverage to everyone who wants it either.

There is exactly 1 system that will provide health insurance to everyone. Time will tell if Dems can push that through.

---

Obamacare moved the country significantly in the direction of providing health coverage to everyone, probably more than anything since Medicare.

I don't think it's true that there is only ONE system that provides health insurance to everyone (look at Switzerland if you want to see one that relies on private business). But all of them do involve significant government intervention (the market in Switzerland is heavily regulated, way more so than in the U.S.).

Just on this one topic - Obama care screwed the insurance market on the ratios. California average ratio between young and old pre-obama care was 5.4 - 1. Blue Shield would have a 5.4 higher premium for a a 65 year old than a 20 year old.

So for a plan that cost on average $250, the cost for the 20 year old was $100 and the cost for the 63 year old was $500. So the old folks (read AARP) saw an opportunity to grow their membership and pushed Obamacare to get better rates for the old folks.

This was only an issue FOR THE OLD FOLKS WHO MADE A LOT OF MONEY and were retired. Since, if they did not make a lot of money - the Obama care subsidy would have paid the difference. Remember, if you get a subsidy, the cost is based on your income, not the underlying plan cost. So what this did was to tax the young who made more than 4 times the poverty level (the max subsidy) to support the old who made more than 5x the poverty level.

This was entirely AARP push Teddy Kennedy to help them out - it had nothing to do with good policy.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

IMO, Obamacare was dying w/o changes and is now on a death spiral with the elimination of federal subsidies via Trump's change to regulations and the elimination of the insurance mandate enforcement mechanism with the surcharge for those not acquiring policies. Insurance companies will simply not write Obamacare policies or raise rates astronomically. Either way, I expect a huge outcry.

From the perspective a more conservative poster (at least on this board), I'm hoping this gets Congress to scape Obmacare and either extend Medicare down to lower ages or go single payer, with the view that those that want more extended coverage can purchase supplemental private insurance. The need is for an insurance provider like Medicare with market power to knock costs down and control medical costs. I would also like to see an extension of this market power to meds as well. It is not a perfect solution, but it is an approach used essentially in every other developed county to some degree, and can work better than what we currently have. Taking the burden of medical insurance (and administration of same) from the employer also means economic growth. Now this has philosophical issues for people on both side of the poetical equation, but the health insurance problem is not going away.

---

I don't think Obamacare was "dying," but there were some places where the markets needed to be stabilized and where red states needed to get over themselves and take the Medicaid expansion that had been offered with the original Obamacare package.

That said, with the sabotage by Trump and the Republican Congress, I agree. It's going to create a huge outcry that will inevitably lead to government expansion, either by extending Medicare or introducing some kind of other single-payer or heavily-regulated system. There are no actual free-market solutions that will provide health coverage to everyone who wants it.

---

Everyone has health coverage right now. Just like everyone had it before.

O/Care didn't provide health coverage to everyone who wants it either.

There is exactly 1 system that will provide health insurance to everyone. Time will tell if Dems can push that through.

---

Obamacare moved the country significantly in the direction of providing health coverage to everyone, probably more than anything since Medicare.

I don't think it's true that there is only ONE system that provides health insurance to everyone (look at Switzerland if you want to see one that relies on private business). But all of them do involve significant government intervention (the market in Switzerland is heavily regulated, way more so than in the U.S.).

---

If you want to compare to Medicare, do realize that unless you buy a costly (maybe not costly enough could be argued) quality Medigap policy, as a senior, you are still exposed big time. Just having the A & B parts is probably not the protection you wish if I understand your thrust.

My belief is that there must be participation on the part of the patient for any health care system to work. We can argue how much participation, but without same it is but another entitlement. Spending more money on Welfare alone since 1968 has left us just as poor in a relative sense. Spending more money per year on education or in specific districts has left us just a dumbed down as before. There needs to be a better solution. Government spending may have prevented an even bigger tragedy, but it certainly has not solved problems in welfare and education. Why, without defined planning, do you think it would do so in health care? I think we all know that Obamacare was passed under much the same (although opposite parties) timing as the current tax bill is now. December hurry.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

I think we all know that Obamacare was passed under much the same (although opposite parties) timing as the current tax bill is now. December hurry.

---

Nope. Obamacare was debated for more than a year before it was passed. The current tax bill was written and now appears ready to pass in less than a month. No comparison.

It sounds like you are listening to Republican talking points only.

sycasey said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

I think we all know that Obamacare was passed under much the same (although opposite parties) timing as the current tax bill is now. December hurry.

---

Nope. Obamacare was debated for more than a year before it was passed. The current tax bill was written and now appears ready to pass in less than a month. No comparison.

It sounds like you are listening to Republican talking points only.

---

So anything that disagrees with your first paragraph is Repub talking points? Makes for a nice discussion.

Repubs were taking the House in January. Pelosi herself said that you can read it after it is passed. There was a lot in that bill that was not open to research before it was passed.

