Poll: Is Tax Reform Signed Into Law By Christmas

[530RL]

Does Tax Reform pass and is signed into law by Christmas?

 

[Deja_Vu]

I certainly home not. This middle class voter isn't ready to get fleeced.

I didn't get a chance to see the Senate version yet. Hopefully they help us out with the SALT deal.

 

[530RL]

I understand the current president is more concerned about preparing the white house basketball court for a 3 on 3 game but any more ideas on whether or not this passes? Any more votes?

 

[ONE-A-DAY]

I like the tax code the way it is, my CPA makes a mockery of it each year.

And they added in the verbiage to eliminate the health insurance mandate into this bill so that is going to further complicate matters. If that gets approved all individual plan health insurers will shut down.

 

[Hullbilly]

I understand the current president is more concerned about preparing the white house basketball court for a 3 on 3 game but any more ideas on whether or not this passes? Any more votes?

Priorities, gotta have’em. Just wait until he starts inviting homegrown terrorists and BLM, then it’ll be a party.

 

[Wakebrdr94]

Priorities, gotta have’em. Just wait until he starts inviting homegrown terrorists and BLM, then it’ll be a party.

Credit the rich and screw the middle class. Priorities, got it

 

[regor]

Credit the rich and screw the middle class. Priorities, got it

Not quite, more like fuck CA,NY,IL,NJ and the rest of the states they'll never win.

Bout damn time those little bitches start playing dirty like you whores have been for years.

 

[shintoooo]

Here is Senate's version for those interested

https://www.journalofaccountancy.co...alcpa&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15Nov2017

 

[JBS]

I like the tax code the way it is, my CPA makes a mockery of it each year.

And they added in the verbiage to eliminate the health insurance mandate into this bill so that is going to further complicate matters. If that gets approved all individual plan health insurers will shut down.

But the executive order signed in October was going to fix most of these issues. Do you not see a lot of new plans coming into the marketplace now?

 

[Deja_Vu]

Here is Senate's version for those interested

https://www.journalofaccountancy.co...alcpa&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15Nov2017

Thanks for posting this up.

Neither one looks to be any good for the average middle class American.

 

[regor]

Thanks for posting this up.

Neither one looks to be any good for the average middle class American.

Of course not...............the whores ALWAYS fuck the middle class!!!!!

 

[RitcheyRch]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/house-republicans-pass-tax-reform-bill.html

The tax reform plan passed the chamber with 227 votes in favor and 205 against.

 

[ONE-A-DAY]

But the executive order signed in October was going to fix most of these issues. Do you not see a lot of new plans coming into the marketplace now?

Nope, anthem blue cross left as of 1/1/18 for example.

 

[AzGeo]

Probably not by Quanza , or by Festivus , but definitely by "the 12th of never" , as Johnny Mathis would sing ...............

 

[Wakebrdr94]

Nope, anthem blue cross left as of 1/1/18 for example.

Weird thing...

Had anthem blue cross for years and they took away my wife’s doctors and made us pick somewhere closer to us. Anthem pulled out and we I’m not sure yet who my wife signed us up for, but we got all her old doctors back.

 

[530RL]

Credit the rich and screw the middle class. Priorities, got it

Both tax plans are good for me but there are a few points.

Since 1913 the federal tax code allowed people to deduct state and local taxes prior to federal taxes under the premise of states rights and the ability for states to choose if they so voted, to tax their citizens for higher services. It was a hotly debated topic. Ironically, the R's are all of a sudden against, at least this historic view, this states rights. Most don't understand that the rich lose the value of the deduction of state and local taxes via the Pease act and the AMT, so the argument that this hurts the rich in blue states is laughable, but a great sales pitch. Even people in here believe it. Politicians love the ignorant and this is a classic example.

Since 1976 the Republican platform has included a balanced budget amendment. Clearly both these tax plans, House and Senate, admittedly even by the R's increase annual deficits. So rationally one would expect the Republican platform to abandon the premise that a balanced budget amendment is appropriate or good. By any measure that means the Republican party is moving farther away from conservative values and principles.

Secondly the plan is ironically consistent with the great joke of the economist Galbraith known as the "horse and the sparrow". And that is basically that if you stuff enough oats into a horse (the rich) sooner or later enough oats will pass through the horse such that a sparrow (the middle and working class) can find an oat to eat in the shit left in the street. Sad, but an appropriate analogy of these tax plans.

However, I think something passes but it should not under the premise that I should pay a rate at least equal to the middle class, at least at minimum to the upper middle class. But if the R's want to abandon such conservative views and make me pay less, so be it. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. Maybe a new jet or helicopter is in order so that I can deduct it all upon purchase and pay no tax whatsoever for years. It will be the middle and working class children of the future that actually pays for it.

I am a fiscal conservative and so used to be the Republican party. As I have repeatedly stated before and this is another example; I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me.

 

[Stainless]

I read somewhere the Trump family will reap $1B in tax savings

 

[Stainless]

Also there’s a tax break for all you guys that own private jets in it’s present form.

