Well it seems that we are going to go down the fiscal slide. everyone's tax's go up and 120b across the board cuts will occur.
Obama refuses to hear anything but his 3% increase on rich people. he will not go for a revamped tax code with closed loopholes and changes to deductions.
Actually, he said he liked the idea of a revamped tax code with closed loopholes and changes to deductions, and he would be entirely open to something like that as long as it also included a reversion to year 2000 tax rates on the upper brackets.
Note: This type of offer is what we call "compromise." One group or individual gets what they want, and in exchange they give the other group or individual what they want.
also included a reversion to year 2000 tax rates on the upper brackets.
that is not going to happen.
what you are probably going to see is a revamped tax code with lower marginal rates with less deductions or caps on deductions.
that is what the house republicans are going to put out. obama is not going to get his tax hike. it isn't going to pass the house or the senate no matter how much he wants to whine, cry and stamp his feet.
the top 1% he is talking about makes 18% of the income but pays 35% of the income tax. the top 1% are those that have an AGI of 350k or more.
so they are almost paying double what they earn.
in return for adding new revenue sources republicans was an equal amount of cuts or reforms to government programs.
as i said fiscal slide here we come.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Actually It might. This is just for 2013 to give them time to do a bigger more permanent tax debate.
the top 1% he is talking about makes 18% of the income but pays 35% of the income tax. the top 1% are those that have an AGI of 350k or more.
True but even though they make about 18% of the income these same people somehow have accumulated 40% of the wealth in America. Thats because they don't spend their money but rather stash it away and accumulate interest rates. This locks the money away and it will NEVER be put back into circulation so long as they reamin as wealthy as they are. Many of the 1 percent are setting up their 5th generation of offspring with good retirements right now.
So again I really don't feel sorry for a multi-billionaire having to pay a little more in taxes. Especially when at least half of their money is going into a bank and locked down.
also included a reversion to year 2000 tax rates on the upper brackets.
the top 1% he is talking about makes 18% of the income but pays 35% of the income tax. the top 1% are those that have an AGI of 350k or more.
so they are almost paying double what they earn.
You're using loaded words here that give the wrong picture - they would pay double AS A PERCENTAGE of their income that is taxes as regular income. (Note it doesn't effect capital gains, at all)
And as our tax rates are progressive - some of those "doubled rates" would barely even show a 0.001% tick up for the 3% for example Mr. I just barely make that tax bracket.
in return for adding new revenue sources republicans was an equal amount of cuts or reforms to government programs.
Well, that's $700b worth of cuts/reforms he just opened the door to then - that's how much that 3% has been costing us revenuewise.
$700b + $700b = $1.4t > current deficit by $200-300b.
So you're complaining about the deficit being fixed if everyone sticks to what they're saying. And this step one of the process is promoted by Ben Stein, Ronald Reagan's economic advisor, lifelong Republican, and Mitt Romney supporter/voter.
We could become energy independent. However, it wouldn't matter if we had to pay for the energy with inflated dollars. With all the talk about the fiscal cliff and how taxes are going to be addressed, there is virtually no talk about the most devastating tax of all: inflation. Tax rates are going to mean jack diddly when the dollar eventually becomes worthless.
I'm going to offer another take on this debt thing. Our debt is one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal against other nations.
China has invested in us about 2.5 trillion dollars in our treasury bills. That number is part of our national debt, but that's also 2.5 trillion of Chinese moolah. We have it, we spent it--on our military, on our roads, infrastructure etc.
Like buying a black lotus from a guy with 10 feedback, the Chinese do worry time to time about getting their money back since it is within the power of the United States to default on the damn thing.
The fact is, the US has numerous factories in China. When building factories in foreign jurisdictions, there's always the chance the country will go rogue and usurp all our property in their venue.
We need some collateral from China; call it insurance, that they're not going to run off with our factories and confiscate them.
In fact, every penny that we borrow abroad is money we get to spend on improving our infrastructure. Treasury bill rates are so low right now--about 1.5%
Tell me this, if you could borrow a nigh unlimited amount of money at 1.5% how much would you borrow? I would borrow as much as I possibly could. The only trick is, you have to grow your money faster than that 1.5% rate.
You have to get more than 1.5% annual growth rate on whatever you intend to use your money in.
When we build roads, we increase the value of housing properties nearby. When we build infrastructure, cities grow. When we build energy plants and factories we generate more factors of production. When we build more schools, we better educate the populace.
How much is that benefit worth? No one is really sure. But the consensus is--alot more than 1.5% per year.
Getting back to my previous point. The debt we owe is a bargaining chip. It ensures the Chinese will never get too far out of line when dealing with us. It aligns Chinese and American interests, making us unwitting business partners---more than we ever were with the Soviet Union. It ensures that China has an interest in keeping our economy solvent lest they be willing to see global economic collapse with the default of treasury bills worldwide.
If massive debt ties our economic destinies together, and ensures our relationship with the next world superpower is a business relationship (as opposed to 50 years of cold war), then the debt is something I perversely welcome.
because they don't spend their money but rather stash it away and accumulate interest rates. This locks the money away and it will NEVER be put back into circulation so long as they reamin as wealthy as they are.
This is simply not true.
that money is either invested or put into a bank or something. that bank then uses that money to distribute loans and other such items to people.
Unless they hide their money under a mattress or in the back yard it gets used in the market.
