Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[cardboardbox]

I didn't say either thing...there are areas in the middle you know.

so you believe somewhere between the rich deserve their money and they dont deserve their money?

Well, if you stopped looking at the top bracket in the 50's, why yes, it changed...

top bracket is 39.6%

[Hornsby]

so you believe somewhere between the rich deserve their money and they dont deserve their money?

Again, reading comprehension...look into it please.

top bracket is 39.6%

Again, reading comprehension...look into it please.

And yes, the top marginal tax bracket is 39.6%...care to tell me what percentage of people actually pay that?

[cardboardbox]

Again, reading comprehension...look into it please.

keep dodging the question

[Hornsby]

keep dodging the question

For the last time, understand what you're reading, and perhaps we can have a conversation. As long as you don't understand, and seemingly can only communicate in one sentence posts, we really have no common ground to have a dialogue.

[nots]

Again, reading comprehension...look into it please.

And yes, the top marginal tax bracket is 39.6%...care to tell me what percentage of people actually pay that?

So, are advocating the top federal bracket should be 39.6% with no deductions?

[Hornsby]

So, are advocating the top federal bracket should be 39.6% with no deductions?

Did I say that anywhere?

I'm advocating closing at least SOME of the loopholes that only the very wealthy can take advantage of...and cleaning up the tax codes to be more fair and understandable. It's a Byzantine system that even the people enforcing it don't totally understand. It needs to be simplified and made fairer, period.

[Hornsby]

Back to the Health Care dilemma...

As the bill is studied, it's showing to be worse and worse. Especially for the people that need health care the most...poor and rural Minnesotans (A pretty solid Trump constituency) will get hit quite hard if the new TrumpCare, RyanCare, GOPCare (nobody wants their name on this POS) get passed without MAJOR revising. This is going to be really ugly for the GOP in 2018 and 2020, old people vote, and they vote their pocketbooks.

WASHINGTON – Minnesotans who are older and less affluent would get significantly fewer tax credits from the new Republican national health care plan than they did with Obamacare.

That’s the conclusion of a new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Kaiser found that Minnesotans who are 60 and making $50,000 or less would receive 25 to 75 percent less in tax credits under the American Health Care Act backed by President Donald Trump and the GOP House than under the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

By Kaiser’s estimation, the Republican plan favors the wealthy and the young. Most Minnesotans 40 and younger who make at least $50,000 would see an increase in tax credits greater than 75 percent. Regardless of age, Minnesotans with incomes of $75,000 or more would benefit from the GOP plan.

Kaiser also measured the impact of the Republican plan on tax credits for Minnesotans ages 27 and 40 making $30,000 a year. Unless they lived in the 11 counties making up the Twin Cities and its near suburbs, all saw reduced credits compared to Obamacare.

Poor seniors did even worse, with 60-year-olds making $30,000 looking at having their credits cut at least in half no matter where they live in Minnesota.

http://www.startribune.com/study-shows-older-poorer-minn-residents-would-lose-most-under-gop-health-plan/415927204/

[nots]

What loopholes are you advocating closing?
What do you think the top rate shoukd be?
Can you link an article about folks tasked with enforcing tax law not understanding it? Im skeptical of that claim

[Hornsby]

I think that I've been plenty clear enough about my thoughts on the subject. I'm not a tax expert, and I don't know if there is one anymore with the complexities that abound. I just know that smarter people than I are have been advocating changes in the tax code for years, if not decades.

What about you? Are you satisfied with the distribution of wealth? If not, what would you change, and if so, why? Do you think that the US has a fair tax system? What about your opinions on the GOP bill to repeal and replace the ACA? Does it favor the poor, favor the wealthy?

[nots]

I think that I've been plenty clear enough about my thoughts on the subject. I'm not a tax expert, and I don't know if there is one anymore with the complexities that abound. I just know that smarter people than I are have been advocating changes in the tax code for years, if not decades.

What about you? Are you satisfied with the distribution of wealth? If not, what would you change, and if so, why? Do you think that the US has a fair tax system? What about your opinions on the GOP bill to repeal and replace the ACA? Does it favor the poor, favor the wealthy?

You've made some generic responses that are so vague as to be almost meaningless. Yes, nearly everyone agrees the tax code is too complicated. I can't imagine anyone arguing that position anymore than I could imagine people arguing that 'mean people suck'. If you don't have an opinion other than 'close some loopholes' and make 'everyone pay their fair share', you really aren't adding very much to the conversation other than benign platitudes.

[Hornsby]

You've made some generic responses that are so vague as to be almost meaningless. Yes, nearly everyone agrees the tax code is too complicated. I can't imagine anyone arguing that position anymore than I could imagine people arguing that 'mean people suck'. If you don't have an opinion other than 'close some loopholes' and make 'everyone pay their fair share', you really aren't adding very much to the conversation other than benign platitudes.