 

[530RL]

Also there’s a tax break for all you guys that own private jets in it’s present form.

The tax break is not that good now, but if it passes, it will be.

 

[Stainless]

The tax break is not that good now, but if it passes, it will be.

:thumbsup
I was waiting for the right time to post it

 

[thetub]

Both tax plans are good for me but there are a few points.

Since 1913 the federal tax code allowed people to deduct state and local taxes prior to federal taxes under the premise of states rights and the ability for states to choose if they so voted, to tax their citizens for higher services. It was a hotly debated topic. Ironically, the R's are all of a sudden against, at least this historic view, this states rights. Most don't understand that the rich lose the value of the deduction of state and local taxes via the Pease act and the AMT, so the argument that this hurts the rich in blue states is laughable, but a great sales pitch. Even people in here believe it. Politicians love the ignorant and this is a classic example.

Since 1976 the Republican platform has included a balanced budget amendment. Clearly both these tax plans, House and Senate, admittedly even by the R's increase annual deficits. So rationally one would expect the Republican platform to abandon the premise that a balanced budget amendment is appropriate or good. By any measure that means the Republican party is moving farther away from conservative values and principles.

Secondly the plan is ironically consistent with the great joke of the economist Galbraith known as the "horse and the sparrow". And that is basically that if you stuff enough oats into a horse (the rich) sooner or later enough oats will pass through the horse such that a sparrow (the middle and working class) can find an oat to eat in the shit left in the street. Sad, but an appropriate analogy of these tax plans.

However, I think something passes but it should not under the premise that I should pay a rate at least equal to the middle class, at least at minimum to the upper middle class. But if the R's want to abandon such conservative views and make me pay less, so be it. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. Maybe a new jet or helicopter is in order so that I can deduct it all upon purchase and pay no tax whatsoever for years. It will be the middle and working class children of the future that actually pays for it.

I am a fiscal conservative and so used to be the Republican party. As I have repeatedly stated before and this is another example; I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me.

didnt know that tid bit of info on the Pease act 530. Thanks

looks like the top 5 percent wont get affected by this plan , but the small guy like me gets f-ked...

not only Rod wants to bend me over now these pricks too...

these guys are whores...

as far as job creation aint gonna happen, but these big fortune 500 ceos are just gonna bonus themselves up the ass...

it will help the stock market also which is a plus for the wealth affect to pension plans and stock holders...

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I like the tax code the way it is, my CPA makes a mockery of it each year.

And they added in the verbiage to eliminate the health insurance mandate into this bill so that is going to further complicate matters. If that gets approved all individual plan health insurers will shut down.

No they won't.

If you want more health insurance participation, take away the mandate and allow people to purchase plans to meet their needs instead of bloated policies that make 60 year old post menopausal woman have contraception coverage.

 

[RCDave]

Buy stock in the holding co for Preparation H. Most of us will need it if the law passes. Not just fed tax but home asset values as well. I agree with what thetub said about large corporations pocketing the differential to

 

[Stainless]

 

[JBS]

No they won't.

If you want more health insurance participation, take away the mandate and allow people to purchase plans to meet their needs instead of bloated policies that make 60 year old post menopausal woman have contraception coverage.

Insurance policy's cover many services that people will never use. Do you really think an actuary can design an exact rate based on what people could use or not use. A 60yo woman may not use contraception but is much more likely to have plumbing issues that a 30yo woman does not have. It's all about spreading the risk

 

[530RL]

Insurance policy's cover many services that people will never use. Do you really think an actuary can design an exact rate based on what people could use or not use. A 60yo woman may not use contraception but is much more likely to have plumbing issues that a 30yo woman does not have. It's all about spreading the risk

It would appear that Republcans no longer understand the concept of a risk pool or the concept of personal responsibility.

If one takes the thought there there should be no mandate for health insurance, yet laws forcing doctors and hospitals to provide services for free should remain, which is their proposal; the equal thought is that there should be no mandate for auto insurance. If they really believed there should be no mandate, they should also believe their should be no requirement for care provided for free. But that is not their proposal.

It is an interesting coupling of no personal responsibility or consequences while forcing individuals and companies to provide free services. You would think we were in Venezuela.

I just don't understand the logic that people to include conservatives believe in mandatory auto insurance as they do not want to be hit and fucked by someone without insurance, but it is ok to let people remain medically insured yet they get healthcare anyways. My only conclusion is that Republican believe in other people paying, as long as it is not them. Hence the belief in mandatory auto insurance, but no mandatory health insurance.

I don't get it.

 

[Stainless]

It would appear that Republcans no longer understand the concept of a risk pool or the concept of personal responsibility.

If one takes the thought there there should be no mandate for health insurance, yet laws forcing doctors and hospitals to provide services for free should remain, which is their proposal; the equal thought is that there should be no mandate for auto insurance. If they really believed there should be no mandate, they should also believe their should be no requirement for care provided for free. But that is not their proposal.