You're using loaded words here that give the wrong picture - they would pay double AS A PERCENTAGE of their income that is taxes as regular income. (Note it doesn't effect capital gains, at all)
Nope not at all. in 1 year they earned 18% of the wealth. they payed 35% of the income tax.
PS capital gain is included for income tax on separate forms.
that's how much that 3% has been costing us revenuewise
not much since people like warren buffet wipe out their entire income with charity donations.
so the only income tax they pay is on capital gains.
that 3% isn't going to get him very much and is going barely going to make a scratch in the national debt or the deficit.
by reforming the tax code encouraging economic activity. capping deduction for those that make 500K or more. by eliminating the 100-200b dollars in waste in fragmented and duplicate government programs we can have the country back on track in a few years.
you don't need massive government or tax increases.
it is called common sense which washington lacks.
But that's a heavy hit for taxpayers. For a deficit-reduction deal worth $4 trillion -- which is a number commonly cited by economists -- that would mean $2 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years.
which will fall on the middle class to pay. *sigh* i give up. this country is going to rot.
quote from obama
" make sure the middle class isn't getting hit"
yet
A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices: going to hit elderly and middle class americans the most.
$24 billion tax on the paper industry: going to hit everyone but middle class harder.
A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies: going to hit middle class and elderly
A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons: huge hit on middle class
An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed: another massive hit to middle class
A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year: a really huge hit to middle class people and lower income people.
An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government. : lets keep the insanity going.
A $60 billion tax on health insurers
A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans.
The middle class is going to be pounded into the ground buy all this non-sense.
and people re-elected this idiot back into office.
PS capital gain is included for income tax on separate forms.
Please quote the forms - I can think of three cases where that occurs, of which none are commonplace occurrences.
not much since people like warren buffet wipe out their entire income with charity donations.
That $700b is literally the accepted quote for how much the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich effect the bottom line - I've seen it on everything from international news, to MSNBC, to FoxNEWS using that number. So I'm pretty sure it's a number that lands close to reality, unlike the implication here.
But that's a heavy hit for taxpayers. For a deficit-reduction deal worth $4 trillion -- which is a number commonly cited by economists -- that would mean $2 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years.
which will fall on the middle class to pay. *sigh* i give up. this country is going to rot.
Did you even read the article? That article covers the "if no agreements are made" time-bomb tax "raises" and spending that were put into place a long time ago. (Of which the tax "raises" part [in reality letting the temporary tax cuts expire] was actually put into place under George W Bush)
It's a hypothetical of what will occur if no agreement is made - and you're using it to encourage no agreement to be made....
A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans.
The middle class is going to be pounded into the ground buy all this non-sense.
You do realize that ObamaCare as part of it's day 1 stopped pools from charging separately, right? The only middle class folks that will be touched by the Cadillac plan tax are those that actually have Cadillac plans - and they make up less than 0.5% of plans.
A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices: going to hit elderly and middle class americans the most.
That's only effecting MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FOR HOSPITAL PURCHASES - not random equipment that is used in homes, i.e. MRIs not respirators. Hospital rates might go up slightly, but considering the same year it goes into effect everyone is going to be covered by some policy, it's not something the end user will EVER see directly
And even for those items used in hospitals, they've got to have a ticket price over $100 before they're even effected.
$24 billion tax on the paper industry: going to hit everyone but middle class harder.
It's a $140b industry in the US - I find it hard to believe that you're quoting this one correctly....
Aha, looking it up it's actually for PAPER WASTE that is used for a Bio-Fuel that is a temporary expiring tax credit that is very environmentally dangerous [And apparently horrible for cars for the fuel blends made with it - not shocking, since it's turpentine basically], but had been tested for a time with a brief tax credit (2007-2010)
A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies: going to hit middle class and elderly
Less than a 1% hike and again, it's before compensation - most people won't even see it. And do note that most RX plans were increasing 10-15% per year before ObamaCare and have been raising at about 4% since. Even if it's one of the things allowed to be passed on, it's still a lower total in premium increases than we were seeing in 2000-2005.
A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons: huge hit on middle class
Because EVERYONE uses tanning salons - and none of them get skin cancer that they then default on the bills for.
An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed: another massive hit to middle class
0.9% increase - which is more in scale with what Medicare costs, do you think people should get Medicare for free to a degree with the Fed subsidizing it or do you think it should have enough income so that the Fed doesn't need to toss any normal tax dollars at it?
That 0.9% is supposed to get it back to being revenue neutral.
Oh and of course, lets skip over the fact that it only starts at $200k single/$250k jointly... So it will never touch a single middle class person. (Straight from Heritage Tax Foundation)
A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year: a really huge hit to middle class people and lower income people.
FSA's aren't normally allowed to exceed $2500 (due to the "end of year" clause where the FSA zero's out regardless of how much had been put in) barring oddities like Special Education Schools for the disabled - and a separate bill was passed that basically creates a subset for them. [i.e. my company allowed a max of $100/mo contribution for ours unless you demonstrated for a length that you were regularly spending it - then we'd double it to $200 and very rarely $400 after that (rare enough on the latter that even though I helped write the policy, and with over 2000 employees in my day, and about 100 that used FSAs, I never even had one person ask for the top tier, and only a handful for the $200 tier - and the suggestion was lifted almost verbatim from a HR periodical on the matter)]
And do note that this same section of the law removes that "disappears at the end of the year" clause where it's effectively being taxed at 100%.