At least I hold that this tax reform bill is a very imperfect effort and is being rushed in for the very same reason that Obamacare was in December too. Tis politics but the other side's ox is being gored.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

I think we all know that Obamacare was passed under much the same (although opposite parties) timing as the current tax bill is now. December hurry.

---

Nope. Obamacare was debated for more than a year before it was passed. The current tax bill was written and now appears ready to pass in less than a month. No comparison.

It sounds like you are listening to Republican talking points only.

---

So anything that disagrees with your first paragraph is Repub talking points? Makes for a nice discussion.

Repubs were taking the House in January. Pelosi herself said that you can read it after it is passed. There was a lot in that bill that was not open to research before it was passed.

At least I hold that this tax reform bill is a very imperfect effort and is being rushed in for the very same reason that Obamacare was in December too. Tis politics but the other side's ox is being gored.

---

The Obamacare process took a year. Pelosi said what she said out of frustration over Republican delay tactics, not because the bill had actually been rushed. The idea that Obamacare was "rushed" in the same way the current tax bill is being rushed is a Republican talking point, yes.

More on topic: the final bill eliminates charitable deductions for collegiate sports tickets. This is going to destroy ESP.

Sebastabear said:

---

Which is why the most objectionable part of this "plan" (at least from the viewpoint of a fiscal conservative)is that it explodes the deficit and all the arguments that it doesn't are disingenuous. If you admit the personal tax cuts are de facto permanent regardless of the accounting gimmick being used to get this through the Senate with 50 votes then you have to admit that the cost is way more than "only" $1 trillion. I think borrowing from our kids and grandkids to pay ourselves is morally objectionable regardless of who is in control.

---

I agree with this for the most part, particularly the part about generational theft. Only thing I would add is that that same "gimmick" and a few others were used when they passed Obamacare.

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

Thanks for the link. I get a similar result. The negative impact is negligible and 2026 is too far out there to worry about it.

---

By 2026 there could be full Democratic control of government again, so who knows what happens then.

---

One thing we know for sure, regardless of who is in control of the branches of government, there will be lots of pressure to pass something to avoid a tax increase. It happens every time - like when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and Obama and the dems extended them because they didn't want to be accused of "raising" taxes.

---

Obama and the Dems did NOT extend the tax cuts at the top end

---

Yes he/they did - at first for two years. Then they rolled some of them back of high earners, partly (not completly). Despite your need to be disputatious, my original point was spot on - when the "temporary" tax cuts are close to expiring, there is political pressure to extend them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/37/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

---

Most people who disagree with me on this issue are making arguments that appear stupid to me, yes.

As to the rest of your post, I actually wouldn't have a huge issue if Republicans proposed things like tweaking the 3:1 premium rule or allowing more limited plans at the low end, depending on what their specific replacement ideas were. Those would at least be reasonable policy positions. Instead, all of their proposals since taking over the federal government have been -- I'll say it again -- stupid. Repealing the individual mandate and doing nothing else. Cutting Medicaid and replacing it with nothing else. Seriously, this is the best they've got?

---

We've been through this before. You like to claim the Republicans have "no plan or proposal" - when they do. Its just that you don't like the plan, so you pretend there isn't a plan. That is intellectually dishonest.

In fact, the failed republican plan specifically proposed to change the 3:1 age banding (among other things). http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/04/news/economy/obamacare-republican-health-care/index.html

There was never a plan to "cut medicaid completely and replace it with nothing." There was a plan to cut the growth of medicaid expenses by block granting, capitations, and other means. Of course, this was only after the Obamacare massive medicaid expansion where the feds agreed to pay 90-100% of medicaid expansion costs. Not surprisingly, this led to unsustainable expenses - far beyond those predicted by Obamacare proponents. These proposed medicaid changes were in combination with tax credits and changes to the regs which hopefully would have moved people off of medicaid and onto more affordable private plans. Was the plan perfect and without risk? No. But it was a plan.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-how-states-access-the-aca-enhanced-medicaid-match-rates/

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Which is why the most objectionable part of this "plan" (at least from the viewpoint of a fiscal conservative)is that it explodes the deficit and all the arguments that it doesn't are disingenuous. If you admit the personal tax cuts are de facto permanent regardless of the accounting gimmick being used to get this through the Senate with 50 votes then you have to admit that the cost is way more than "only" $1 trillion. I think borrowing from our kids and grandkids to pay ourselves is morally objectionable regardless of who is in control.

---

I agree with this for the most part, particularly the part about generational theft. Only thing I would add is that that same "gimmick" and a few others were used when they passed Obamacare.

---

Not just esp - all d1 schools will feel pain IMO, but that is going to hit at Cal due to how leveraged we are. Wonder what the solution is going to be to get new ticket holders and keep current ones happy. Upgrade those who bought lifetime /lumps sums, then sell the lower tiers for cheap? Depending on people's marginal tax brackets, I don't even see a 50% price cut helping boost ticket sales right now. If things reduced in price just to cover the tax benefit loss, sales aren't going up, and we are 1/2 sold which is the problem.