I'm the king of benign platitudes! At least I say something and stand by it...how about the questions that I posed to you? Care to offer something substantial to show me the way?

And please feel free to add to the conversation at any time...

[nots]

To answer your questions:
1. The top 1% have amassed too much wealth. Congress folks from both parties have tilted the rules in favor of the wealthy, while at the same time enriching themselves ( I read somewhere recent,y that Maxine Watters is now a millionaire. I can only hope that is incorrect, because she is probably he most unqualified person to ever serve in Congress, especially now that Barney Frank isn't around to shepherd her around.). I favor term limits to (somewhat) mitigate this.
2. No, the tax system isn't fair. I favor either some form of a VAT like Australia and most of Europe has, or I favor eliminating almost all deductions and a lowering of the federal rates to around 20%. I believe the 400 wealthiest Americans had an effective tax rate of 17.4% last year. If we tax those folks (as well as the other high earners) at 20% or so without most deductions and go down from there, I think we should see an increase in revenue. This will NEVER happen, but it is my solution. I also think the capital gains rate needs to be adjusted upwards (if my previous idea isn't implemented). There are some other things I think we could do, but I guess this is enough of a jumping off point to get the discussion started.
3. The ACA isan unsustainable business model. It helped a lot of folks, but it's chasing insurers out of the market place and has hurt other folks. As time goes on, less insurers will equal higher rates for everyone or it will require an enormous influx of cash. I think it would have died a slow death within a couple of years. Democrats that embrace the ACA should thank God that Hillary lost, because if she had won, they would have owned the mess. The GOP, who is good at criticisim of the Dems, but bad at actually governing, has now created their own unsustainable business model and will own the mess in 2018. Their plan is better for younger folks and the non-poor but it will leave a lot of folks uncovered. It's not a good plan. Simply put, you can't cover folks until 26, cover pre-existing conditions and provide all the subsidies without a much greater influx of government cash. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, they aren't charities. They have employees, shareholders etc and expecting them to stay in the marketplace and provide coverage options while losing money is a fantasy. Selling across state lines might help a little, making the penalty for non-compliance a lot more severe would help too, but the libertarian in me recoils at that.

[nots]

I'm the king of benign platitudes! At least I say something and stand by it...how about the questions that I posed to you? Care to offer something substantial to show me the way?

And please feel free to add to the conversation at any time...

You didn't answer a single question I asked of you, especially the one asking for proof of tax folks not understanding the code, but I was answering your questions as you typed this. I actually was trying to put a little thought into my responses--something you might consider.

[Hornsby]

You didn't answer a single question I asked of you, especially the one asking for proof of tax folks not understanding the code, but I was answering your questions as you typed this. I actually was trying to put a little thought into my responses--something you might consider.

Awwwww, snarky boy angry!

I appreciate dragging a response out of you on some important questions. Frankly, your responses are a lot like mine...need to address how the top 1% gather a disproportionate share of the wealth.

The Tax system isn't fair...nope, I said that many posts ago, I also said that I didn't believe that A VAT tax or a flat tax was the solution. I also said, repeatedly, that I wasn't an accountant, or an expert on the tax codes.

I also agree that the ACA as CURRENTLY constructed, is failing. That doesn't mean that you can't keep the framework and tighten up the loopholes that allow insurance companies to drop out randomly. Make them sign up for a longer time frame, and give them an incentive to do so. A carrot and stick approach. As I shared in a previous post, the GOP model as currently proposed will hurt hardest the very people that need the insurance the most, the poor and the elderly. It does better for young people, people who are less likely to need health insurance, and of course, for the wealthy, where it provides a nice tax brake.

[nots]

Awwwww, snarky boy angry!

I appreciate dragging a response out of you on some important questions. Frankly, your responses are a lot like mine...need to address how the top 1% gather a disproportionate share of the wealth.

The Tax system isn't fair...nope, I said that many posts ago, I also said that I didn't believe that A VAT tax or a flat tax was the solution. I also said, repeatedly, that I wasn't an accountant, or an expert on the tax codes.

I also agree that the ACA as CURRENTLY constructed, is failing. That doesn't mean that you can't keep the framework and tighten up the loopholes that allow insurance companies to drop out randomly. Make them sign up for a longer time frame, and give them an incentive to do so. A carrot and stick approach. As I shared in a previous post, the GOP model as currently proposed will hurt hardest the very people that need the insurance the most, the poor and the elderly. It does better for young people, people who are less likely to need health insurance, and of course, for the wealthy, where it provides a nice tax brake.

Not angry at all--i understand your game