An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government. : lets keep the insanity going.
That they get insurance in exchange for - would you complain about a 1-2.5% surtax that also gave everyone in the US a free car and fuel if they didn't have one, and they didn't have to pay it if they already did? Because that's what you're complaining about here - people getting something that they may not have had before and.... gasp... paying something for it.
and people re-elected this idiot back into office.
Considering the lack of research and reading the article you provided fully enough to realize what it actually said... I'd watch using words like that, personally.
I'm going to offer another take on this debt thing. Our debt is one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal against other nations.
The fact is, the US has numerous factories in China. When building factories in foreign jurisdictions, there's always the chance the country will go rogue and usurp all our property in their venue.
We need some collateral from China; call it insurance, that they're not going to run off with our factories and confiscate them.
Getting back to my previous point. The debt we owe is a bargaining chip. It ensures the Chinese will never get too far out of line when dealing with us. It aligns Chinese and American interests, making us unwitting business partners---more than we ever were with the Soviet Union. It ensures that China has an interest in keeping our economy solvent lest they be willing to see global economic collapse with the default of treasury bills worldwide.
If massive debt ties our economic destinies together, and ensures our relationship with the next world superpower is a business relationship (as opposed to 50 years of cold war), then the debt is something I perversely welcome.
If it is a weapon than its a doubled eddged one, if China decided "screw the us" While you could harm them on defaulting, it hurts you alot too, your credit will be shot, no one will lend too you, While China is no US in the Militar strenth, they are NOT a slouch either. They are the worlds factory, They can IMO recover faster, than the us can at this point in time, They have a work force who will work for literaly near 0, the us does not.
Considering the lack of research and reading the article you provided fully enough to realize what it actually said... I'd watch using words like that, personally.
yeah we will see who gets hit with the taxes. it is going to fall on the middle class to pay it.
Companies and businesses don't pay taxes. they pass those costs onto customers.
so yes the middle class will end up paying for them.
obama is an idiot.
unfortuantly i have to live with the consquences of other people.
under obama my taxes would go up. which means less money for me and my family.
Yes i am middle class. I am not rich.
sorry but those taxes are going into effect and they will hit working american people. if you think they won't then i don't know what to tell you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Considering the lack of research and reading the article you provided fully enough to realize what it actually said... I'd watch using words like that, personally.
Companies and businesses don't pay taxes. they pass those costs onto customers.
In the case of many taxes, yes - about a third of those items are only relevant to specific demographics (largely the upper end) - and another third of them are EXPLICITLY WRITTEN IN A WAY TO PREVENT "Pass Through" (the term for what you're referencing)
Sure, some will hit the middle class, that's not a question - the majority? No. More than 0%? Absolutely. Less overall than premiums and healthcare costs were rising during the 2000-2005 years? We'll see, but I think so - the CBO says it should be about half.
If you're paying $200 less on some things, and paying $100 more in taxes - you're still ahead.
sorry but those taxes are going into effect and they will hit working american people. if you think they won't then i don't know what to tell you.
Some will, of course - the majority? No. And we'll have to see if it's worse than the rate that healthcare costs were rising - direct cost raises (like premiums) have slowed to 1/3rd of the growth they had been during the early Bush years already, with only a fraction of the provisions in place yet.
If you're paying $100 more in taxes and $200 less in healthcare per year though, you should be happy - which is what the theory is (and the CBO believes). But only time will tell if the theory works out or not.
We seem to have gone off track talking about deficits and debt. They are not the same thing. The deficient is large and needs to be reduced, the national debt however will never be paid off and it will not matter one bit.
Now if the libertarian's heads have finished exploding I'll explain. The debt is financed by bond sales and as long as confidence in US bonds exists people will continue to buy bonds and and they will mature and pay out. The idea that China could call the US on our debt is ludicrous, China's state banks brought US bonds they can't be redeemed until they mature. They could sell the bonds on the open market, that happens all the time, but even if they dumped all of their bonds at once this would have no effect on the US, as someone else would buy them up at fire-sale prices knowing they'd get a massive payout when the bonds finally came due.
Tl:dr as long as investors are confidant that the US will honor its bonds the current debt doesn't mater.
In the case of many taxes, yes - about a third of those items are only relevant to specific demographics (largely the upper end) - and another third of them are EXPLICITLY WRITTEN IN A WAY TO PREVENT "Pass Through" (the term for what you're referencing)
I'm confused as to how something can be written in a way to prevent "pass through". It seems to me like there any myriad of ways to effectively pass through a tax without actually passing through the tax.
In the case of many taxes, yes - about a third of those items are only relevant to specific demographics (largely the upper end) - and another third of them are EXPLICITLY WRITTEN IN A WAY TO PREVENT "Pass Through" (the term for what you're referencing)
I'm confused as to how something can be written in a way to prevent "pass through". It seems to me like there any myriad of ways to effectively pass through a tax without actually passing through the tax.
A simple unexplained price hike for example.
Most of them are tied into costs that are going to hit insurance companies - the insurance companies have a cap they're allowed to raise rates at now.
Same way that localities prevent passthrough on utility taxes and the like.