What I said was entirely correct and your link proves it

Sebastabear's post was about deficits, so Obamacare is in no way similar. Obamacare reduced the debt by raising taxes on the wealthy.

On ESP, here is what Cal sent out a few days ago. If people are paying attention (and can afford it) they'll pay off their ESP seats in the next two weeks. Some will, so we'll have a nice cash infusion.. The pain will come in trying to sell seats to new buyers or when the existing buyers realize that their effective cost on these seats just increased by 15%.

Quote:

---

Dear[Suckers, uh I mean Sebastabears],

We are writing today, due to questions we have received in our office from some of our premium seating members regarding tax legislation currently being considered in Congress.
As captured in this Chronicle of Higher Education article, the proposed changes to the tax code could have an impact on your philanthropic gifts if signed into law over the next few weeks. The one to note in particular is the current provision in Section 170(l) of the Internal Revenue Code that allows for donations related to priority ticket access for collegiate athletic events to be tax-deductible for 80% of the total gift amount donation.
If this legislation were to become law in its current proposed form, we anticipate this provision to be eliminated and charitable contributions made to Cal Athletics attached to premium seating would no longer be considered tax-deductible after December 31, 2017. We are monitoring the progress of this new legislation and are currently in discussions on how we might move forward should this legislation become law.
With the uncertainty regarding the future tax-deductibility of donations attached to premium seating, it may be to your advantage to make any gifts you are considering before the end of the year to ensure tax-deductibility under the current law, including payoff gifts for long term seat rights. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss options to accelerate your gift payment terms by making your gift before December 31, 2017, please call your assigned premium service contact for your account, or you can reach our Premium Sales Team at 1-800-GO-BEARS, and push "4" to speak with a member of our team.
We will continue to keep you informed as this legislation evolves. Thank you for your continued support of our student-athletes and programs. Happy Holidays and Go Bears!

Justin Panarese
Assistant Athletic Director, Revenue Initiatives

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.

---

There's a much better tool, but they haven't updated it since the reconciled bill. Still, it'll give you a good idea of your specific outcome, as opposed to the large ranges of income on the CNN tool.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-trump-tax-calculator-what-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

---

Most people who disagree with me on this issue are making arguments that appear stupid to me, yes.

As to the rest of your post, I actually wouldn't have a huge issue if Republicans proposed things like tweaking the 3:1 premium rule or allowing more limited plans at the low end, depending on what their specific replacement ideas were. Those would at least be reasonable policy positions. Instead, all of their proposals since taking over the federal government have been -- I'll say it again -- stupid. Repealing the individual mandate and doing nothing else. Cutting Medicaid and replacing it with nothing else. Seriously, this is the best they've got?

---

We've been through this before. You like to claim the Republicans have "no plan or proposal" - when they do. Its just that you don't like the plan, so you pretend there isn't a plan. That is intellectually dishonest.

In fact, the failed republican plan specifically proposed to change the 3:1 age banding (among other things). http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/04/news/economy/obamacare-republican-health-care/index.html

There was never a plan to "cut medicaid completely and replace it with nothing." There was a plan to cut the growth of medicaid expenses by block granting, capitations, and other means. Of course, this was only after the Obamacare massive medicaid expansion where the feds agreed to pay 90-100% of medicaid expansion costs. Not surprisingly, this led to unsustainable expenses - far beyond those predicted by Obamacare proponents. These proposed medicaid changes were in combination with tax credits and changes to the regs which hopefully would have moved people off of medicaid and onto more affordable private plans. Was the plan perfect and without risk? No. But it was a plan.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-how-states-access-the-aca-enhanced-medicaid-match-rates/

---

I don't believe I said the Republicans had no plan. I said their plan sounded stupid.

But perhaps that depends on what your goal is. If the goal was to keep people covered and reduce premiums, then the Republican plans completely failed at that goal. If the goal was simply to cut government spending on health care, they would have succeeded mightily at that. That's not my conjecture, that's based on the Congressional Budget Office's report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/upshot/a-few-bright-spots-for-republicans-the-rest-could-be-scored-as-grim.html

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

The CBO also projected that the block grants and "other means" would have largely failed to keep people insured and resulted in coverage losses. Heck, it's right there in the article you cited: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/04/news/economy/obamacare-republican-health-care/index.html

Quote:

---

"Either option would limit federal responsibility, shifting that burden to the states. However, since states don't have the money to make up the difference, they would likely either reduce eligibility, curtail benefits or cut provider payments. The block grant would be more restrictive since the funding level would not adjust for increases in enrollment, which often happens in bad economic times."

---

To me, that certainly looks like a lot of people will have their Medicaid replaced with nothing.