It is an interesting coupling of no personal responsibility or consequences while forcing individuals and companies to provide free services. You would think we were in Venezuela.

I just don't understand the logic that people to include conservatives believe in mandatory auto insurance as they do not want to be hit and fucked by someone without insurance, but it is ok to let people remain medically insured yet they get healthcare anyways. My only conclusion is that Republican believe in other people paying, as long as it is not them. Hence the belief in mandatory auto insurance, but no mandatory health insurance.

I don't get it.

Agree, add to that they are going to pay for it in some other way if Health Insurance is not mandated, ie; Medicaid or other form of taxation.

 

[thetub]

It would appear that Republcans no longer understand the concept of a risk pool or the concept of personal responsibility.

If one takes the thought there there should be no mandate for health insurance, yet laws forcing doctors and hospitals to provide services for free should remain, which is their proposal; the equal thought is that there should be no mandate for auto insurance. If they really believed there should be no mandate, they should also believe their should be no requirement for care provided for free. But that is not their proposal.

It is an interesting coupling of no personal responsibility or consequences while forcing individuals and companies to provide free services. You would think we were in Venezuela.

I just don't understand the logic that people to include conservatives believe in mandatory auto insurance as they do not want to be hit and fucked by someone without insurance, but it is ok to let people remain medically insured yet they get healthcare anyways. My only conclusion is that Republican believe in other people paying, as long as it is not them. Hence the belief in mandatory auto insurance, but no mandatory health insurance.

I don't get it.

people do pay for others, they carry no fault auto insurance...

 

[Stainless]

people do pay for others, they carry no fault auto insurance...

In Healthcare if the bill isn’t paid its written down and results in higher healthcare costs.

 

[thetub]

In Healthcare if the bill isn’t paid its written down and results in healthcare costs.

like others have stated garnish wages

In Healthcare if the bill isn’t paid its written down and results in healthcare costs.

Stains health insurance has other cost problems besides the free stuff given out...

its been monopolized by hospitals and pharma industry...

big business . dont know which ones bigger the war machine or health machine??

 

[Stainless]

like others have stated garnish wages


Stains health insurance has other cost problems besides the free stuff given out...

its been monopolized by hospitals and pharma industry...

big business . dont know which ones bigger the war machine or health machine??

I don’t disagree, but my point is if people don’t buy healthcare and skip on the bill because they don’t have healthcare it gets passed on.

 

[thetub]

I don’t disagree, but my point is if people don’t buy healthcare and skip on the bill because they don’t have healthcare it gets passed on.

i dont disagree also.
so fix the structural problem then make health care more affordable , hence more people purchase it

 

[Stainless]

agree also.
so fix the structural problem then make health care more affordable , hence more people purchase it

How do we fix healthcare costs?
It’s against our political beliefs to put caps on pricing.
Add to that I tell the hospital I’m only going to pay XXX for its services, the hospital responds I’m only going to pay XXX for the infrastructure you build.

 

[thetub]

How do we fix healthcare costs?
It’s against our political beliefs to put caps on pricing.

no caps , just break up monopolies and lobbying power of these large groups...

open up more hospitals and create competition...

Racey has the down low on hospital monopolies ...

ive heard majority of costs are administrative ??

 

[Stainless]

no caps , just break up monopolies and lobbying power of these large groups...

open up more hospitals and create competition...

Racey has the down low on hospital monopolies ...

Perhaps, we have at least 4 different hospital corporations in the area I live in, so I don’t think you can call them a monopoly.
I agree about high pricing and don’t like it either, but I don’t think the solution is visible yet.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Insurance policy's cover many services that people will never use. Do you really think an actuary can design an exact rate based on what people could use or not use. A 60yo woman may not use contraception but is much more likely to have plumbing issues that a 30yo woman does not have. It's all about spreading the risk

Then that person can buy a plan that covers their medical needs. Insurance companies need a diversified risk pool, they can craft products that people want at prices they can afford and do it that way. Just like the other insurance markets.

As I've said before, this isn't insurance, it is pre-paid health care. If it was true insurance, such as home or auto, you'd have a small monthly premium, a reasonable deductible and your "maintenance" health care would be out of pocket. Which is what medical insurance used to be. Have a heart attack? Your insurance pays. Have a cold? Then you pay $40.00 at the quick clinic.

People don't have auto insurance so they get 4 free oil changes a year and new tires every two. You have it so you are covered if some maniac T-bones you at an intersection.

You also need transparency in pricing, none of this "in network" and "out of network" negotiated bullshit, which mainly benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else. There is no pricing signal for people to seek out the most cost effective treatment.

An anecdote: I was on some name brand Acid reflux medicine. I had a PPO plan that covered the cost of a prescription at around $45 for 90 days worth of medication. Then we made the jump to an HSA plan, because the premium was so much lower. I went to get my script filled and it was $400.00! I went back to my doctor and had him change the prescription back to Omeprozol and I paid $12 for 90 days worth.