In the case of many taxes, yes - about a third of those items are only relevant to specific demographics (largely the upper end) - and another third of them are EXPLICITLY WRITTEN IN A WAY TO PREVENT "Pass Through" (the term for what you're referencing)
I'm confused as to how something can be written in a way to prevent "pass through". It seems to me like there any myriad of ways to effectively pass through a tax without actually passing through the tax.
A simple unexplained price hike for example.
Most of them are tied into costs that are going to hit insurance companies - the insurance companies have a cap they're allowed to raise rates at now.
Same way that localities prevent passthrough on utility taxes and the like.
This seems... like a terrible idea. It's punishing the very people your system is relying on to be functional just for existing. *shrug* I guess it's just yet another reason why the health care plan of forcing people to buy into private "insurance" is idiotic.
It's worked very well with MD utilities for the most part (barring their ignorance of fixing my road quickly... grumble grumble) - BGE has actually been getting more profitable while getting saddled with a similar situation.
Largely because since they're capped in how much they can raise their rates they instead have been looking more at efficiency to improve profits rather than just hiking rates to achieve greater profits.
And do note, I know the BGE rate cap is inflation adjusted - so if there's 0.8% inflation they're allowed that on top of the rate cap. I'm not sure (and not gonna re-read to find it) if the HCR does the same, but I'd imagine it does.
Since it's been an impetus for improving efficiency in an already efficient system (BGE), I'd tend to think it would do some good in increasing efficiency in health care services on the insurance side - which right now is a cluster....something of administrative costs that honestly are probably largely unneeded.
[Of course the downside is that efficiency will likely come at the cost of fewer jobs if it occurs - but then again, everything when it comes to macroeconomics has ups and downs when you parse it out far enough.... at least from the bit of macro I understand]
I'm going to offer another take on this debt thing. Our debt is one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal against other nations.
The fact is, the US has numerous factories in China. When building factories in foreign jurisdictions, there's always the chance the country will go rogue and usurp all our property in their venue.
We need some collateral from China; call it insurance, that they're not going to run off with our factories and confiscate them.
Getting back to my previous point. The debt we owe is a bargaining chip. It ensures the Chinese will never get too far out of line when dealing with us. It aligns Chinese and American interests, making us unwitting business partners---more than we ever were with the Soviet Union. It ensures that China has an interest in keeping our economy solvent lest they be willing to see global economic collapse with the default of treasury bills worldwide.
If massive debt ties our economic destinies together, and ensures our relationship with the next world superpower is a business relationship (as opposed to 50 years of cold war), then the debt is something I perversely welcome.
If it is a weapon than its a doubled eddged one, if China decided "screw the us" While you could harm them on defaulting, it hurts you alot too, your credit will be shot, no one will lend too you, While China is no US in the Militar strenth, they are NOT a slouch either. They are the worlds factory, They can IMO recover faster, than the us can at this point in time, They have a work force who will work for literaly near 0, the us does not.
Sure we will get hurt if we default. No question there. But so will China.
Holding an enormous Chinese interest gives us diplomatic power over them.
My point is that there's value to that. My point is that with the money we borrowed from China, we got to spend the money AND get a bargaining tool with them (even if it is only a nuclear option)
Just a few years ago with the economic downturn, the Chinese were terrified that we were going to simply devalue our money and pay them back in devalued currency. All the conservatives were screaming a few years ago saying that America was going down to the tubes, the fed is devaluing the dollar, etc.
The funny thing is, in a world where money becomes worthless, the guy who took out the biggest loan comes out ahead the most. Presumably he spent the money on things (infrastructure/military) when it was actually worth something. Afterwards, he can pay back in devalued currency. After all, every sovereign nation has the authority to print their respective currency in an unlimited capacity.
I think we came out ahead in the debt, in more ways than the public realizes.
They have the tools such as setting up special funds to keep those interest rates artificially low until the whole shibang is paid off, it's just that no one wants to spook the markets with such an intervention however that's what more and more are expecting to be done with the west. It was done during the post WWI era, and more than likely will occur again.
Tax development and punish people for political stupidity, but don't hurt the little guy. Frankly, a tax on global finance to pay for national deficits and help curb flash crashes and similar robot traders would be more than fair as people are essentially creating money by flicking around data. Which isn't anything more than masturbation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
We seem to have gone off track talking about deficits and debt. They are not the same thing. The deficient is large and needs to be reduced, the national debt however will never be paid off and it will not matter one bit.
Now if the libertarian's heads have finished exploding I'll explain. The debt is financed by bond sales and as long as confidence in US bonds exists people will continue to buy bonds and and they will mature and pay out. The idea that China could call the US on our debt is ludicrous, China's state banks brought US bonds they can't be redeemed until they mature. They could sell the bonds on the open market, that happens all the time, but even if they dumped all of their bonds at once this would have no effect on the US, as someone else would buy them up at fire-sale prices knowing they'd get a massive payout when the bonds finally came due.
Tl:dr as long as investors are confidant that the US will honor its bonds the current debt doesn't mater.
The current debt is incredibly relevant. The us owes 16 trillion. At 2% interest, that comes out to 320 billion per year in interest payments alone. To put that into a perspective that means something, that comes out to 1000 per person in interest alone. That is a crushing figure, and it is getting worse.
We cannot continue in this direction. If we do, the only option will be to default on our debt. I can't think of even half of the horrible consequences which would follow.
We need to suck it up. The federal budget is such a mess now that just raising taxes or reducing spending will not actually solve anything. We need both. We need to raise taxes on everyone. The wealthy would be hit harder. We need to cut spending. The poor and middle class would suffer. Everyone suffers. It would suck. It would suck a lot.
But... It would get better over time. More money would become available each year as the interest payments go down. This process will take years. It will take decades. It will suck. There is a payoff to all of this - future generations will not have a crushing burden over their heads.
Of course, we will never get this done. It is next to impossible to get elected with this plank in your platform. Even if someone did, they would need enough support to get those policies put in place. Even if those policies were put in place, they would prove to be unpopular enough that a new regime would be voted in and they would reverse those policies.
I'm very afraid of where this country is going to be in 20 years. I don't know how to reverse the course we are on now. I used to never understand those whack jobs in the wilderness, but now I do kind of empathize. They see an unsolvable problem which can destroy the country, and they are getting in front of it. Maybe those whack jobs are the sanest people in the country.
To be honest UL - the best chance we'll have of those things happening is in the final term for people, since there's no chance of retribution for the negatives that will hit groups.
If all we want to do is reduce the deficit we can go over the fiscal cliff in January, let the automatic spending cuts happen, reduce the defict by $500b+
The problem is this has a huge effect on the economy, and our GDP could shrink by 3%. So we need to figure out specifically what to cut without reducing GDP too much.
A lot of different numbers are from 10 year projections and immediate economic impact. Expiring the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets is about a trillion over ten years, an average of a hundred billion a year, but only has $42 billion saved next year.
The payroll/UI is the payroll tax breaks from the last couple years and extended Unemployment Insurance.
The main driver of the debt is Medicare/Medicaid and this program is the only real problem. While Social Security is also technically "bankrupt" this problem is self-correcting, if nothing is done, it will automatically start paying out less as less money starts coming in.
The "general budget," that is, all spending except SS and Medicare and all revenue except the SS and Medicare payroll taxes, is in very little debt. The massive national debt comes from the fact that hundreds of billions must be diverted from general revenues to pay for Medicare's costs.
If Medicare/Medicaid spending were to be capped at today's levels, and all other spending went up with inflation, assuming 3% real growth per year we'd have a surplus in 10 years and the debt would be paid off in 25.
Talk about the debt should be a discussion of Medicare and health care costs in general, it's the only reason we're in so much debt. Health care costs rise over 10% a year and that means Medicare's costs rise over 10% a year. Over 66% of the funding for Medicare needs to be borrowed and it's only going to get worse.
Contrary to what most people believe, the 1.45% payroll tax you pay only pays for Medicare Part A. As of right now, this tax is only paying for ~80% of Medicare Part A costs, the rest must be borrowed. The tax does NOT cover Medicare Parts B-D. Medicare Parts B and D charge a premium to use but this premium does not come anywhere close to covering their costs, and the rest of the money (hundreds of billions) has to be borrowed.
Health care is so expensive that if you are a family of four making $40,000 a year, it's better to not work. Why? Because if you don't work you get Medicaid coverage which is worth almost $20,000 a year now. That's how much health insurance costs. Most people don't see it because they are on their employer's subsidized group plan and don't see how much their employer has to fork out to provide health care.
The average total health care cost for a retiree who retires at 65 and lives to 85 is now about $1.25 million. Again, noone sees this because Medicare pays 80% of that. Who retires with $1.25 million? The answer is, noone does and the remainder has to get borrowed. Ever wonder why there is no private health insurance that works past age 65 other than Medicare supplement plans? It's because nobody can possibly afford the amount health care costs in retirement.
Like I have been saying for some time, medical technology is what is killing America. We are taking care of more and more people who without those medical improvements would not be with us. Its the cost of living longer, and no so healthy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually, he said he liked the idea of a revamped tax code with closed loopholes and changes to deductions, and he would be entirely open to something like that as long as it also included a reversion to year 2000 tax rates on the upper brackets.
Note: This type of offer is what we call "compromise." One group or individual gets what they want, and in exchange they give the other group or individual what they want.
that is not going to happen.
what you are probably going to see is a revamped tax code with lower marginal rates with less deductions or caps on deductions.
that is what the house republicans are going to put out. obama is not going to get his tax hike. it isn't going to pass the house or the senate no matter how much he wants to whine, cry and stamp his feet.
the top 1% he is talking about makes 18% of the income but pays 35% of the income tax. the top 1% are those that have an AGI of 350k or more.
so they are almost paying double what they earn.
in return for adding new revenue sources republicans was an equal amount of cuts or reforms to government programs.
as i said fiscal slide here we come.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Actually It might. This is just for 2013 to give them time to do a bigger more permanent tax debate.
True but even though they make about 18% of the income these same people somehow have accumulated 40% of the wealth in America. Thats because they don't spend their money but rather stash it away and accumulate interest rates. This locks the money away and it will NEVER be put back into circulation so long as they reamin as wealthy as they are. Many of the 1 percent are setting up their 5th generation of offspring with good retirements right now.
So again I really don't feel sorry for a multi-billionaire having to pay a little more in taxes. Especially when at least half of their money is going into a bank and locked down.
You're using loaded words here that give the wrong picture - they would pay double AS A PERCENTAGE of their income that is taxes as regular income. (Note it doesn't effect capital gains, at all)
And as our tax rates are progressive - some of those "doubled rates" would barely even show a 0.001% tick up for the 3% for example Mr. I just barely make that tax bracket.
Well, that's $700b worth of cuts/reforms he just opened the door to then - that's how much that 3% has been costing us revenuewise.
$700b + $700b = $1.4t > current deficit by $200-300b.
So you're complaining about the deficit being fixed if everyone sticks to what they're saying. And this step one of the process is promoted by Ben Stein, Ronald Reagan's economic advisor, lifelong Republican, and Mitt Romney supporter/voter.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
China has invested in us about 2.5 trillion dollars in our treasury bills. That number is part of our national debt, but that's also 2.5 trillion of Chinese moolah. We have it, we spent it--on our military, on our roads, infrastructure etc.
Like buying a black lotus from a guy with 10 feedback, the Chinese do worry time to time about getting their money back since it is within the power of the United States to default on the damn thing.
The fact is, the US has numerous factories in China. When building factories in foreign jurisdictions, there's always the chance the country will go rogue and usurp all our property in their venue.
We need some collateral from China; call it insurance, that they're not going to run off with our factories and confiscate them.
In fact, every penny that we borrow abroad is money we get to spend on improving our infrastructure. Treasury bill rates are so low right now--about 1.5%
Tell me this, if you could borrow a nigh unlimited amount of money at 1.5% how much would you borrow? I would borrow as much as I possibly could. The only trick is, you have to grow your money faster than that 1.5% rate.
You have to get more than 1.5% annual growth rate on whatever you intend to use your money in.
When we build roads, we increase the value of housing properties nearby. When we build infrastructure, cities grow. When we build energy plants and factories we generate more factors of production. When we build more schools, we better educate the populace.
How much is that benefit worth? No one is really sure. But the consensus is--alot more than 1.5% per year.
Getting back to my previous point. The debt we owe is a bargaining chip. It ensures the Chinese will never get too far out of line when dealing with us. It aligns Chinese and American interests, making us unwitting business partners---more than we ever were with the Soviet Union. It ensures that China has an interest in keeping our economy solvent lest they be willing to see global economic collapse with the default of treasury bills worldwide.
If massive debt ties our economic destinies together, and ensures our relationship with the next world superpower is a business relationship (as opposed to 50 years of cold war), then the debt is something I perversely welcome.
This is simply not true.
that money is either invested or put into a bank or something. that bank then uses that money to distribute loans and other such items to people.
Unless they hide their money under a mattress or in the back yard it gets used in the market.
Nope not at all. in 1 year they earned 18% of the wealth. they payed 35% of the income tax.
PS capital gain is included for income tax on separate forms.
not much since people like warren buffet wipe out their entire income with charity donations.
so the only income tax they pay is on capital gains.
that 3% isn't going to get him very much and is going barely going to make a scratch in the national debt or the deficit.
by reforming the tax code encouraging economic activity. capping deduction for those that make 500K or more. by eliminating the 100-200b dollars in waste in fragmented and duplicate government programs we can have the country back on track in a few years.
you don't need massive government or tax increases.
it is called common sense which washington lacks.
this is why dems are tax and spend.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/15/republican-rep-opens-door-to-tax-rate-hike-as-senate-dems-make-new-demands/
But that's a heavy hit for taxpayers. For a deficit-reduction deal worth $4 trillion -- which is a number commonly cited by economists -- that would mean $2 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years.
which will fall on the middle class to pay. *sigh* i give up. this country is going to rot.
quote from obama
" make sure the middle class isn't getting hit"
yet
A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices: going to hit elderly and middle class americans the most.
$24 billion tax on the paper industry: going to hit everyone but middle class harder.
A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies: going to hit middle class and elderly
A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons: huge hit on middle class
An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed: another massive hit to middle class
A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year: a really huge hit to middle class people and lower income people.
An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government. : lets keep the insanity going.
A $60 billion tax on health insurers
A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans.
The middle class is going to be pounded into the ground buy all this non-sense.
and people re-elected this idiot back into office.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Please quote the forms - I can think of three cases where that occurs, of which none are commonplace occurrences.
That $700b is literally the accepted quote for how much the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich effect the bottom line - I've seen it on everything from international news, to MSNBC, to FoxNEWS using that number. So I'm pretty sure it's a number that lands close to reality, unlike the implication here.
Did you even read the article? That article covers the "if no agreements are made" time-bomb tax "raises" and spending that were put into place a long time ago. (Of which the tax "raises" part [in reality letting the temporary tax cuts expire] was actually put into place under George W Bush)
It's a hypothetical of what will occur if no agreement is made - and you're using it to encourage no agreement to be made....
You do realize that ObamaCare as part of it's day 1 stopped pools from charging separately, right? The only middle class folks that will be touched by the Cadillac plan tax are those that actually have Cadillac plans - and they make up less than 0.5% of plans.
That's only effecting MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FOR HOSPITAL PURCHASES - not random equipment that is used in homes, i.e. MRIs not respirators. Hospital rates might go up slightly, but considering the same year it goes into effect everyone is going to be covered by some policy, it's not something the end user will EVER see directly
And even for those items used in hospitals, they've got to have a ticket price over $100 before they're even effected.
It's a $140b industry in the US - I find it hard to believe that you're quoting this one correctly....
Aha, looking it up it's actually for PAPER WASTE that is used for a Bio-Fuel that is a temporary expiring tax credit that is very environmentally dangerous [And apparently horrible for cars for the fuel blends made with it - not shocking, since it's turpentine basically], but had been tested for a time with a brief tax credit (2007-2010)
Less than a 1% hike and again, it's before compensation - most people won't even see it. And do note that most RX plans were increasing 10-15% per year before ObamaCare and have been raising at about 4% since. Even if it's one of the things allowed to be passed on, it's still a lower total in premium increases than we were seeing in 2000-2005.
Because EVERYONE uses tanning salons - and none of them get skin cancer that they then default on the bills for.
0.9% increase - which is more in scale with what Medicare costs, do you think people should get Medicare for free to a degree with the Fed subsidizing it or do you think it should have enough income so that the Fed doesn't need to toss any normal tax dollars at it?
That 0.9% is supposed to get it back to being revenue neutral.
Oh and of course, lets skip over the fact that it only starts at $200k single/$250k jointly... So it will never touch a single middle class person. (Straight from Heritage Tax Foundation)
FSA's aren't normally allowed to exceed $2500 (due to the "end of year" clause where the FSA zero's out regardless of how much had been put in) barring oddities like Special Education Schools for the disabled - and a separate bill was passed that basically creates a subset for them. [i.e. my company allowed a max of $100/mo contribution for ours unless you demonstrated for a length that you were regularly spending it - then we'd double it to $200 and very rarely $400 after that (rare enough on the latter that even though I helped write the policy, and with over 2000 employees in my day, and about 100 that used FSAs, I never even had one person ask for the top tier, and only a handful for the $200 tier - and the suggestion was lifted almost verbatim from a HR periodical on the matter)]
And do note that this same section of the law removes that "disappears at the end of the year" clause where it's effectively being taxed at 100%.
That they get insurance in exchange for - would you complain about a 1-2.5% surtax that also gave everyone in the US a free car and fuel if they didn't have one, and they didn't have to pay it if they already did? Because that's what you're complaining about here - people getting something that they may not have had before and.... gasp... paying something for it.
Considering the lack of research and reading the article you provided fully enough to realize what it actually said... I'd watch using words like that, personally.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If it is a weapon than its a doubled eddged one, if China decided "screw the us" While you could harm them on defaulting, it hurts you alot too, your credit will be shot, no one will lend too you, While China is no US in the Militar strenth, they are NOT a slouch either. They are the worlds factory, They can IMO recover faster, than the us can at this point in time, They have a work force who will work for literaly near 0, the us does not.
yeah we will see who gets hit with the taxes. it is going to fall on the middle class to pay it.
Companies and businesses don't pay taxes. they pass those costs onto customers.
so yes the middle class will end up paying for them.
obama is an idiot.
unfortuantly i have to live with the consquences of other people.
under obama my taxes would go up. which means less money for me and my family.
Yes i am middle class. I am not rich.
sorry but those taxes are going into effect and they will hit working american people. if you think they won't then i don't know what to tell you.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In the case of many taxes, yes - about a third of those items are only relevant to specific demographics (largely the upper end) - and another third of them are EXPLICITLY WRITTEN IN A WAY TO PREVENT "Pass Through" (the term for what you're referencing)
Sure, some will hit the middle class, that's not a question - the majority? No. More than 0%? Absolutely. Less overall than premiums and healthcare costs were rising during the 2000-2005 years? We'll see, but I think so - the CBO says it should be about half.
If you're paying $200 less on some things, and paying $100 more in taxes - you're still ahead.
Some will, of course - the majority? No. And we'll have to see if it's worse than the rate that healthcare costs were rising - direct cost raises (like premiums) have slowed to 1/3rd of the growth they had been during the early Bush years already, with only a fraction of the provisions in place yet.
If you're paying $100 more in taxes and $200 less in healthcare per year though, you should be happy - which is what the theory is (and the CBO believes). But only time will tell if the theory works out or not.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Now if the libertarian's heads have finished exploding I'll explain. The debt is financed by bond sales and as long as confidence in US bonds exists people will continue to buy bonds and and they will mature and pay out. The idea that China could call the US on our debt is ludicrous, China's state banks brought US bonds they can't be redeemed until they mature. They could sell the bonds on the open market, that happens all the time, but even if they dumped all of their bonds at once this would have no effect on the US, as someone else would buy them up at fire-sale prices knowing they'd get a massive payout when the bonds finally came due.
Tl:dr as long as investors are confidant that the US will honor its bonds the current debt doesn't mater.
I'm confused as to how something can be written in a way to prevent "pass through". It seems to me like there any myriad of ways to effectively pass through a tax without actually passing through the tax.
A simple unexplained price hike for example.
Most of them are tied into costs that are going to hit insurance companies - the insurance companies have a cap they're allowed to raise rates at now.
Same way that localities prevent passthrough on utility taxes and the like.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
This seems... like a terrible idea. It's punishing the very people your system is relying on to be functional just for existing. *shrug* I guess it's just yet another reason why the health care plan of forcing people to buy into private "insurance" is idiotic.
Largely because since they're capped in how much they can raise their rates they instead have been looking more at efficiency to improve profits rather than just hiking rates to achieve greater profits.
And do note, I know the BGE rate cap is inflation adjusted - so if there's 0.8% inflation they're allowed that on top of the rate cap. I'm not sure (and not gonna re-read to find it) if the HCR does the same, but I'd imagine it does.
Since it's been an impetus for improving efficiency in an already efficient system (BGE), I'd tend to think it would do some good in increasing efficiency in health care services on the insurance side - which right now is a cluster....something of administrative costs that honestly are probably largely unneeded.
[Of course the downside is that efficiency will likely come at the cost of fewer jobs if it occurs - but then again, everything when it comes to macroeconomics has ups and downs when you parse it out far enough.... at least from the bit of macro I understand]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Sure we will get hurt if we default. No question there. But so will China.
Holding an enormous Chinese interest gives us diplomatic power over them.
My point is that there's value to that. My point is that with the money we borrowed from China, we got to spend the money AND get a bargaining tool with them (even if it is only a nuclear option)
Just a few years ago with the economic downturn, the Chinese were terrified that we were going to simply devalue our money and pay them back in devalued currency. All the conservatives were screaming a few years ago saying that America was going down to the tubes, the fed is devaluing the dollar, etc.
The funny thing is, in a world where money becomes worthless, the guy who took out the biggest loan comes out ahead the most. Presumably he spent the money on things (infrastructure/military) when it was actually worth something. Afterwards, he can pay back in devalued currency. After all, every sovereign nation has the authority to print their respective currency in an unlimited capacity.
I think we came out ahead in the debt, in more ways than the public realizes.
Tax development and punish people for political stupidity, but don't hurt the little guy. Frankly, a tax on global finance to pay for national deficits and help curb flash crashes and similar robot traders would be more than fair as people are essentially creating money by flicking around data. Which isn't anything more than masturbation.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The current debt is incredibly relevant. The us owes 16 trillion. At 2% interest, that comes out to 320 billion per year in interest payments alone. To put that into a perspective that means something, that comes out to 1000 per person in interest alone. That is a crushing figure, and it is getting worse.
We cannot continue in this direction. If we do, the only option will be to default on our debt. I can't think of even half of the horrible consequences which would follow.
We need to suck it up. The federal budget is such a mess now that just raising taxes or reducing spending will not actually solve anything. We need both. We need to raise taxes on everyone. The wealthy would be hit harder. We need to cut spending. The poor and middle class would suffer. Everyone suffers. It would suck. It would suck a lot.
But... It would get better over time. More money would become available each year as the interest payments go down. This process will take years. It will take decades. It will suck. There is a payoff to all of this - future generations will not have a crushing burden over their heads.
Of course, we will never get this done. It is next to impossible to get elected with this plank in your platform. Even if someone did, they would need enough support to get those policies put in place. Even if those policies were put in place, they would prove to be unpopular enough that a new regime would be voted in and they would reverse those policies.
I'm very afraid of where this country is going to be in 20 years. I don't know how to reverse the course we are on now. I used to never understand those whack jobs in the wilderness, but now I do kind of empathize. They see an unsolvable problem which can destroy the country, and they are getting in front of it. Maybe those whack jobs are the sanest people in the country.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=557874
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
The problem is this has a huge effect on the economy, and our GDP could shrink by 3%. So we need to figure out specifically what to cut without reducing GDP too much.
I for example thought the defense cuts were much more substantial than that. And Payroll/UI? Is that a Federal workers cut or something?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Washington Post article of a CBO report.
A lot of different numbers are from 10 year projections and immediate economic impact. Expiring the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets is about a trillion over ten years, an average of a hundred billion a year, but only has $42 billion saved next year.
The payroll/UI is the payroll tax breaks from the last couple years and extended Unemployment Insurance.
The "general budget," that is, all spending except SS and Medicare and all revenue except the SS and Medicare payroll taxes, is in very little debt. The massive national debt comes from the fact that hundreds of billions must be diverted from general revenues to pay for Medicare's costs.
If Medicare/Medicaid spending were to be capped at today's levels, and all other spending went up with inflation, assuming 3% real growth per year we'd have a surplus in 10 years and the debt would be paid off in 25.
Talk about the debt should be a discussion of Medicare and health care costs in general, it's the only reason we're in so much debt. Health care costs rise over 10% a year and that means Medicare's costs rise over 10% a year. Over 66% of the funding for Medicare needs to be borrowed and it's only going to get worse.
Contrary to what most people believe, the 1.45% payroll tax you pay only pays for Medicare Part A. As of right now, this tax is only paying for ~80% of Medicare Part A costs, the rest must be borrowed. The tax does NOT cover Medicare Parts B-D. Medicare Parts B and D charge a premium to use but this premium does not come anywhere close to covering their costs, and the rest of the money (hundreds of billions) has to be borrowed.
Health care is so expensive that if you are a family of four making $40,000 a year, it's better to not work. Why? Because if you don't work you get Medicaid coverage which is worth almost $20,000 a year now. That's how much health insurance costs. Most people don't see it because they are on their employer's subsidized group plan and don't see how much their employer has to fork out to provide health care.
The average total health care cost for a retiree who retires at 65 and lives to 85 is now about $1.25 million. Again, noone sees this because Medicare pays 80% of that. Who retires with $1.25 million? The answer is, noone does and the remainder has to get borrowed. Ever wonder why there is no private health insurance that works past age 65 other than Medicare supplement plans? It's because nobody can possibly afford the amount health care costs in retirement.